This article reports on the results of a study of innovation in programs and practices on the part of city and county governments in four western states. The objective of the research was to identify any patterns or “profiles” of innovative and noninnovative behavior that might serve the interest of promoting the “reinvention of government” at the local level. An unanticipated finding concerning how “innovation” is perceived emerged when a quantitative, four-state survey was followed up with an intensive study of six matched jurisdictions (small cities/towns) in the state of Washington. The implications of this finding for the conduct of community-oriented research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ban, C. , & Riccucci, N. (1993). Personnel systems and labor relations: Steps toward a quiet revitalization. In F. M. Thompson (Ed.), Revitalizing state and local public service: Strengthening performance, accountability, and citizen confidence (pp. 71-103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Bernard, H. R. (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Clarke, S. E. (Ed.). (1989). Urban innovation and autonomy: Political implications of policy change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Clinton, B. , & Gore, A. (1992). Putting people first. New York: Times Books.
5.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
Dionne, E. J., Jr. (1991). Why Americans hate politics. New York: Simon & Schuster.
7.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Golden, O. (1990). Innovation in public sector human services programs: The implications of innovation by “groping along.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(2), 219-248.
9.
Harkness, P. A. (1992). The impulse to innovate. Governing, 6(10), 34-43.
10.
King, G. , Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
12.
Lambright, W. H. , Teich, A., & Carroll, J. (1977). Adoption and utilization of urban technology: A decision-making study (Grant No. RDA-75-19704). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Research Corporation.
13.
Lester, J. P. , & Webber, D. J. (1990, March). The utilization of policy analysis by state agency officials: A comparative analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, Ft. Worth, TX.
14.
Lineberry, R. L. (1977). American public policy: What government does and what difference it makes. New York: Harper and Row.
15.
Lovrich, N. P. , Andranovich, G., & Faas, R. C. (1992). Innovative program and management practices in rural and smaller local governments: Survey results from Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. Pullman: Washington State University, Program for Local Government Education.
16.
March, J. G. , & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
17.
Mohr, L. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, 63(1), 111-126.
18.
National Commission on the State and Local Public Service . (1993). Hard truths/tough choices: An agenda for state and local reform. In F. J. Thompson (Ed.), Revitalizing state and local public service: Strengthening performance, accountability, and citizen confidence (pp. 326-426). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Osborne, D. (1990). Laboratories of democracy: A new breed of governor creates models for national growth (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
20.
Osborne, D. , & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Ripley, R. B. , & Franklin, G. A. (1984). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
23.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
24.
Rubin, I. S. (1985). Shrinking the federal government: The effect of cutbacks on five federal agencies. New York: Longman.
25.
Sanger, M. B. , & Levin, M. A. (1992). Using old stuff in new ways: Innovation as a case of evolutionary tinkering. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(1), 88-115.
26.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles (Vol. 1). New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
Singleton, R. Jr. , Straits, B. C., Straits, M. M., & McAllister, R. J. (1988). Approaches to social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
Thompson, V. A. (1969). Bureaucracy and innovation. University, AL: University of Alabama.
29.
Thompson, F. J. (1993). Revitalizing state and local public service: Strengthening performance, accountability, and citizen confidence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Walker, J. (1969). The diffusion of innovation among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
31.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
32.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
Zaltman, G. , Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.
