2,730 rated or chosen profiles from 683 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.
| Description | Paired conjoint on citizen co-creation initiatives: 683 Dutch-speaking Belgian adults compared 2 pairs of participation initiatives varying channel (digital/analogue/hybrid), policy level (Flemish/local), impact (advisory/binding) and co-creation phase; outcomes are which initiative they would rather join and which would give the best results, the best process and the most trust in government (the last three with a 'no difference' option). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Reijnders, L. (2025). Survey + conjoint experiment co-creation in Belgium [Data set]. Zenodo. |
| Licence | CC BY 4.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15130509 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 683 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 2,730 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 2 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 4 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | BE |
| Language shown | nl |
| Language of stored levels | nl |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| choice | Hier zijn twee verschillende voorbeelden van participatie initiatieven te zien. Aan welk participatie initiatief zou je het liefst willen deelnemen? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| choice_process | Vergelijk de twee hierboven getoonde initiatieven op basis van de volgende stellingen. - In welk van de participatie initiatieven zal het proces het beste verlopen? [choice, opt-out allowed] |
| choice_results | Vergelijk de twee hierboven getoonde initiatieven op basis van de volgende stellingen. - Welk van deze twee participatie initiatieven zal leiden tot de beste resultaten? [choice, opt-out allowed] |
| choice_trust | Vergelijk de twee hierboven getoonde initiatieven op basis van de volgende stellingen. - Welk van deze twee participatie initiatieven zal het vertrouwen van deelnemers in de betrokken overheid het meest versterken? [choice, opt-out allowed] |
attr_channelattr_impactattr_levelattr_phasechoicechoice_processchoice_resultschoice_trustcov_agecov_blockcov_duration_seccov_educationcov_finishedcov_gendercov_home_languagecov_occupationcov_video_checkidprofiletasktrial_design_version
The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.
Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):
# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("reijnders_2025_cocreation", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("reijnders_2025_cocreation", source="conj")
@misc{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15130509,
doi = {10.5281/ZENODO.15130509},
url = {https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.15130509},
author = {Reijnders, Loes},
language = {nl},
title = {Survey + conjoint experiment co-creation in Belgium},
publisher = {Zenodo},
year = {2025},
copyright = {Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International}
}
| IRW version | v607 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint v4.2 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/qkye-q530 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v4.2 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v47.0 |