An online survey of public administration graduate students in the United States1 was conducted in early 2010 to measure students’ views on public participation. In addition, document analysis was used to investigate MPA curricula and the extent to which NASPAA-accredited programs were teaching courses in this area. Survey results2 indicate that most respondents (a) believe public participation is important to good governance, (b) see themselves as facilitators of public participation, and (c) are interested in learning more about the subject. Analysis of MPA-accredited program curricula showed few graduate-level public administration programs offering courses on public participation and citizen engagement. The findings point to the opportunity, and need, for greater emphasis on public participation in MPA curricula.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnsteinS. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
2.
BarnesW.MannB. (2010) Making local democracy work: Municipal officials views about public engagement. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
3.
BermanE. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 105–112.
4.
BinghamL. B.NabatchiT.O’LearyR. (2005). The new governance: Practices and process for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65, 547–558.
5.
BinghamL. B.O’LearyR. (2009). The collaborative public manager. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
6.
BoxR. C. (2011). The citizenship role of the public professional: Imagining private lives and alternative futures. In KingC. S., Government is us, 2.0 (pp. 59–75). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
7.
BoyteH. C. (2005). Reframing democracy: Governance, civic agency, and politics. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 536–546.
8.
CallahanK. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1179–1196.
9.
Center for Communication and Civic Engagement (CCCE). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://ccce.com.washington.edu
10.
Civic Engagement Initiative (CEI). (2008). Retrieved from www.usc-cei.org/old2007/about.php
11.
ConklinJ. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
CooperT. L.GulickL. (1984). Citizenship and professionalism in public administration. Public Administration Review, 44 (Special Issue: Citizenship and Public Administration), 143–151.
13.
DenhardtR. B.DenhardtJ. V. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
14.
DenhardtR. B.DenhardtJ. V.AristiguetaM. P. (2008). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
ForesterJ. (2010). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
FredericksonH. G. (1982). The recovery of civism in public administration. Public Administration Review, 42(6), 501–508.
17.
GecziE. (2007). Sustainability and public participation: Toward an inclusive model of democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29(3), 375–393.
18.
GingrichN. (2005). From bureaucratic public administration to entrepreneurial public management: Getting the government to move at the speed and effectiveness of the information age. Group Practices Journal, 5(7): 11–22.
19.
IrvinR.StansburyJ. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.
20.
KellyR. M. (1998). An inclusive democratic polity, representative bureaucracies, and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 201-–208.
21.
KingC. S.. (2011). Government is us, 2.0. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
22.
KingC. S.FelteyK.SuselB. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.
23.
KingC. S.StiversC. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. London: Sage Publications.
24.
KingC. S.ZanettiL. (2008). Transformational public administration: Portraits of theory in practice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
25.
LeuenbergerD.WakinM. (2007). Sustainable development in public administration planning: An exploration of social justice, equity, and citizen inclusion. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29(3), 394–411. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
MariniF. (1971). Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective. New York: Chandler.
28.
McGuireM. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43.
29.
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2008). General information and standards for professional master’s degree programs. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/seeking/reference/standards.asp
30.
HornbeinR.KingC. S.. (2009). NASPAA accreditation standards 2009: Defining quality in public affairs education. Retrieved from www.naspaa.org/accreditation/standard2009/goal.asp
31.
O’LearyR.BinghamL. B. (2009). The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
32.
OsbourneD.HutchinsonP. (2004). The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent fiscal crisis. New York: Basic Books.
33.
OwenA. L.ViderasJ.WillemsenC. (2008). Democracy, participation, and life satisfaction. Social Science Quarterly,. 89(4), 987-–1005.
34.
PopovichM. G. (1998). Creating high-performance government organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
RandallV. R. (2009). The three types of learning. Retrieved from http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/health/Unit01/lesson01b.htm
36.
RimmermanC. A. (2010). The New Citizenship: Unconventional politics, activism, and service (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
37.
RobertsN.. (2008). The age of direct citizen participation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
38.
RohrJ. A.ChandlerR. C. (1984). Civil servants and second-class citizens. Public Administration Review, 44 (Special Issue: Citizenship and Public Administration), 135–143.
39.
SchachterH. L.AliagaM. (2003). Educating administrators to interact with citizens: A research note. Public Organization Review, 3(2), 191–200.
40.
SchooleyS. (2008). Appreciative democracy: The feasibility of using appreciative inquiry at the local government level by public administrators to increase citizen participation. Public Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 243–281.
41.
StiversC. (1990). The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in the Administrative State. Administration and Society, 22(1), 86–105.
42.
SvaraJ.DenhardtJ. (2010). The connected community. In SvaraJ.DenhardtJ., Connected Communities: Local Governments as Partners in Citizen Engagement and Community Building. Alliance for Innovation. http://transformgov.org/en/home
43.
Truman School of Public Affairs. (n.d.). About the Truman School of Public Affairs. Retrieved from http://truman.missouri.edu/AboutTSPA
44.
WaldoD. (1948). The administrative state. New York: Ronald Press.
45.
WangX. (2001). Assessing public participation in U. S. cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 24(4), 322–336.
46.
WarrenM. (1992). Democratic theory and self-transformation. The American Political Science Review,. 86(1), 8–23.
47.
YangK.CallahanK. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264.
