How do politicians see constituencies? Various academics have furnished elected officials with effective evidence of activities on the assumption that “better” information inevitably leads to better decisions. I propose we consider official information as seeings. I discuss how constituencies are seen or made sense of in a municipal scrutiny committee meeting in England. Using the notion of “affordance,” I will discuss not only how official evidence affords a perspective but also how that perspective is not reflective of the full spectrum of evidence that decision-makers may rely on to perform effectively.
AucoinP. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes, and pendulums. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 3, 115-137.
7.
AustinJ. L. (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. London, England: Oxford University Press.
8.
BartonA.SquireG.PattersonM. (2009). Screening and brief intervention for alcohol use in a custody suite: The shape of things to come?Social Policy and Society, 8, 463-473.
9.
BeckerH. (1963). Outsiders. New York, NY: The Free Press.
10.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63, 586-606.
11.
BerridgeV.ThomB. (1996). Research and policy: What determines the relationship?Policy Studies, 17, 23-34.
12.
BevirM. (2011). Democratic governance: A genealogy. Local Government Studies, 37, 3-17.
13.
BoehmM.BowmanD.ZinnJ. O. (2013). Survey research and the production of evidence for social policy. Social Policy and Society, 12, 309-318.
14.
BourdeauxC. (2008). Politics versus professionalism: The effect of institutional structure on democratic decision making in a contested policy arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 349-373.
15.
CaplanN. (1979). The two communities: Theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459-470.
16.
ChamblissW. (1973). The saints and the roughnecks. Society, 11, 24-31.
17.
ChilcoatH. D.AnthonyJ. C. (1996). Impact of parent monitoring on initiation of drug use through late childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 91-100.
18.
ClarenceE. (2002). Technocracy reinvented: The new evidence-based policy movement. Public Policy and Administration, 17, 1-11.
19.
CoeC. (1999). Local government benchmarking: Lessons from two major multigovernment efforts. Public Administration Review, 59, 110-123.
20.
DrewP. (1978). Accusations: The use of member’s knowledge of “religious geography” in describing events. Sociology, 12, 1-22.
21.
FayardA.WeeksJ. (2007). Photocopiers and water-coolers: The affordances of informal interaction. Organization Studies, 28, 605-634.
22.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
GarfinkelH. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
24.
GibsonJ. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
HeadB. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67, 1-11.
33.
HeritageJ. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1-29.
34.
HerringR.BerridgeV.ThomB. (2008). Binge drinking: An exploration of a confused concept. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62, 476-479.
35.
HoodC. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing government services. Public Administration Review, 66, 515-521.
36.
HutchbyI. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441-556.
37.
JasanoffS. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
JasanoffS. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In JasanoffS. (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1-12). London, England: Routledge.
39.
JenningsE. T.Jr.HallJ. L. (2011). Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 245-266.
40.
JordanA.ScottA. (2006). The coordination of the European Union: Exploring the capacities of networked governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
KandelD. B. (1990). Parenting styles, drug use, and children’s adjustment in families of young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 183-196.
42.
KlihnE.EdelenbosJ.SteijnB. (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Administration & Society, 42, 193-221.
43.
Knorr-CetinaK. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
44.
KuhnT. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
47.
LindblomC. (1959). The science of “muddling through.”Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
48.
LindblomC. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517-526.
49.
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
50.
LlewellynN.HindmarshJ. (2010). Organization, interaction and practice studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
LlewellynN.SpenceL. (2009). Practice as a member’s phenomenon. Organization Studies, 30, 1419-1439.
52.
LynchM. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a laboratory. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
53.
LynchM. (2004). Circumscribing expertise: Membership categories in courtroom testimony. In JasanoffS. (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 161-180). London, England: Routledge.
54.
MacAndrewC.EdgertonR. B. (1969). Drunken comportment: A social explanation. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
55.
MacAndrewC.GarfinkelH. (1962). A consideration of changes attributed to intoxication as common-sense reasons for getting drunk. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 23, 252-266.
56.
MairM. (2010). Disorder, participation and the state: An ethnomethodological investigation of the governance of antisocial behaviour in a peripheral English housing estate (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester, UK.
57.
MartinD.BowersJ.WastellD. (1997). The interactional affordances of technology: An ethnography of human–computer interaction in an ambulance control centre. In Proceedings of the HCI’97 on People and Computers XII (pp. 263-281).London, UK: Springer.
58.
MartinD.SommervilleI. (2004). Patterns of cooperative interaction: Linking ethnomethodology and design. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, 11, 59-89.
59.
MiettinenR.Samra-FredricksD.YannowD. (2009). Re-turn to practice: An introductory essay. Organization Studies, 30, 1309-1327.
60.
ModellS. (2004). Performance measurement myths in the public sector: A research note. Financial Accountability & Management, 20, 39-55.
61.
MooreS. T. (1987). The theory of street-level bureaucracy: A positive critique. Administration & Society, 19, 74-94.
62.
NyholmI.HaveriA. (2009). Between government and governance—Local solutions for reconciling representative government and network governance. Local Government Studies, 35, 109-124.
63.
OrcuttJ. D. (1978). Normative definitions of intoxicated states: A test of several sociological theories. Social Problems, 24, 385-396.
64.
PielkeR. A.Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
65.
PorterT. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
ProvanK. G.BeaglesJ. E.MerkenL.LeischowS. J. (2012). Awareness of evidence-based practices by organizations in a publicly funded smoking cessation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 133-153.
67.
RawlsA. W. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29, 701-732.
68.
RobinsG.BatesL.PattisonP. (2011). Networked governance and environmental management: Conflict and cooperation. Public Administration, 89, 1293-1313.
69.
RodriguezC.LangleyA.BelandF.DenisJ. (2007). Governance, power, and mandated collaboration in an interorganizational network. Administration & Society, 39, 150-193.
70.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1 and 2). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
71.
SandersonI. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning, and evidence based policy making. Public Administration, 80, 1-22.
72.
SchegloffE. A.JeffersonG.SacksH. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
73.
SchoenebornD. (2013). The pervasive power of PowerPoint: How a genre of professional communication permeates organizational communication. Organization Studies, 34, 1777-1801.
74.
ScottJ. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
75.
SharrockW. W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In TunerR. (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 45-53). Middlesex, UK: Penguin Education.
76.
SharrockW. W.CoulterJ. (1998). On what we can see. Theory & Psychology, 8, 147-164.
77.
SiltalaJ. (2013). New public management: The evidence based worst practice?Administration & Society, 45, 468-493.
78.
StannardT. (2011). A “fruitless obsession with accuracy”: The uses of sensemaking in public sector performance management. Local Government Studies, 37, 335-353.
79.
StevensA. (2007a). Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society, 6, 25-35.
80.
StevensA. (2007b). The Politico’s guide to local government (2nd ed.). London, England: Politico’s.
81.
ValverdeM. (2003). Targeted governance and the problem of desire. In EriconsR. V.DoyleA. (Eds.), Risk and morality (pp. 438-458). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
82.
ValverdeM. (2011). Seeing like a city: The dialectic of modern and premodern ways of seeing in urban governance. Law & Society Review, 45, 277-312.
83.
van DijkS.BerendsH.JelinekM.RommeA. G. L.WeggemanM. (2011). Micro-institutional affordances and strategies of radical innovation. Organization Studies, 32, 1485-1513.
WeberM. (1947). The types of authority and the imperative of co-ordination. In ParsonsT. (Ed.), Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization (pp. 324-416). New York, NY: The Free Press.
86.
WeberM. (1948). Bureaucracy. In GerthH. H.MillsC. W. (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 196-244). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
87.
WeberM. (2004). Politics as a vocation. In OwenD.StrongT. B. (Eds.), Max Weber: The vocation lectures (pp. 32-94). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
88.
WechslerH.KuoM. (2000). College students define binge drinking and estimate its prevalence: Results of a national survey. Journal of American College Health, 49, 57-64.
89.
WeissC. H.Murphy-GrahamE.PetrosinoA.GhandiA. G. (2008). The fairy godmother and her warts: Making the dream of evidence-based policy come true. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 29-47.
90.
WinchG. M.MaytorenaE. (2009). Making good sense: Assessing the quality of risky decision making. Organization Studies, 30, 181-203.
91.
WinchP. (1958). The idea of a social science: And its relation to philosophy. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
