Page 18 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

the breadth and depth of literature on complex and interdisciplinary topics such as stakeholder engagement and community participation in PPPs within South Africa. Scoping reviews are particularly useful when addressing research areas that are emerging, where the literature is diverse or sparse, and where the goal is to identify gaps, clarify concepts, and provide an overview of the existing knowledge (Munn et al. 2018). Unlike systematic reviews, which are typically focused on synthesising evidence to answer a specific question, scoping reviews offer greater flexibility in exploring a wide range of research questions and methodologies, making them ideal for the objectives of this study (Arksey and O’Malley 2005).
The choice of a scoping review was guided by the need to comprehensively understand the intersection of PPPs, stakeholder engagement, and community participation, particularly in the unique socio-political context of South Africa. Given that these topics cut across various disciplines, including public administration, urban planning, and social policy, a scoping review enables the integration of insights from these diverse fields, thereby providing a more holistic understanding of the subject (Levac et al. 2010). Furthermore, the South African context presents distinct challenges and opportunities, making it essential to consider a wide range of sources, including academic literature, government reports, and practical case studies, to capture the full scope of knowledge and practice (Peters et al. 2021).
Data collection
Sources of data
The data collection process involved a comprehensive search across multiple academic databases and other relevant sources to ensure a thorough exploration of the literature. The databases used for this study included Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Google Scholar, and JSTOR, which are well regarded for their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed academic literature across various disciplines. Additionally, searches were conducted on the online library for access to relevant books and book
chapters, and government reports were sourced directly from South African government websites such as the National Treasury and the Department of Public Works. Conference proceedings were also reviewed to capture recent developments and discussions within the field.
Search strategy and screening process
The search strategy was designed to capture a broad range of literature on stakeholder engagement and community participation in PPPs within South Africa. The initial search terms included combinations of keywords such as ‘Public-Private Partnerships’, ‘stakeholder engagement’, ‘community participation’, ‘South Africa’, and ‘infrastructure development’. The search across the selected databases yielded a total of 1,200 papers.
The screening process involved several stages to refine the selection of relevant literature. First, all retrieved papers were screened for duplication, resulting in the removal of 300 duplicate records. This step was crucial to avoid redundancy and ensure that each piece of literature was unique and relevant. Following the removal of duplicates, the remaining 900 papers were subjected to a preliminary screening based on their titles and abstracts. During this stage, papers that clearly did not align with the focus of the study, such as those unrelated to PPPs or those that focused on regions outside South Africa, were excluded. This process led to the exclusion of an additional 600 papers.
The remaining 300 papers underwent a full-text review, where each paper was carefully assessed for its relevance to the research questions. The inclusion criteria were stringent, focusing on studies that provided substantial insights into stakeholder engagement and community participation in PPPs, particularly within the South African context. Papers that did not provide enough detail, lacked methodological rigour, or were not directly relevant to the study’s objectives were excluded. After this thorough review, 60 papers (Figure 1) were identified as highly relevant and were included in the final analysis.
Search across the selected databases results (n=1200)
Screening for duplicates (n=300 eliminated)
Screening based on their titles and abstracts (n=600 eliminated)
full-text review (n=240 eliminated)
highly relevant (n=60 included for the study)
Figure 1: Scoping review process (author’s depiction)
16 | Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability