Previous research incorporates Habermas’ theory of communicative action with implications of social media for public discourse, yet few studies consider the theory’s relevance and applicability to public administrators. This article addresses this weak link by focusing on the administration legitimacy dilemma. While social media can be useful to public administrators facilitating collaborative interactions with citizens, these platforms are not automatically suited to public participation in governance. Habermas’ theory offers a framework for understanding these possibilities and challenges, as well as adapting social media constructively to administrative practice.
AlbrechtS. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the Internet. Information, Communication, & Society, 9, 62-82.
2.
ArendtH. (1968). Between past and future. New York, NY: Viking.
3.
AustinE. K.CallenJ. C. (2008). Reexamining the role of digital technology in public administration: From devastation to disclosure. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30, 324-341.
4.
BarberB. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California.
5.
BoxR. C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BoxR. C. (2005). Critical theory in public administration. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
7.
BrainardL. A.Derrick-MillsT. (2011). Electronic commons, community policing, and communication. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 383-410.
8.
BreindlY.FrancqP. (2008). Can Web 2.0 applications save e-democracy? A study of how new internet applications may enhance citizen participation in the political process online. International Journal of Electronic Democracy, 1, 14-30.
9.
BretschneiderS. I.MergelI. (2011). Technology and public management information systems. In MenzelD. C.WhiteH. L. (Eds.), The state of public administration: Issues, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 187-203). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
BryerT. A. (2011). The costs of democratization: Social media adaptation challenges within government agencies. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 341-361.
12.
BryerT. A. (in press). Public participation in regulatory decision-making: Cases from regulations.gov. Public Performance Management and Review.
13.
CatlawT. J.HuQ. (2009). Legitimacy and public administration: Constructing the American bureaucratic fields. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 458-481.
14.
ChadwickA. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in the era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9-41.
ChomikA. (2011). Making friends in dark shadows: An examination of the use of social computing strategy within the United States intelligence community since 9/11. Global Media Journal—Canadian Edition, 4(2), 95-113.
17.
DahlbergL. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication, & Society, 4, 615-633.
18.
DryzekJ. S. (1990). Discursive democracy. Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
EliA. B.HutchinsJ. (2010). Intelligence after intellipedia: Improving the push pull balance with a social networking utility. (Information Science and Technology Directorate Research Report No. DTIC-E-TR-2010/05). Belvoir, VA: Defense Technical Information Center.
EssC. (1996). The political computer: Democracy, CMC, and Habermas. In EssC. (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives in computer-mediated communication (pp. 197-230). Albany, NY: SUNY.
22.
FarazmandA. (2012). The future of public administration: Challenges and opportunities—A critical perspective. Administration & Society, 44, 487-517.
FinerH. (1940). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. In FriedrichC. (Ed.), Public policy (pp. 247-275). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
FlyvbjergB. (1998). Rationality and power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
ForesterJ. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
27.
ForesterJ. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
28.
FoxC. J.MillerH. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
FriedrichC. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In FriedrichC. (Ed.), Public policy (pp. 221-245). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
HabermasJ. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
34.
HandL. C.ChingB. D. (2011). “You have one friend request”: An exploration of power and citizen engagement in local governments’ use of social media. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 362-382.
35.
HengM. S. H.de MoorA. (2003). From Habermas’s communicative theory to practice on the internet. Information Systems Journal, 13, 331-352.
36.
HonnethA. (1999). The social dynamics of disrespect: Situating critical theory today. In DewsP. (Ed.), Habermas: A critical reader (pp. 320-337). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
37.
JohnstonE. (2010). Governance infrastructures in 2020. Public Administration Review, 70(Suppl. 1), S122-S128. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02254.x
38.
KakabadseA.KakabadseN. K.KouzminA. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63, 44-60.
39.
KeeneJ.NalbandianJ.O’NeillR.PortilloS.SvaraJ. (2007). How professionals can add value to their communities and organizations. Public Management, 89(2), 32-39.
40.
KellnerD. (2000). Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy: A critical intervention. In HahnL. E. (Ed.), Perspectives on Habermas (pp. 259-287). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
41.
KellyT. (2004). Unlocking the iron cage: Public administration in the deliberative democracy theory of Jürgen Habermas. Administration and Society, 36, 38-61. doi:10.1177/0095399703257268
42.
KentM. L.TaylorM. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24, 321-334.
43.
KhanM. Z.GilaniI. S.NawazA. (2012). From Habermas model to new public sphere: A paradigm shift. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12(5), 43-51.
44.
KingC. S.StiversC. (1998). Government is Us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
MacphersonC. B. (1977). The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46.
MargoM. J. (2012). A review of social media use in e-government. Administrative Sciences, 2, 148-161.
47.
McSwiteO. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MergelI.BretschneiderS. I. (2013). A three-staged adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73, 390-400.
50.
NalbandianJ. (2005). Professionals and the conflicting forces of administrative modernization and civic engagement. The American Review of Public Administration, 35, 311-326. doi:10.1177/0275074005279897
NorrisD. F. (2010). E-government 2020: Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose. Public Administration Review, 70(Suppl. 1), S180-S181. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02269.x
53.
ParkinsonJ. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
PatemanC. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
PetrikK. (2010). Deliberation and collaboration in the policy process: A Web 2.0 approach. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 2, 18-27.
56.
RobertsN. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34, 315-353.
SpicerM. W.TerryL. D. (1993). Legitimacy, history, and logic: Public administration and the constitution. Public Administration Review, 53, 239-246.
60.
StillmanP. G. (1974). The concept of legitimacy. Polity, 7, 32-56.
61.
StoutM. (2013). The logics of legitimacy: Three traditions of public administration praxis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
62.
WallnerJ. (2008). Legitimacy and public policy: Seeing beyond effectiveness, efficiency, and performance. The Policy Studies Journal, 36, 421-443.
63.
WamsleyG. L.BacherR. N.GoodsellC. T.KronenbergP. S.RohrJ. A.StiversC. M.. . .WolfJ. A., (1990). Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64.
WarrenK. F. (1993). We have debated ad nauseum the legitimacy of the administrative state—but why?Public Administration Review, 53, 249-254.
65.
WatersR. D.WilliamsJ. M. (2011). Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs. doi:10.1002/pa.385
66.
WeberM. (1946). Bureaucracy. In WeberM.GerthH. H.MillsC. W. (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 196-244). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
WestD. M. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
68.
WhiteS. K. (1995). The Cambridge companion to Habermas. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
69.
WooleyK. (2010). Collaboration: The new default setting. The Public Manager, 36(1), 17-19.
70.
WrightS. (2006). Government-run online discussion fora: Moderation, censorship, and the shadow of control. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8, 550-568.
71.
ZavattaroS. (2013). Social media in public administration’s future: A response to Farazmand. Administration & Society, 45, 242-255.
