In determining the conceptual frame which will guide our qualitative research, we first need to understand the reality of trust in public service practice. Using the work of Rousseau (1989), we understand that as part of the process of public service delivery each of the interacting interpersonal and organizational relationships are operating within the limits of an individual’s ‘psychological contract’, an inferred subjective contract which sets out “the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement” (Rousseau 1989 in OECD 2017, 16) between two parties (the citizen and the government for example). A lack of compliance with the ‘contract’ is perceived as a betrayal, resulting in a lack of trust. But trust is multi-dimensional. Using the multiple dimensions of trust, combined with the notion of psychological contracts, we can understand that trust is not binary, it is not simply a case that you have it or you don’t. Rather, trust is a series of micro psychological-contracts that cover the various trust drivers and dimensions, and they accumulate to determine what level of trust is granted or not, and under what conditions. Trust is grey, not black and white.
For example, an individual would have a series of subjective and inferred micro-contracts that require a public service to be easily accessible and capable to meet their needs in a timely fashion (trust - responsive), during the delivery of that service they expect their personal information to be treated with privacy (satisfaction – privacy), and be treated as a respected member of society (trust – fairness, satisfaction – professionalism). However, in their experience of the public service sought, despite the fair treatment and privacy of personal information, their needs might not be met in a timely manner. Does this mean they do not trust the public service outright? Or does it mean they trust the public servants to do their very best given the circumstances and will work with them to seek a satisfactory outcome and hence are willing to partially trust the public service on offer? Trust can therefore be considered along a spectrum from fully withheld to fully granted trust (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. A trust spectrum
Our measures of trust are typically based on direct questions, “Do you trust…?” not “What do you trust about ...?”. Rather than forcing a complex multi-dimensional concept into a binary or at best a Likert scale, we should be respecting our citizens capacity for rationale thought and ask them to dissect their trust judgements so as to better understand the logic(s) they use to evaluate trust (issues of cognitive or rational, and affective or emotional forms of trust).
With this understanding we can identify, prioritise and tailor communications and policy and program reform efforts. However, in practice this is not as simple as it sounds. Some researchers observe that citizens often have a single generalised perception of trust and find it hard to explain their logics when coming to a trust judgement (see Marien and Hooghe, 2011). Hence, in this qualitative study we provide the structure and opportunity for citizens to think past their initial preconceived judgements of trust and describe the rationale behind these judgments.
Acknowledging that trust is a complex and multi-dimensional concept with many of these dimensions overlapping in practice, this project will synthesise and clarify the various drivers and dimensions of trust into a single trust framework (see Figure 5). In this framework we recognise the importance of trust in government, providing a feedback loop between trust in public service production and trust in government. We describe an individual’s expectations of a public service not as a block box, but as an array of micro-contracts, each with their own conditions of satisfaction and levels of importance. These micro-contracts might be satisfied, or not, and it is this combination of compliance with the micro-contracts that determines the level of trust granted, if at all. The conceptual frame also deliberately includes the various demand and supply side factors which potentially influence trust outcomes at the expectation and satisfaction stages. It is important here to note the feedback loops from trust in the service and satisfaction with the service to expectations, where positive service delivery and trust outcomes are likely to increase expectations, and poor outcomes likely to decrease expectations.
Figure 5. Framework for understanding perceptions of trust in APS public service