Public Participation and Regulatory Public Policies

Download PDF
4 downloads 0 Views 571KB Size Report
Comment
Douglas, Thompson, and Verweij [10] worked on a sociological theory regarding ..... Spickard, JV (1989) A guide to Mary Douglas's three versions of grid/group.
Public Participation and Regulatory Public Policies: An Assessment from the Perspective of Douglasian Cultural Theory Flavio Saab1 (), Gustavo Cunha Garcia2, Jonathan Soares Pereira1 and Paulo Henrique de Souza Bermejo1 1

University of Brasilia (UnB), Brasília, Brazil {flaviosaab, jonathansprj}@gmail.com; [email protected] 2 Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-RJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [email protected]

Abstract. The objective of this paper is to evaluate how public consultation encourages participation from different points of view and if there is a real transfer of power to the society in policy-making. Public participation is a means of inclusion that allows decision-makers to know the real needs of society, and it promotes the elaboration of public policies, leading to greater acceptance. Public participation must be encouraged and the opinions of various groups in the society must be considered. This paper adopted the perspective of Douglasian Cultural Theory to investigate the contribution of public consultations in the formulation of regulatory policies for the food sector in Brazil. The results of this research indicate that public participation remains restricted to some groups in society and that the public authority should dedicate more efforts to offer mechanisms that foster more plural and diversified public participation. Keywords: Public Consultation · Management of Ideas · Electronic Government · Public Administration · Cultural Theory · Douglasian Cultural Theory · Public Participation · Social Participation

1 Introduction Public participation or social participation is one of the cornerstones of democracy and has been used since the beginning of the 1960s as a means of redistributing government power to society [1]. Among its main objectives are to involve citizens in decision-making and to better understand the real needs and priorities of society. In addition, it is an important instrument of social inclusion in increasing the quality of public policies [2-23], since it gives decision-makers access to data and information that enables the mapping and measurement of policy impacts before they occur in practice [3-4]. However, different public participation processes and instruments have particularities that may cast doubt, in some cases, on their democratic character [5].

There are processes by which participation is a mere bureaucratic procedure and there are processes where there is a real transfer of power from government to society, which contributes to the outcome of government intervention [1]. When the public participation process is inadequate, the public policy outcome can be affected by distortions, such as government capture, corruption, or government capture by economic agents [6]. Lodge, Wegrich, and McElroy [7] employed cultural theory to develop arguments to evaluate the process of meat inspection in Germany. This approach can contribute to the analysis of public participation in the formulation of public policies. Linsley, McMurray, and Shrives [8] relied on these arguments to assess whether certain public consultation processes in the United Kingdom were designed to promote change or merely to reinforce the status quo and existing practices. In another study, Perri 6 and Swedlow [9] analyzed the potential contributions of cultural theory to public administration studies and concluded that the conceptualization and testing of cultural theory can bring enormous gains to public administration research. Considering the possibility of contributing to the knowledge of public administration and the need to study the democratic character of government and public responsiveness, the present research was aimed at determining, from the Douglasian Cultural Theory point of view, the extent to which the process of public consultation encourages participation in, and empowers society through, the formulation of regulatory policies. This remainder of this article is divided into four parts. In the second section, relevant concepts related to Douglasian Cultural Theory, which contributed to the development of the research at hand, are discussed. In the third section, the main methodological aspects used in conducting the research are presented. In the fourth section, the results obtained and the discussion resulting from the application of Douglasian Cultural Theory to the analysis of public consultations are presented. Lastly, the main results of the research and its contributions to the theory and practice of public administration are discussed.

2 Theoretical Framework 2.1 Cultural Theory Douglas, Thompson, and Verweij [10] worked on a sociological theory regarding different forms of religions, points of view, and ideologies, in an attempt to relate this set of “beliefs” to different societies. This theory divides a society into four “voices” living in a retrenchment process and disputing among themselves [7]. The development of the theory involved the creation of a diagram (Fig. 1) that serves as a classification scheme for social relations in two dimensions, which are relatively independent [11]. The dimension shown vertically in the diagram is called the grid and refers to the behavior of individuals in a society. The dimension represented horizontally is called the group and refers to the involvement of individuals with established social groups [10]. Initially, the theory was developed with the nomenclature grid-group analysis, but once it was accepted as a theory, it began to

receive other names, such as cultural theory [7], cultural theory grid-group [12], Douglasian cultural theory [8], and theory of cultural bias [9]. Douglasian Cultural Theory, the term adopted in this article, places culture as the central aspect in the explanation of social life [12], and it is based on the idea that the ways in which individuals view the world and organize themselves are related issues [13]. Each individual adheres to one or more lifestyles relating to a combination of cultural biases—that is, beliefs and values—and to patterns of social relations [13]. In accordance with Douglasian Cultural Theory, the grid relates to the obligations of the individual to others—that is, the degree of social control that society has on the individual [11]. The group is related to belonging to a social group [14] and measures the extent to which an individual’s behavior is influenced by the social groups to which the individual belongs [13]. The definition of values for the grid and group dimensions results in four types of “voices,” represented by each quadrant shown in the diagram below: fatalist, hierarchist, individualist, and egalitarian [10]. High grid

Fatalist

Hierarchist

Low group groupgroup gro up

High group grgroup Individualist individualistic

Egalitarian

Low grid bottom grid Fig. 1. Four forms of social groups (Source: Douglas et al. 2003, p.101)

To Douglas et al. [10], individuals in the individualist quadrant believe in the functioning of the market and see corruption, selfishness, and aggression as elements of human social life, in contrast to the joyful and simple elements of nature [11]. Individuals are free to transact in a market system, where recognition will come to those who are deemed deserving in a competitive environment [12]. Those individuals will reject coercion in favor of competition and autonomy [13]. The individuals in the egalitarian quadrant see nature as fragile and man as essentially good, until corrupted by institutions, such as the market [10]. This quadrant combines the presence of strong groups with low regulation of behavior. These groups are maintained by close relations between members, with small differences between them. For egalitarians, justice is represented by equal results, and the failures are the responsibility of the system [12-13].

According to Douglas et al. [10], individuals in the fatalist quadrant see no logical sense or beauty in nature and see man as inconsistent and unfair. In this approach, justice will not be achieved and there is no way to promote improvements to society. The failure is not the fault of the individuals or the system but the result of fate [13]. Individuals in the hierarchist quadrant see the world as controllable, nature as stable, since it is subject to limits, and man as adaptable [10]. Further, rules are necessary to strengthen the collective over the individual and, hence, the division of labor, differentiation of roles, and hierarchy are typical of this group. Justice occurs when there is equality before the law and failure is a result of noncompliance with the rules [12]. The classification proposed via the perspective of cultural theory allows for analyzing actions and behaviors associated with the four “voices” in a continuous process in which each “voice” can attempt to persuade the other with arguments, and these interactions will influence the patterns of social relations. Therefore, arguments based on cultural theory have been developed and used by researchers in the field of public administration, as will be presented in the next section. 2.2 Related Studies Lodge et al. [7] developed proposals expecting to making observable and testable implications of cultural theory in the evaluation of the meat inspection process in Germany. Their central objective was to test the application of theory, as opposed to explaining governmental failures in the activity of inspecting meat. To evaluate the propositions, the authors classified the main arguments identified in newspapers, whose subject matter was related to the quality of meat in Germany, as the “voices” indicated by cultural theory. Subsequently, Linsley et al. [8] applied Douglasian Cultural Theory to examine the processes of public consultation in policy-making. They analyzed the participation of society in three public consultations undertaken by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), the body responsible for regulation, finance, and auditing in the United Kingdom. Based on Douglasian Cultural Theory, they developed four propositions derived from those developed by Lodge et al. [8], interpreted the content of the responses of participants, and analyzed the process of participation in public consultations. Linsley et al. [8] suggested the production of new research on policies and public consultations, based on Douglasian Cultural Theory, to recommend ways to ensure the encouragement of full participation in public consultations. They argued that this would enable the four “voices” to respond to the consultations and be heard, thus avoiding regulatory self-capture, understood by the authors as a situation in which the point of view of the regulatory authority is perpetuated. Thus, it appears that related studies based on Douglasian Cultural Theory have indicated that the use of this theory to analyze social relations can offer important gains for public administration research, especially to help clarify the process of public participation in the formulation of public policies. From the perspective that public policies can be understood as the result of relations and confrontations between groups of individuals in society and that the Douglasian Cultural Theory classifies these groups into "voices", its use becomes an alternative for the understanding of policy-making.

3 Methodological Aspects 3.1 Classification of Research This paper discusses explanatory research using Douglasian Cultural Theory to explain the relationship between the phenomenon of public participation and public policies. In addition, it examines two public consultations from Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency — Anvisa, a government institution that regulates the production of goods and services that can pose health risks—to contribute to the general understanding of this instrument of public participation. Furthermore, the research has a documentary and qualitative characteristic, since the data analyzed were from official documents that present the manifestations of the government and the participants representing the society in public consultations [15-16]. 3.2 Method Public consultation on-line is a mechanism based on open innovation, used by public institutions, with the objective of increasing democratic potential and strengthening social participation [24]. The procedures of the research involved the analysis of all public contributions in two public consultations conducted by ANVISA and the evaluation of the responses made by the institution in official documents on the subject. Specifically, the research investigated public consultations 255 and 256, conducted in September 2016, dealing with the regulation of the production and nutrition labeling of industrialized food. These public consultations were selected due to their theme (which is not technical) and the fact that ANVISA has already made demonstration building journal about the events received. ANVISA conducted the two public consultations in a virtual environment, using electronic forms, to collect contributions from society as a whole. The process lasted for 30 days. The forms allowed each participant to suggest changes to draft regulations previously submitted by the agency. According to ANVISA, PC 255 had 93 participants, of which 57 (61.29%) identified themselves as individuals and 36 (38.71%) as legal entity. PC 256 had 50 participants, 25 (50%) of whom identified themselves as individuals and the other 25 (50%) as legal entity [17-18]. For this research, with the aid of an electronic spreadsheet, the researchers analyzed data from 143 participants and excluded 8 duplicate cases. The comments of the remaining 135 participants were analyzed and each participant was classified as fatalist, individualist, hierarchist, or egalitarian, according to the typology of Douglasian Cultural Theory. The process of classification was conducted separately by three researchers. When the classification were identical, there was definition by

consensus. When there was no consensus, the researchers discussed the arguments used by each for joint establishment of the classification. After classifying each participant, organizing the data, and consolidating the information, the results were evaluated through an analysis (confirmation or refutation) of the propositions developed by Linsley et al. [8], listed in Table 1. Table 1. Propositions from Douglasian Cultural Theory (A) The four “voices” will manifest in the public consultation process. Proposition 1 (P1): The participation of “voices” in public consultations

(B) As the hierarchy has a greater preference for regulation, hierarchists will have greater participation in the process. (C) Given the fatalists’ isolation from society, they will participate less in the public consultation process.

Proposition 2 (P2): The arguments presented by each of the “voices”

The contributions made by each of the four “voices” will have common characteristics in the public consultations.

Proposition 3 (P3): The “voice” of the regulatory body influences the outcome of the public consultation

The point of view of the regulatory body will influence the outcome of the public consultations.

Proposition 4 (P4): There will be participants with hybrid arguments as a means of ensuring partial support for their contribution

Some participants will present hybrid arguments to gain at least some support for their contribution.

4 Results and Discussion Using the four propositions obtained in the study of Linsley et al. [8], the results of each proposition will be analyzed and discussed in light of the analysis of the data obtained from PC 255 and PC 256, carried out by ANVISA.

4.1 Proposition 1: Participation of “Voices” in Public Consultations According to Linsley et al. [8], Douglasian Cultural Theory indicates that all “voices” should participate in the public consultation process in different measures. The aim of Proposition (P1) was to analyze the participation of the hierarchist, egalitarian, fatalist, and individualist “voices” in the process. Of the 135 participants, 70 represented the hierarchist, 59 represented the egalitarian, and 6 represented the individualist (Table 2). There was no participant with a fatalist dominant discourse. The absence of participants representing the fatalist and the low number of participants representing the individualist led to the rejection of part (a) of P1. Even though the theoretical propositions recognize that participation among various groups should not be equal, the absence of fatalists and the low involvement of individualists could mean that the public consultation process did not encourage participation and did not motivate a plurality of views in the construction of the policy. Table 2. Dominant and subordinate voices (Elaborated by the authors) Dominant and subordinate points of view

PC 255

PC 256

Total

Qty

%

Qty

%

Qty

%

Dominant hierarchist Dominant hierarchist with fatalist (hybrid) Dominant individualist Dominant individualist with egalitarian (hybrid) Dominant egalitarian Dominant egalitarian with hierarchist (hybrid)

42 2

47.7% 2.3%

26 0

55.3%

68 2

50.37% 1.48%

4 2

4.5% 2.3%

0 0

0.0%

4 2

2.96% 1.48%

2 36

2.3% 40.9%

1 20

2.1%

3 56

2.22% 41.48%

Total

88

100.0%

47

135

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

42.6% 100.0%

The rejection of part (a) of P1 confirms the results obtained by Linsley et al. [8], but differs from the results of Lodge et al. [7]. Linsley et al. [8] identified low participation of egalitarians (4.4%) and fatalists (0.7%), which led the authors to conclude that the proposition was partially rejected, owing to the under-representation of these two groups. Otherwise, Lodge et al.’s [8] results confirmed part (a) of P1, causing them to conclude that the four “voices” were involved in the process. From the analysis of the results shown in Table 2, it is also possible to detect high participation of hierarchists, who accounted for 51.85% of all participants, in both public consultations. This result confirms part (b) of P1, since it indicates the prevalence of hierarchist participants by their “preference for better regulation and greater oversight” [8]. This result confirms the results obtained by Linsley et al. [8],

which identified the participation of hierarchists in the order of 39%, and those obtained by Lodge [7], which identified the participation of this group in the order of 56.6% and 59.1%, respectively, in the two surveys conducted. Part (c) of P1, which shows low fatalist participation in the public consultation process, is confirmed by the results; no fatalists participated in the two public consultations. Linsley et al. [8] identified only one fatalist participant, which also led them to confirm this proposition. However, in Lodge et al.’s [7] study, fatalists had participation rates of 13.3% and 8.1%, which were higher than the 10% and 6.6% for egalitarians, implying the rejection of the proposition. 4.2 Proposition 2: Arguments Presented by Each of the “Voices” According to Linsley et al. [8], the common arguments of each of the points of view in different public consultation processes must be identified. The expectation of the second proposition (P2) was that the hierarchist, egalitarian, fatalist, and individualist arguments would be preserved in different manifestations. An important issue here was the presence of a considerable number of participants who participated in both consultations. Table 3 illustrates that the main arguments of the hierarchy were raised in both public consultations. They argued that the regulation should reduce information asymmetry, expressed concern about the vulnerability of consumers, and advocated expanding the rules to other situations. Table 4 indicates that egalitarians also preserved their main arguments that the rules can create problems for a section of society, can generate high financial costs, and should be relaxed. However, egalitarians argued only in CP 255 that the current rules are sufficient to handle the problem. Table 3. Sumary of hierarchists themes (Elaborated by the authors) Theme Advocated regulations that reduce information asymmetry Advocated expanding the rules to other situations Expressed concern about the vulnerability of consumers

CP 255

CP 256

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Table 4. Sumary of egalitarians themes (Elaborated by the authors) Theme The rules can create problems for a section of society The rules can generate high financial costs The current rules are sufficient The rules need to be flexible

CP 255

CP 256

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes No Yes

Although the analysis of the preservation of the fatalists’ and individualists’ arguments could not be carried out, as these “voices” did not participate in the two public consultations, it is possible to recognize the confirmation of P2. Hence, the arguments put forward by the participants classified under the same “voices,” in general, were preserved in the two public consultations. The results of the research of Linsley et al. [8] and Lodge et al. [7] also indicate the confirmation of P2. Linsley et al. [8] observed that the arguments were preserved in three public consultations and concluded that “there is a sufficient degree of common characteristics to confirm the second proposition.” Yet Lodge et al. [7] recognized that the fact that the main arguments presented in the first consultation were reinforced in the second consultation also confirmed P2. 4.3 Proposition 3: The “Voice” of the Regulatory Body Influences the Outcome of the Public Consultation The third proposition (P3) was proposed by Linsley et al. [8] for identifying signs of self-capture, which consists of the perpetuation of the point of view of the regulator, under the influence of the institution itself, in decision-making, due to the patterns and values cultivated by it. The reports of contributions made by ANVISA show that the regulatory agency presented a predominantly hierarchist “voice”, with a propensity to regulate behavior through the establishment of rules and limits. Generally speaking, while ANVISA did not accept contributions suggesting deleting or relaxing the rules, it welcomed arguments promoting greater clarity in the proposed rules. The reports prepared by Anvisa show that the accepted contributions presented a predominantly hierarchical characteristic. In CP 255, ANVISA received 219 valid contributions; 152 (69.4%) were not accepted, 29 (13.2%) were accepted, and 38 (17.4%) were accepted in part. In CP 256, ANVISA received 196 valid contributions; 86 (44%) were not accepted, 66 (34%) were accepted, and 44 (22%) were accepted in part [19-20]. Table 5. Response of ANVISA to contributions (Elaborated by the authors) Position of ANVISA in public consultations Accepted contributions Contributions accepted partially Contributions not accepted

CP 255

CP 256

13.2% 17.4% 69.4%

34% 22% 44%

The analysis shows that ANVISA preserved its point of view, which favored the establishment of rules and limits for the conduct of society. It is important to recognize that, to some extent, the agency received suggestions from society members to change the proposed rules, but the confirmation of P3 was due to the hierarchical “voice” of ANVISA that prevailed in the public consultation process. It is important to highlight that, in Linsley et al. [8], the same proposition was also confirmed.

4.4 Proposition 4: Some Participants Present Hybrid Arguments as a Means of Gaining At Least Partial Support for Their Contribution The fourth proposition (P4) was intended to assess whether individuals who represent a “voice” were willing to compromise their view of the world by offering compensations to other “voices” in order to have at least part of their contribution accepted. The data in Table 2 indicate that 60 (44.4%) of the participants in the two public consultations presented hybrid “voices,” and the egalitarian “voice” with hierarchist characteristics was dominant, accounting for 56 participants (41.5%). The arguments displayed that egalitarians defended their group, but used some hierarchist characteristics, supporting the adoption of rules and limits for the agents. These characteristics resulted in the confirmation of P4 and may be linked to the fact that egalitarians were part of a hierarchical discourse in an effort to argue for the protection of their group, albeit by means of rules and limits. Linsley et al. [8] also confirmed P4 owing to a “significant number of respondents who indicated a hybrid characteristic”, in the order of 38.9%. However, P4 was not confirmed by Lodge et al. [7], who found that only 11.67% of the arguments presented a hybrid character.

5 Conclusion In the two public consultations analyzed in this paper, three of four “voices” that represent the points of view of society were identified, which implied rejection of part (a) of P1. Egalitarian and hierarchist were the groups that had significant representation in both public consultations, whereas the individualist group had low representation and the fatalist group remained silent. This discrepancy in representation can generate a suboptimal result in the process of public participation, since a public policy based on a few points of view may not meet the aspirations of society and will not have the support needed for its implementation. The absence or low participation of fatalists is insufficient to constitute an unexpected result, since this is an isolated group whose members believe that their contributions do not affect public policy. Furthermore, the low representation of individualists should be further investigated. The timing of the public consultations may have been a factor in the disincentive for individualists and fatalists to participate. By the time the regulatory agency held these public consultations, at an advanced stage of the policy’s preparation, the discussion was limited to the question of having more or fewer rules, with little margin for profound changes, such as the absence of rules [21]. It is possible to hypothesize that the later the process of participation occurs, the lower the propensity will be of a review of any position. By “late”, one can understand how that process in which there is public consultation is carried out when there is already a previous positioning of the governmental body. Through the analysis of P2, it was possible to observe that the “voices” were consistent and maintained the same arguments in both consultations. However, this finding implies that each “voice” ended up offering arguments and solutions that were restricted to their vision of the world. Governments often face “wicked problems” that

require “clumsy solutions” that can only be achieved by the combination of contributions between different “points of view” [22]. The evaluation of P3 identified that despite the broad process of public participation, there was a maintenance of the point of view of a self-regulatory agency in the formulation of regulatory policies. Despite offering society members a channel of participation and having, in some measure, received some public contributions, ANVISA maintained the dominance of its “voice”. According to Linsley et al. [8], when the government influences the decision-making process with its own standards and values, this is an example of self-capture. In analyzing P4, there was a significant number of participants with a hybrid vision. The majority represented egalitarians with a secondary hierarchist vision. It is possible that the intent of egalitarians was to pass through the hierarchy in an attempt to achieve some of their objectives, considering that the advanced stage of the regulatory process and the hierarchical profile of ANVISA could lead to the denial of claims differing dramatically from the rules and limits already imposed by regulation. The results of this paper indicate practical and theoretical contributions. The use of the Douglasian Cultural Theory in public participation has shown to be applicable and with high potential for understanding the process of policy-making. From the practical point of view, public participation through public consultation still requires more effort from public managers to offer mechanisms that foster more plural and diversified public participation. In addition, public managers should seek ways to ensure participation and to incorporate the contributions of all “voices” into public policies. Some limitations should be highlighted in the present paper, such as the subjectivity inherent in Douglasian Cultural Theory for classification of “voices”, the small number of contributions and the advanced stage of public consultation could be important issues for future research. Furthermore, studies examining public consultations or other participatory tools, as participative budget, with more participants in other economic sectors and that preferably contemplate public participation at the beginning of the policy-making process could be useful in validating the use of Douglasian Cultural Theory to evaluate the participation of the various “voices”. Other factors that may influence the engagement of the different “voices” can also be studied, such as the design of the public consultation, the timing of the public consultation, the dissemination strategy, the amount of information available, and the communication strategy used in the public consultation. In addition, studies examining the influence of one or more of these factors on the number and diversity of contributions would be particularly useful in indicating a possible path to broaden public participation and, consequently, to adopt more democratic public consultation processes.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-Brasil) - Process 402789/2015-6 for the financial support in conducting this study. Besides that, the authors are grateful to EMCIS’s reviewers for their valuable contributions.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

Arnstein, SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Enserink, B, Koppenjan, J (2007) Public participation in China: sustainable urbanization and governance. Manag Environ Qual Int J 18(4):459–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830710753848 Fischer, F (1993) Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 26(3):165–187 Reed, MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Cons 141(10):2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 Laird, FN (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Sci Technol Human Values 18(3):341–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800305 Perez, MA (2004) A administração pública democrática. Editora Forum, Belo Horizonte, Brasil Lodge, M, Wegrich, K, Mcelroy, G (2010) Dodgy kebabs everywhere? Variety of worldviews and regulatory change. Publ Adm, 88(1):247–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01811.x Linsley, P, McMurray, R, Shrives, P (2016) Consultation in the policy process: Douglasian cultural theory and the development of accouting in the face of crisis. Publ Adm 94(4):988-1004 . https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12212 Perri 6, Swedlow, B (2016) An institutional theory of cultural biases, public administration and public policy. Publ Adm 94(4):867-880. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12296 Douglas, M, Thompson, M, Verweij, M (2003) Is time running out? The case of global warming. Daedalus on Time 1322391(2):98–107 Spickard, JV (1989) A guide to Mary Douglas’s three versions of grid/group theory. Sociol Anal 50(2):151–170. https://doi.org/10.2307/3710986 Mamadouh, V (1999) Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction. GeoJournal, 47(3):395–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007024008646 Bale, T (1997) Towards a “cultural theory” of parliamentary party groups. J Legis Stud 3(4):25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572339708420527 Caulkins, DD (1999) Is Mary Douglas’s grid/group analysis useful for crosscultural research? Cross Cult Res 33(1):108–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719903300107 Gil, AC (2008) Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6. ed. Editora Atlas SA. Günther, H (2006) Qualitative research versus quantitative research: is that really the question? Psic: Teor e Pesq 22(2):201–210. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.037849185433&partnerID=40&md5=e136a24ef26d7f27a6601083dbbe9b13 ANVISA, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (2016a) Relatório de análise da participação social n. 40/2016 Retrieved from http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2955920/Relatório+de+Análise+da+ Participação+Social+%28RAPS%29+-+CP+255_2016.pdf/b2736244-3782-41cf99bb-f230f7292528?version=1.0

18. ANVISA, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (2016b) Relatório de análise da participação social n. 41/2016 Retrieved from http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2955920/Relatório+de+Análise+da+ Participação+Social+%28RAPS%29+-+CP+256_2016.pdf/41097e1e-8aeb-4f818599-2bba18a57ec6?version=1.0 19. ANVISA, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (2016c) Relatório de análise de contribuições em consulta pública, CP n.255/2016. Retrieved from http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2955920/Relatório+de+Análise+das +Contribuições+%28CP+255%29.pdf/4afbaff7-ce19-45b4-abefed78529fccd7?version=1.0 20. ANVISA, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (2016d) Relatório de análise de contribuições em consulta pública, CP n.256/2016. Retrieved from http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2955920/Relatório+de+Análise+das +Contribuições+%28CP+255%29.pdf/4afbaff7-ce19-45b4-abefed78529fccd7?version=1.0 21. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Computer Society Press, 0(C), 1–10. 22. Rayner, S (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ Soc 41(1):107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637335 23. Santos, Antonio Claret dos ; Zambalde, A. L. ; Veroneze, R. B. ; Botelho, J. A. ; Bermejo, P. H. S. . Open Innovation and Social Participation: A Case Study in Public Security in Brazil. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v. 1, p. 163-176, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22389-6_12 24. Martins, Teresa Cristina Monteiro; Bermejo, Paulo Henrique de Souza . Desafio de ideias para o governo aberto: o caso da Polícia Militar de Minas Gerais Brasil. Cadernos Gestão Pública e Cidadania, v. 21, p. 303-324, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.12660/cgpc.v21n70.59470