The best of all imperfect worlds: participatory governance in a social innovation process to strengthen women’s economic independence in Germany

Participation is a key element of social innovation (SI), involving collaboration between civil society and other sectors, especially government, to find better solutions for social issues and empower marginalized groups (Galego and Brans, 2023; Galego et al., 2022). These participatory processes, however, rarely unfold ideally. They occur within specific political contexts, constrained by stakeholders, time, space and resources (Beckman et al., 2023; Moulaert et al., 2013a; Moulaert, 2009). Particularly in politically initiated SI, structural and ethical challenges arise, notably regarding access, openness and power imbalances, which could affect SI’s normative aspirations (Bauer et al., 2021; Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019; Reijers et al., 2018; Massey and Johnston-Miller, 2016; Larsson and Brandsen, 2016; Swyngedouw, 2005).

Scholars still disagree on SI’s normative and emancipatory meaning (Beckman et al., 2023; Ayob et al., 2016). However, this academic debate is less relevant for practical use, because in the political sphere the term is almost always applied with a normative understanding, focusing on its potential to promote better, more inclusive and fairer politics (Massey and Johnston-Miller, 2016; Larsson and Brandsen, 2016). These normative goals are therefore the standard to which politically initiated SI processes must be held. Given the structural ethical challenges in the context of politically initiated SI processes, it comes as no surprise that there is typically skepticism when political stakeholders adopt participatory political approaches to spark processes of social transformation (Fougère et al., 2017; Swyngedouw, 2005). But this need not reflect ulterior motives; also political stakeholders can aim for innovative responses to social issues (Eckhardt et al., 2021; Hulgård and Ferreira, 2019).

Because SI attracts ongoing political attention (European Commission, 2025; Federal Government, 2023; European Commission, 2020) and holds significant potential for democracy in action (Moulaert et al., 2013b; Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019) academic criticism is important. However, such critique should not stifle participatory processes in policymaking from the outset. Although power, status and resource distribution are often uneven and participation tends to be limited in time, scope or topic, dismissing these processes due to their imperfection’s risks wasting valuable democratic potential. Moreover, theoretical critiques in SI and participation research rarely translate into practical application (Purna and Paoli, 2023; Seelos and Mair, 2014). Diagnoses and recommendations often remain abstract, leaving open how these challenges can be addressed in real-world, imperfect settings.

Given the practical challenges of designing goodSI processes, this article aims to guide government and administrative stakeholders in implementing and managing participatory SI processes. Based on a politically induced SI case from Germany, it asks:

• Q1. What ethical requirements for participatory governance in politically initiated processes of SI emerge from SI and participation research?

• Q2. How can these be addressed in politically initiated SI processes through concrete approaches and methods despite imperfect conditions?

• Q3. What methodological recommendations can be identified for SI practice to establish inclusive and empowering participatory governance in politically initiated processes?

To answer these questions, the authors turn to a case study involving a participatory SI process initiated by the German federal family ministry with the objective of strengthening women’s economic independence. In Germany, 53% of employed women cannot secure long-term livelihoods from their income alone; motherhood worsens this, with 70% unable to financially support themselves and a child (Pimminger, 2024). This causes women to be economically dependent within their partnerships and/or to rely on government support, with negative impacts on self-determination, gender equality and welfare state performance. In preparation of a concrete political process, the objective was to explore the relevance of economic independence and ways to strengthen it on a broad basis from a cross-gender perspective, connect citizens on this topic and thereby advance the ongoing societal transformation process.

The study combines two perspectives: a reflexive analysis of participatory governance by the interdisciplinary research team, providing a constructively critical insider view that is inevitably shaped by some degree of bias (Larsson and Brandsen, 2016, p. 294), and a retrospective participant survey, which serves to supplement the researchers‘assessments.

This article closes a significant gap in transferring SI research into real-world practice. It aims to enhance awareness among government and administrative stakeholders regarding the structural and ethical challenges of implementing SI processes. Concurrently, it presents practical approaches and methods to leverage participatory potential in suboptimal contexts, while avoiding uncritical or ulterior uses. In addition, it offers civil society stakeholders with criteria to assess the value of their engagement in such processes. The objective is not to achieve perfection, but to promote ethically responsible practices that encourage inclusion, empowerment and collective problem-solving.

The following sections address the research questions in the order outlined above. Section 2 examines the theoretical background of SI and identifies ethical requirements for participatory governance in politically initiated processes. Section 3 presents the case and outlines the methodology used for data collection and analysis. Section 4 forms the analytical core, showing how the project addressed each ethical challenge. It includes reflections by researchers and participants and derives concrete recommendations. Section 5 concludes with a broader perspective on implications for policymakers and real-world practice.

SI is still a contested concept in academic discourse. Definitions differ in their political and emancipatory goals, the key stakeholders and bodies of knowledge involved and the question of whether the process itself already constitutes innovation or whether that label is limited to the outcome of the process (Beckman et al., 2023; Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019; Ayob et al., 2016). Even with all these differences, there is still an identifiable common thread: SI aims to innovate the social itself, that is, to transform social practices and relations, with the goal of meeting social challenges better. (Beckman et al., 2023; Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010; Phills et al., 2008; Mulgan, 2006; Moulaert et al., 2005).

This definitional reference to social improvement indicates that SI is always aimed in a particular direction, underscoring its inherent political and instrumental dimensions (Ayob et al., 2016). This emphasizes the importance of examining its governance structures. SI represents “purposive changes in social relations” (Pel et al., 2023, p. 2; Avelino et al., 2019). Howaldt and Schwarz underscore this aspect in their definition while also bridging the gap to the cross-sector processes of negotiation and collaboration required for this. They view SI as an “intentional, targeted reconfiguration of social practices” that takes place “in particular at the interfaces between the different societal rationalities (and subrationalities)” (2010, p. 89).

The specific form and configuration of this cross-sector negotiation and collaboration is an increasing focus for research on SI under the term participatory governance (Galego and Brans, 2023; Galego et al., 2022). Galego and Brans define governance of SI as “inclusive multiactor structures and inclusive processes that promote social and political transformations through collective actions, coproduction and participation in policy-making” (2023, p. 170). This definition does two things. First, it opens up a perspective on the specific participatory processes of each SI and thus on the social and political window of opportunity, also always specific, that opens up within that process. Second, it points to the constitutive role of participatory forms of policymaking in the governance and impact of SI.

Galego and Brans are not the only ones to highlight the close connection between SI and institutionalized forms of policymaking. It is often emphasized that the transformative impact of SI arises in particular from “bottom-linked governance,” meaning a specific interweaving and coevolution of civil society processes and governmental institutions (Moulaert et al., 2019; Avelino et al., 2019). At the same time, however, the links among the different sectors and their forms of rationality also demonstrate the ambivalences intrinsic to these processes. It is this cross-sector collaboration, with its inherently unequal positions of power, status and resources, that can – and often does – lend participatory governance a “Janus-faced” aspect in the context of SI processes (Swyngedouw, 2005).

This Janus-faced nature of participatory governance cannot be attributed to a single mechanism. The specific structural and ethical challenges associated with participatory governance in the context of politically initiated SI processes have been extensively discussed both in SI research (Larsson and Brandsen, 2016; Massey and Johnston-Miller, 2016; Parés et al., 2012) and in research on participation (Reijers et al., 2018; Bauer et al., 2021; Swyngedouw, 2005). In addition, research on epistemic injustices and intersectional perspectives on power and marginalization contribute to a more nuanced understanding of power imbalances influencing participatory research processes (Cummings et al., 2021). These challenges fall into several broad groups:

• Access and representation: Politically initiated participatory processes in the context of SI are not inherently open. On the one hand, an intersectional perspective on power and exclusion – the intersection of categories like gender, race or class – influencing individual and systemic experiences and thus, also influencing participation (Mier et al., 2025; Fricker, 2007; Crenshaw, 1989). On the other hand, it involves “invited participation” (Bauer et al., 2021, p. 343), which is marked by barriers to access and by diffuse and undemocratic mechanisms of representation (Swyngedouw, 2005). It has also been noted many times that – even when the initiators have the best of intentions – particularly in processes involving direct participation by community members, motivation, practical possibilities and/or fundamental capabilities to participate need not be present in the case of all of the stakeholders who should be reached (Bauer et al., 2021).

• Discursive openness: Politically initiated participatory formats run the risk of being instrumentalized to legitimize predetermined political agendas. In particular, the appropriation of such formats to advance or obscure a neoliberal agenda of privatization and individualization of social services has frequently been identified as a risk (Massey and Johnston-Miller, 2016; Fougère and Meriläinen, 2019). Participation formats initiated from the top down are especially susceptible to framings, values and a range of permissible outcomes being set in advance, thus removing these aspects from the participatory process entirely (Bauer et al., 2021; Reijers et al., 2018). Moreover, it is essential to critically examine epistemic injustice during the process, such as testimonial injustice (Fricker, 2007), which affects whose experiences are acknowledged and whose are overlooked, thereby facilitating equitable participation among all participants (Greaves and Roy, 2024).

• Power and impact: Cross-sector participation processes, for which diffusion of power and empowerment are a constitutive concern, commonly underestimate the structural and epistemic inequalities in power relations between and among the stakeholders involved (Cummings et al., 2021; Larsson and Brandsen, 2016; Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019; Parés et al., 2012; Swyngedouw, 2005). Lack of institutionalized decision-making authority, scant financial resources and narrow organizational ranges amid conflicting interests all work out to the detriment of the civil society players involved. At the same time, there are process elements that can help to somewhat counterbalance these structural inequalities at the procedural level. For example, participatory elements should be incorporated as early as possible in the process to afford the widest possible range of options for moving forward (Bauer et al., 2021). In addition, broad and continuous participation is needed, from process design through to the consolidation of results and their implementation in political decision-making (Ansell and Gash, 2008).

This outline of the structural and ethical challenges shows that there is no lack of clarity regarding the requirements for the participatory governance of SI. However, it also reveals that the criticism is articulated from a high-level perspective. In many cases, questions remain about how these requirements can be embodied in practical terms in concrete processes (Bauer et al., 2021; Reijers et al., 2018). These questions are even more pressing in that there is no one ideal participatory governance process; instrumental and democratic or emancipatory aspects as well as processes of (dis)empowerment take place simultaneously and interact in specific processes in a variety of ways (Beckman et al., 2023; Pel et al., 2023). However, the ethical requirements that apply to participatory processes need not only to be negotiated in theory but also translated methodologically so that they are reflected and satisfied in real-world practice as well, which is imperfect (Kaiser et al., 2024; Breuer et al., 2024). This objective can be used as a basis for identifying key questions informed by the structural and ethical challenges involved (see Table 1).

The actionable areas and key questions serve two functions. First, they intend to underscore that the challenges depicted as part of concrete SI processes initiated at the policy level are also practical, actionable areas that can be addressed and influenced by the design of the process. Second, they serve as criteria for the authors to evaluate the approach taken in the context of the case study and identify specific lessons learned for the practice of participation in the context of political SI processes.

This section outlines the case study, including the framework of the associated project “Economic Independence In The Course Of Life.” Furthermore, it presents the methodology to evaluate the identified ethical demands, integrating a reflexive analysis conducted by the interdisciplinary research team with a retrospective participant survey.

The starting point for the case study is that Germany has one of the largest gender pay gaps in Europe (Schmieder and Wrohlich, 2021). In addition to earning lower wages, women, on average, work fewer hours for pay throughout their lives. These factors contribute to women being significantly less likely to be economically independent, which has long-term ramifications such as lower incomes in old age (Becker et al., 2024; Hammerschmid and Rowold, 2019). Causes include women’s overrepresentation in part-time work, which is closely associated with traditional gender roles (Klenner et al., 2016). In heterosexual partnerships, women typically take on most of the caregiving responsibilities, while men continue to work full-time jobs (Schrenker and Wrohlich, 2022; Weber and Zimmert, 2017). Even though both men and women desire greater equality in the division of labor (Juncke et al., 2023; Weber and Zimmert, 2017). Based on findings from gender research, social norms and gendered role expectations are an important factor in explaining these contradictory findings (Beblo et al., 2023; Evertsson, Magnusson and van der Vleuten, 2023).

To address this societal challenge, the German Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMBFSFJ) initiated a SI process to identify better solutions. With a grant from the ministry, the researchers conceptualized a participation process to enhance understanding of decision-making related to individual economic independence and to explore new avenues for strengthening women’s economic independence at the policy level. This paper outlines the design of this SI process and its potential contributions to enhancing economic independence ^[1].

The project, running from August 2023 to December 2024, comprised six phases (see Figure 1). The preliminary conceptual work (1) focused on identifying research questions grounded in scholarly literature on economic independence in Germany:

• How important is economic independence to participants?

• What do participants associate with economic independence?

• How are decisions related to economic independence made and negotiated, e.g. within relationships?

• What obstacles are there to achieving greater economic independence?

• What resources support economic independence, and what desires are associated with it?

In the next step (2), the centerpiece of the process, five participatory life course labs were conducted in various regions across Germany and online. A total of 95 participants shared their experiences related to economic independence. The labs were designed as SI labs, providing space, processes, and methods for social experimentation aimed at addressing societal challenges and supporting SI (Wascher et al., 2019).

The results of the life course labs were documented through anonymous surveys, templates, and discussion mappings. Employing an inductive approach to qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2019), the results were coded and clustered. Then, the results were discussed within the interdisciplinary research team to triangulate researchers’ perspectives (Kondratjuk and Leinhos, 2019). Subsequently, (3) stakeholders, including researchers from various disciplines and equality experts from civil society, government and industry, reflected on and expanded the findings. Based on these findings, the researchers identified (4) four concrete recommended actions to strengthen economic independence at three levels: structural and policy, institutional and partnership and individual. The project’s findings and research process were made transparent on (5) a publicly accessible website and shared with participants of the life course labs. In addition, one of the recommended actions was implemented (6): an accessible and user-friendly website was created to address the need for more knowledge and guidance on the subject of economic independence ^[2].

To evaluate the described case study against the three ethical demands of participatory governance in politically initiated SI processes, the authors employed two approaches: reflexive analysis by the research team and a retrospective participant survey. The researchers’ reflexive analysis involved retrospective interpretations and evaluations of the process (see section 4), with a focus on the three ethical challenges identified in participatory governance: access and representation; discursive openness; and power and impact. This analysis was conducted as a constructive critical reflection by an interdisciplinary team of experts in psychology, political science and design. The interdisciplinary nature of the team fostered a critical examination of the researchers’ actions from the early stages of the process (Kondratjuk and Leinhos, 2019). The aim was to ensure transparency in the considerations and process, and to derive lessons learned throughout. Furthermore, a retrospective digital survey of lab participants was conducted in August and September 2024 to reflect the researchers’ reflexive analysis and gather evaluations from participants. To this end, the 95 participants from the life course labs were contacted via email. The survey concluded in September 2024 with a response rate of 68%, achieving 65 completed surveys. The survey comprised of 30 quantitative questions, with seven questions allowing participants to provide brief qualitative comments to clarify or expand on their responses. The design of the survey was based on the three key ethical challenges identified, which were operationalized based on the key questions identified in section 2. A primary goal was to encourage participants to share their own experiences.

The participatory process – including data collection, analysis and evaluation – involved participants. Prior to participation in the labs and to the online evaluation, all gave written informed consent. They were fully informed about the purpose, voluntary participation, withdrawal rights and confidentiality measures. Data from both the labs and the online evaluation were anonymized and stored in accordance with data protection regulations. Process and study adhered to international ethical standards for social science.

The next section uses the researchers’ reflexive analysis and the experience-based evaluation by participants as the empirical foundation. Building on this, the research process is evaluated to identify practical approaches for addressing the three identified ethical challenges and to highlight lessons learned for future research.

In the context of SI, the central ethical requirements for participatory governance are enabling:

• access and representation;

• discursive openness; and

• power and impact (see section 2).

This section examines how these requirements were addressed in the life course laboratories, the primary participation formats in the project. It details the process and measures for each requirement, reflects on the approach and outcomes from both researchers’ and participants’ perspectives, and describes lessons learned for implementing participatory governance.

SI processes focus on marginalized groups, on addressing their needs and on empowering them (Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019; Moulaert et al., 2005). In the context of participatory governance, particularly in policy-initiated SI, it is crucial to proactively engage groups whose political and societal participation is not assured. However, it is naive to presume that inclusion will occur automatically. Challenges such as perceived personal irrelevance, lack of resources and feelings of shame must be actively addressed (Bauer et al., 2021). Furthermore, epistemic injustices and complex power imbalances must be addressed regarding the accessibility and representation of marginalized groups (Greaves and Roy, 2024). Women, for example, do not form a homogeneous group; rather, intersecting identity markers influence privilege and discrimination. The theoretical framework of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) aids in understanding how structural and institutional barriers impede participation from intersecting marginalized groups and how to address them (Greaves and Roy, 2024; Cummings et al., 2021). In the conceptual design of the life course labs and outreach to participants, the researchers prioritized challenges related to access and representation. The researchers’ objective was to achieve a wide range of sociodemographic characteristics – and their combinations – among the participants, not to attain statistical representativeness, but to facilitate purposeful qualitative access to societal diversity (Patton, 1990). It was important to consider demographic characteristics that have a particular impact on economic independence, including gender, age, marital status, parenthood, education and employment status – and their intersection. To this end, the researchers engaged municipal or civil society organizations in each location to reach diverse individuals, e.g. reaching out to senior centers for older participants. To mitigate systematic exclusion, the labs were scheduled at various times and included on-site childcare. In addition, compensation of 150 euros was provided for a full day. Moreover, the labs were held in cities and villages as well as across different regions. An additional online lab allowed participation independent of location. Furthermore, inclusive language was used in the invitations to clarify relevance of the topic; for instance, “economic independence” was rephrased to “standing on your own two feet,” and the researchers explicitly addressed that achieving economic independence is not easy to reduce implicit social pressure.

A total of 95 individuals participated in five life course labs. Table 2 illustrates the diversity of the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Participants ranged in age from 19 to the mid-70s. Women were slightly overrepresented, comprising 60% of participants, while 35% identified as male and 5% as nonbinary or other. The researchers emphasized the importance of including all genders to adequately explore the structural dimensions of economic independence. Given that women are the primary group affected by economic independence issues, the 35% male participation was considered a success. 66% of participants lived in medium-to-large cities, aligning with the national demographic trends (Destatis, 2022, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c). While the extensive recruitment process succeeded in engaging diverse backgrounds, there was still room for improvement: for instance, most participants (64%) held a university degree.

The retrospective evaluation survey by participants underscored the significance of in-person outreach. 29% were approached directly to participate in the life course labs. Participants expressed high satisfaction with the registration process and the clarity of materials used (average 4.7–4.4). The researchers’ efforts to enhance broad relevance and use simple language seem to have contributed positively (see Table 3). Overall, participants felt exposed to diverse perspectives and experiences in relation to economic independence in the labs (average = 4.5). In open-ended survey responses, they appreciated that “the participant group was diverse in various ways” ^[3]. But there were also some critical voices pointing out that various perspectives remained “in a certain context, mostly white, well-educated and interested in politics.”

For the life course labs, capturing key sociodemographic factors influencing economic independence in Germany was important. This was also achieved from the participants’ perspective. However, familiar challenges in participation remained because most participants were academics and as noted by the participants themselves those with a migration background were underrepresented. Despite these limitations, the researchers identified the following lessons learned for the design of accessible and direct participation processes:

• Theoretically founded direct outreach to societal groups, considering ethical relevance and structural inequalities, rather than statistical representativeness

• Active and practical support for participation through various options (regional and time-based) as well as financial compensation and childcare availability.

• Direct ways for community members to participate and have direct representation, without interest groups as mediators.

Utilize simple, inclusive language for outreach that was pretested with target groups; ideally offer multilingual options and adapting examples used to explicitly address individuals facing intersectional marginalization.

Meaningful participation requires discursive openness, allowing all perspectives and suggestions to be heard, regardless of existing path dependencies and institutional interests. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge hegemonic interpretations and epistemic injustices regarding unequal patterns of knowledge creation and testimonial injustice disadvantaging marginalized communities (Cummings et al., 2021; Fricker, 2007). This poses challenges for policy-initiated participation processes, which often adhere to institutional logic and implicit political or organizational objectives that can hinder an open discussion culture and repeat hegemonic interpretations of knowledge (Cummings et al., 2021; Larsson and Brandsen, 2016). Therefore, participatory processes initiated at the policy level have a special responsibility to promote and actively support discursive openness. The economic independence project addressed a deeply personal topic possibly associated with shame: individual life situations and decisions in couples’ relationships related to financial (in)dependence and opportunities to (re)shape these situations. Given this sensitive context, the researchers prioritized achieving maximum discursive openness while ensuring absolute confidentiality to protect participants’ integrity. They aimed to facilitate exploration of this topic not only verbally but also intuitively and emotionally, hypothesizing that personal values and positions are often unconscious or implicit. Accordingly, the labs were modeled on SI labs, which provide space, processes and methods for social experimentation focusing on societal challenges to support SI (Wascher et al., 2019). Using cocreative, demand-driven and design-based methods, these lab formats aimed to include diverse experiences and perspectives, bridging disciplinary jargon, expertise and hierarchies while allowing intuitive access to complex topics. This approach supports shared dialogue and development (Sanders and Stappers, 2008) and is considered a vital component of SI governance (Murray et al., 2010).

To foster discursive openness in the life course laboratories, the researchers alternated between different reflection and discussion styles. This included solo written exercises, surveys and facilitated group discussions, alongside cocreative formats (see Plate 1). This combination aimed to accommodate different participant temperaments and create a safe space for voicing opinions. The cocreative formats aimed to encourage intuitive collective visions of a desirable future, even if perceived as utopian (Heidingsfelder et al., 2019; Heidingsfelder, 2018). Working with such visions was a deliberate strategy sought to broaden discussions, allow diverse forms of rationality, and permit participants to think beyond existing power dynamics.

The discussion began with a normative and ethical reflection, asking participants about their associations with “economic independence” and its connotations. This initial focus aimed to interpret the term openly and reveal implicit values, laying a broad foundation for potential policy actions.

Throughout the different methods, researchers ensured that all participant contributions were accepted without judgment, emphasizing this at the start of each lab. The aim of this approach was to allow controversial perspectives. All participant input was documented anonymously, and measures were taken to maintain anonymity, including positioning photos to avoid showing faces.

The researchers consider their discourse-opening strategy successful, as there was no need to reiterate discussion rules; participants engaged respectfully and openly, sharing experiences with minimal normative content. Different, even controversial, viewpoints were acknowledged. The labs presented a range of perspectives, from utopian visions of shared responsibility in communities to the grievances of divorced men over pension sharing, and traditional views of economic independence within heterosexual marriages.

Participants’ evaluations support the researchers’ perception of an open discourse during the labs. Many noted a “very open and appreciative atmosphere” in the open-ended survey questions. The discussions were perceived as diverse (average = 4.5), with only one participant feeling that the discourse was directed toward “paid work” and another perceiving ministry employees as controlling (see Table 4). Participants felt their opinions were accepted (average = 4.3), attributing this to the documentation of contributions, the absence of judgment and the revisiting of points during discussions.

Of the 17% who felt their contributions were partially considered, only three suggested improvements, such as more time and small group discussions to facilitate deeper engagement. Overall, the discussion formats were rated as helpful, with group discussions (average = 4.4) and working with materials (average = 4.4) seen as slightly more beneficial than self-reflection (average = 4.0). However, the relatively high standard deviation indicates varied preferences among participants. The most important factor identified was the facilitation quality (average = 4.5), with many open-ended comments praising the “great, respectful and attentive atmosphere” and the “professional facilitator.” About 9% expressed a need for more support, specifically to give quieter voices more space and to manage more outspoken participants, as well as a desire for additional time and more shared experiences, such as those of single parents.

Given the special responsibility of policy-initiated participatory processes, both researchers and participants perceived that fundamental discursive openness was achieved, allowing for the acceptance of controversial topics without judgment. Due to the regional nature of the five events and the challenges in recruiting people belonging to marginalized groups, as well as the complexity considering intersectional aspects of marginalization, representation was limited. This needs to be considered in the interpretation of the results.

The researchers observed that open reflection on the meanings of economic independence at the event’s outset, along with various discussion formats – silent work, small groups, full group discussions and design-based reflections – were crucial for fostering discursive openness and addressing implicit norms. Participants’ evaluations echoed this sentiment, with some suggesting that more time should be allocated for small group reflection and that quieter voices needed more attention. The researchers believe that incorporating diverse formats will be vital for future events. Based on these insights, they have identified key lessons for designing accessible and direct participation processes:

• A balanced mix of reflection and discussion formats: solo work, (small) group discussions and cocreative processes.

• Design-supported exploration of desirable futures to intuitively access knowledge and envision alternatives to existing power relations.

• Establish transparency regarding implicit values and conflicting goals through open discussions on the meaning of economic independence.

• Revisiting participant-raised discussion points later in the event, allowing participants to determine the content and topics.

• Emphasizing openness to all opinions and a nonjudgmental interest in diverse lived experiences, while addressing structural power imbalances that facilitate or complicate the attainment of economic independence.

• Nonjudgmental, anonymized documentation of all work phases and contributions.

• Establishing community agreements for discussions (including participants maintaining each other’s anonymity).

• Critically reviewing the participation and role of ministry employees, providing clear information about their presence and purpose at the event.

Ensuring that members of intersectional, marginalized groups, such as single mothers or refugee women, are not isolated and that similar life experiences are represented.

Participatory governance in policy-initiated processes requires the diffusion of power and the empowerment of civil society actors, which must be actively managed. This is particularly crucial when participation targets “all” community members, highlighting disparities in formal power, status and resources. Political stakeholders bear special responsibility in this context – due to their privileged role as curators of the process – especially when participation is framed within specific content, time, and financial constraints.

The life course labs took place early in the policymaking process, before economic independence had been formalized as a policy goal. They aimed to gather citizens perspectives on future challenges and action areas, with openness to critical views of existing structures. Participation also encouraged dialogue on financial dependence among women, built connections and raised awareness of the structural and political dimensions of personal decisions.

Initially, it was uncertain whether the results would influence policymaking. However, by the end, the ministry translated one of the most important findings into a concrete policy measure by funding the development of a digital “life map of independence” to address the gender knowledge gap regarding economic independence. The decision was made internally within the ministry; participants were not involved in this step. Participants were informed about the next steps, including the digital life map and an invitation to user testing, in which three participants contributed feedback on design and content.

From the researcher’s perspective, a mixed picture emerges regarding the ethical challenges related to power and impact. Conducting the process ahead of concrete political planning allowed for openness and critical perspectives in the process. However, this early involvement also had drawbacks. The lack of a defined follow-up process meant that decisions about any future political actions were de facto removed from the process. Initially, it was unclear whether the results would influence policy. Participants, ministry initiators and researchers could only hope that the results and the attention generated through a participatory process would lead to further measures.

Another limitation was the scope of participation: participants were not involved in the conceptual design, analysis or utilization of the life course labs’ results. While key findings – such as the necessity for more awareness or the connection between financial independence and self-determination – were reflected in the subsequent policy process, participants had no role in shaping this outcome, nor was it positioned as open to their influence. Nevertheless, although there was no direct codetermination, the normative authority of the participatory process, supported by scholarly input, did impact the policymaking process.

To manage expectations regarding the limited reach of the participation process, researchers maintained transparency with participants. This was confirmed by participants, who felt adequately informed about the process and goals (averages: 4.6 and 4.4). Because participants were not involved in analyzing results, it was crucial for them to see their contributions reflected. Most participants agreed (average = 3.9) with 68% recognizing their ideas in the outcomes. Only 2% felt the results did not reflect their contributions, specifically noting inadequate representation of fathers and perspectives that transcended heteronormativity.

Regarding empowerment and power diffusion, participants believed the labs provided space for unheard perspectives (average = 4.2). Overall, they felt their participation enhanced the quality (average = 3.9) and legitimacy (average = 4.1) of the results and helped strengthen economic independence (average = 3.8). On average, participants viewed the long-term potential of participatory formats positively (average = 3.6). The attendance of Lisa Paus, the German federal family minister, was seen as a positive acknowledgment of the topic. However, participants expressed worries about limited direct political impact, with some criticizing the “limited prospects for practical implementation of the potential solutions discussed” and uncertainty about how results would be used.

When asked about personal changes regarding economic independence resulting from the labs, participants noted minimal change (average = 3.2) (see Table 5). Where changes were cited, they often related to a strengthened sense of “being heard” rather than new knowledge about economic independence. Participants emphasized their existing expertise due to their personal experiences and expressed a desire for the process to continue and explore topics in greater depth. A point of criticism was the lack of feedback loops before publishing results and the lengthy delay between participation and communication of the outcomes.

The structural obstacles in the participatory process – namely, community members’ limited involvement to the topic exploration phase and lack of influence on the subsequent policymaking – did not significantly negatively impact participants’ evaluations, although they were noted critically. Ultimately, participants felt that their concerns were represented and that their participation had made an impact, viewing the experience as empowering. Their personal experiences and perspectives as those affected by the issues were acknowledged, contributing meaningfully to the political process. While participants recognized the limitations of their involvement, these did not delegitimize the process or diminish its value. Based on this positive feedback, the researchers identified the following lessons learned regarding the initially unfavorable conditions:

• Early involvement is essential for ensuring openness to all results, but translating them into policy requires significant political effort. Without a defined political process, advocates must work within the administration to leverage the normative power generated by participatory processes. Visible signs of relevance, like ministerial attendance, are important for participants and future policy commitment.

• Scholarly support for the process enhances the normative force for policymakers and builds participants’ trust. This support also promotes ethically responsible participation design. However, participants should have the opportunity to review the analysis and results to avoid blind spots.

• Participation requires clear expectation management. Transparent communication about subject, framework and limitations is crucial, although it may not prevent disappointment if contributions are only referenced consultatively.

Processes of participation in the policymaking context are seldom ideal. This is because they take place under real-world circumstances: the individuals and entities involved, the power relations among them, the spaces that have been created for participation, the current political context and other factors require careful consideration and decisions regarding process design that can make it difficult to meet the theoretical requirements in full. The researchers’ article has shown how the theoretical requirements that apply to participatory governance were reflected on and implemented in a methodological concept in the context of a SI process aimed at strengthening women’s economic independence. Although an analysis of the case at hand shows that there is room for improvement in certain areas, the researchers’ project reached its policy objective of contributing to economic independence, particularly among women, at many levels: Key project findings were adopted at the policy level; participants felt empowered and that they were making a difference; and the entire topic received greater attention in from government, research and civil society throughout the project.

In reflecting on and analyzing the case, the researchers were able to identify methodological lessons learned for all three of the key challenges facing participatory governance (see Table 6). These lessons learned offer an empirically found basis for shaping participatory governance in further SI processes and show how academic requirements can be realized in practice.

With the theory discussed in section 2 as background, the results of this case can be laid out as follows:

Access and representation: Research on SI emphasizes that marginalized groups in particular should be the targets and bases of SI (Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019). At the same time, the researchers note the structural barriers to access and representation that are inherent when involvement is initiated at the policy level (Bauer et al., 2021; Swyngedouw, 2005). The project’s results confirm that this challenge is difficult to address; although theory-based outreach and supporting measures helped reach diverse perspectives on the challenge of economic independence, exclusion still occurred. Proactive outreach and active structural support are essential to reduce barriers for more groups. In addition, it is crucial to consider how gender intersects with other social identity categories, shaping power imbalances that affect participation experiences and the likelihood of feeling included in calls for engagement.

Discursive openness: Participation processes face a well-documented challenge in ensuring that they are open to all and any outcomes and are not merely used to legitimize existing political agendas (Massey and Johnston-Miller, 2016; Fougère and Meriläinen, 2019). Furthermore, the potential for testimonial injustice to hinder equal participation by marginalized communities must be addressed in the methods and conceptual framework (Greaves and Roy, 2024; Fricker, 2007). In this case study, design-based methods were used to create open space for different values in the context of shaping desirable futures and systematically rotating through different discussion and reflection formats.

Power and impact: The ways that emancipatory and instrumental logic are all interwoven in SI processes (Beckman et al., 2023) are also apparent in the case presented here. The process was designed to be politically open. However, its overall impact was constrained by institutional conditions, which ultimately limited participants’ involvement to a primarily consultative role. Even so, one of the key results led to policy measures, participants felt that they had really made an impact, and greater attention was drawn to this topic. This not only shows the normative power of participatory processes in the policymaking context but also points to the work done by internal process and results advocates.

Implications for policymakers and real-world practice: In summary, the empirical insights gleaned here corroborate key theoretical findings concerning participatory governance in SI processes initiated at the policy level, particularly with an eye to the structural and ethical challenges surrounding access, openness and impact. At the same time, the results show that it is possible to devise empowering and effective methodological approaches even when conditions are not ideal. Consistent evaluation of participants’ perspectives was especially crucial in this regard. In this way, the results contribute to the urgently needed methodological translation of theoretical requirements (Kaiser et al., 2024; Breuer et al., 2024) and to transferring research into practice.

The results offer concrete methodological strategies for finding solutions to shape future participatory SI processes. Points where the theoretical requirements were only partially met and where participants provided critical feedback are of special interest for two reasons. First, these points can be improved upon in future processes through targeted measures. Second, they reveal dilemmas that necessarily arise when putting theory into practice in complex settings. In addition to providing guidance on the design of the methodology for participatory SI processes, this article also emphasizes the importance to carefully reflect on the complex contexts of such processes and weigh the associated theoretical requirements.

This article is based on a specific case but offers conclusions applicable to similar processes. It highlights the need for further research, especially more case studies to empirically explore challenges in applying theory to practice and strategies to address them. The authors identify three key research areas:

1. development and evaluation of governance models in participatory SI, including better incorporation of participant feedback;

2. advancement and long-term effects of participant empowerment; and

3. motivations of policy stakeholders to initiate participatory governance and how they use the outcomes.