This theory-building essay aims to conceptually articulate the valuing of the transfer of citizens’ nonadministrative knowledge to government. Two ways of valuing, instrumental and normative, are identified and examined in public administration literature. I argue that public administration lacks an understanding of the distinctive normative or democratic significance of citizens’ nonadministrative knowledge. To fill this gap, selected critical theory, postmodern, and pragmatist philosophical approaches to the valuing of citizens’ knowledge are examined in relation to two kinds of knowledge transfer in citizen-government exchanges: administrator knowledge transfer and citizen knowledge transfer. The review suggests that the normative valuing of citizen knowledge transfer requires the empirical and proactive examination of contemporary forms of citizens’ knowledge; that administrator and citizen knowledge transfers should be investigated as interconnected phenomena in an integrative approach, which implies a greater attention to conflict over knowledge; and that the greater normative valuing of citizen knowledge transfer could stimulate its instrumental valuing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonE. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1), 8–22.
2.
AnsellC. K. (2011). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
3.
AnsellC., & GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.
4.
AnsellC., & GeyerR. (2017). ‘Pragmatic complexity’ a new foundation for moving beyond ‘evidence-based policy making’?Policy Studies, 38(2), 149–167.
5.
AnsellC., & TorfingJ. (2016). Collaboration and design: New tools for public innovation. In AnsellC. & TorfingJ. (Eds.), Public innovation through collaboration and design (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BangH. P., & SørensenE. (1999). The everyday maker: A new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21(3), 325–341.
7.
BartelsK. P. R. (2013). Public encounters: The history and future of face-to-face contact between public professionals and citizens. Public Administration, 91(2), 469–483.
8.
BartelsK. P. R. (2014). Communicative capacity: The added value of public encounters for participatory democracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(6), 656–674.
9.
BellD. (1976). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York, NY: Basic Books.
10.
BohmanJ. (1999). Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: Pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 590–607.
11.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860.
12.
BoxR. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
BoxR. (2015). Public service values. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
14.
BrysonJ. M., CrosbyB. C., & StoneM. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.
15.
CaldwellL. K. (1975). Managing the transition to post-modern society. Public Administration Review, 35(6), 567–572.
16.
CampbellJ. (1993). Democracy as cooperative inquiry. In StuhrJ. J. (Ed.), Philosophy and the reconstruction of culture (pp. 17–35). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
17.
CarrollJ. D., & HenryN. (1975). A symposium: Knowledge management. Public Administration Review, 35(6), 567.
18.
CasparyW. R. (2000). Dewey on democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
19.
CatlawT. J., & JordanG. M. (2009). Public administration and “the lives of others”: Toward an ethics of collaboration. Administration & Society, 41(3), 290–312.
20.
ClevelandH. (1985). The twilight of hierarchy: Speculations on the global information society. Public Administration Review, 45(1), 185–195.
21.
CorburnJ. (2007). Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(2), 150–161.
22.
CreightonJ. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
DavenportT. H., & PrusakL. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
24.
DeweyJ. (2012). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. (critical ed.; RogersM. L., Ed.). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. (Original work published 1927).
25.
DielemanS. (2017). Pragmatist tools for public administration. Administration & Society, 49(2), 275–295.
26.
Easterby-SmithM., LylesM. A., & TsangE. W. K. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 677–690.
27.
ElíasM. V. (2012). Researching participation through interpretative phenomenology: The case of neighborhood organizing. In SchachterH. L. & YangK. (Eds.), The state of citizen participation in America (pp. 387–414). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
28.
EmersonK., NabatchiT., & BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
29.
EpsteinS. (1996). Impure science: Aids, activism and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30.
EyermanR., & JamisonA. (1991). Social movements: A cognitive approach. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
31.
FarmerD. J. (1995). The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
32.
FeldmanM. S., KhademianA. M., IngramH., & SchneiderA. S. (2006). Ways of knowing and inclusive management practices. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 89–99.
33.
FischerF. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
34.
FischerF. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
35.
FollettM. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
36.
FoxC. J., & MillerH. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
FredericksonH. G. (1971). Toward a new public administration. In MariniF. (Ed.), Toward a new public administration (pp. 309–331). Scranton, PA: Chandler.
38.
FredericksonH. G. (1982). The recovery of civism in public administration. Public Administration Review, 42(6), 501–507.
39.
HabermasJ. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
40.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
41.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
42.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
abermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
HandL. C. (2017). Producing a vision of the self-governing mother: A study of street-level bureaucrat behavior in coproductive interactions. Administration & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399717719110.
45.
HarmonM. M. (2006). Public administration's final exam: A pragmatist restructuring of the profession and the discipline. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
46.
HenryN. L. (1974). Knowledge management: A new concern for public administration. Public Administration Review, 34(3), 189–196.
47.
HenryN. L. (1975). Bureaucracy, technology, and knowledge management. Public Administration Review, 35(6), 572–578.
48.
HenryN. L. (2013). Public administration and public affairs. (12th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Pearson.
49.
HessD. J. (2007). Alternative pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
HolzerM., & MullinsL. B. (2012). Citizen participation and performance: A model for citizen-based government and performance management. In SchachterH. L. & YangK. (Eds.), The state of citizen participation in America (pp. 325–347). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
51.
HummelR. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 31–41.
52.
HummelR., & StiversC. (1998). Government isn't us: The possibility of democratic knowledge in representative government. In KingC. S., & StiversC. (Eds.), Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era (pp. 28–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
JasanoffS. (1996). Is science socially constructed—and can it still inform public policy?Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(3), 263–276.
54.
JasanoffS. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
55.
JorgensenT. B., & BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.
56.
KeulartzJ., & van den BeltH. (2016). DIY-Bio—economic, epistemological and ethical implications and ambivalences. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 12, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0039-1.
57.
KingC. S., FelteyK. M., & SuselB. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317–326.
58.
KingC. S., PattersonP. M., & ScottF. E. (2000). Introduction: Still enthralled with modernity? Toward postrationalist discourse theories. The American Review of Public Administration, 30(3), 221–224.
59.
Knorr CetinaK. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
KooimanJ. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance: New government-society interactions. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
61.
KuentzelW. F., & VentrissC. (2012). Social psychological barriers to communicative rationality: A critical look at public participation. In SchachterH. L. & YangK. (Eds.), The state of citizen participation in America (pp. 415–444). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
62.
LatourB., & WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
63.
LyotardJ.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: The report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
64.
MariniF. (1971). Introduction: A new public administration? In MariniF. (Ed.), Toward a new public administration. (pp. 1–16). Scranton, PA: Chandler.
65.
McSwiteO. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
MelucciA. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
67.
MosherF. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1968).
68.
MoynihanD. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizen summits in Washington, D.C. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), 164–188.
69.
NewswanderC. B., BodenD., & NewswanderL. K. (2018). Renovating the refounding. Administration and Society, 50(5), 633–652.
70.
NoveckB. S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter government: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
ObamaB. (2009, January 21). Remarks to White House senior staff. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
72.
O'LearyR. & VijN. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going?The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522.
73.
PyrozhenkoV. (2018). Integration of social knowledge by government: A new synthetic model of integration as learning and potential research directions. Administration & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718760591.
74.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2011). Public administration: The interdisciplinary study of government. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
75.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N., & WhetsellT. A. (2017). Conceptualizing the landscape of decision making for complex problem solving. International Journal of Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1347946.
76.
RashmanL., WithersE., & HartleyJ. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 463–494.
77.
RenedoA., Komporozos-AthanasiouA., & MarstonC. (2017). Experience as evidence: The dialogic construction of health professional knowledge through patient involvement. Sociology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516682457.
78.
RiccucciN. M. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
79.
RobertsN. C. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting directions. Public Administration Review, 57, 124–132.
80.
RobertsN. C. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
81.
RobertsN. C. (Ed.). (2008a). The age of direct citizen participation. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
82.
RobertsN. C. (2008b). Direct citizen participation coming of age. In RobertsN. C. (Ed.), The age of direct citizen participation (pp. 491–500). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
83.
RogersM. L. (2012). Introduction: Revisiting The public and its problems. In DeweyJ., The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. (critical ed.; RogersM. L., Ed.; pp. 1–29). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
84.
SandersonI. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies, 57(4), 699–719.
85.
SchachterH. L., & YangK. (Eds.). (2012). The state of citizen participation in America. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
86.
SchmidtM. R. (1993). Grout: Alternative kinds of knowledge and why they are ignored. Public Administration Review, 53(6), 525–530.
87.
ShieldsP. M. (2003). The community of inquiry: Classical pragmatism and public administration. Administration & Society, 35(5), 510–538.
88.
ShieldsP. M. (2008). Rediscovering the taproot: Is classical pragmatism the route to renew public administration?Public Administration Review, 68(2), 205–221.
89.
SirianniC., & FriedlandL. (2001). Civic innovation in America: Community empowerment, public policy, and the movement for civic renewal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
90.
StehrN. (1994). Knowledge societies. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
91.
StiversC. (1990). The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in administrative state. Administration & Society, 22(1), 86–105.
92.
StiversC. (2010). Democratic knowledge: The task before us. Administration & Society, 42, 248–259.
93.
StoutM. (2013). Logics of legitimacy: Three traditions of public administration praxis. Boca Raton, FL: CRP Press.
94.
StoutM., & LoveJ. M. (2016). A radically democratic response to global governance: Dystopian utopias. New York, NY: Routledge.
95.
ThomasJ. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
96.
Van GigchJ., KoenigsbergE., DeanB., & ChurchmanC. (1997). In search of an ethical science: An interview with C. West Churchman: An 80th Birthday Celebration. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(7), 731–744.
97.
VentrissC. (1989). Toward a public philosophy of public administration: A civic perspective of the public. Public Administration Review, 49, 173–179.
98.
VentrissC., & KuentzelW. (2005). Critical theory and the role of citizen involvement in environmental decision making: A re-examination. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 8(4), 520–540.
99.
WagenaarH. (2004). “Knowing” the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 643–656.
100.
WagenaarH. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 17–50.
101.
WagenaarH., & CookS. D. N. (2011). The push and pull of the world: How experience animates practice. Evidence & Policy, 7(2), 193–212.
102.
WaldoD. (1948). The administrative state. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
103.
WamsleyG. L. (1996). A public philosophy and ontological disclosure as the basis for normatively grounded theorizing in public administration. In WamsleyG. L. & WolfJ. F. (Eds.), Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges (pp. 351–401). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
104.
WamsleyG. L., BacherR. N., GoodsellC. T., KronenbergP. S., RohrJ. A., StiversC. M., … & WolfJ. F. (1990). Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
105.
WamsleyG. L., & WolfJ. F. (Eds.). (1996). Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
106.
Van WartM. (1998). Changing public sector values. New York, NY: Garland.
YanowD. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15, S9–S25.
109.
YanowD. (2009). Ways of knowing: Passionate humility and reflective practice in research and management. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(6), 579–601.
