The influence of digital technology on the public sector necessitates the diffusion of new professional knowledge and skills. Approaches to education and training are needed that engage with complex societal challenges of digital technology and that do this by drawing and combining insights from, different scientific perspectives. This approach, which could be referred to as transdisciplinarity, may be an effective strategy for training a new generation of public sector professionals in digital governance. However, this subject has not yet been given much theoretical attention. The present study undertakes a scoping review of 73 articles and book chapters, focusing on existing scholarly approaches to digital public governance education and their connection to core themes of transdiciplinarity. It then theorizes ways that these can be addressed in educational programs in higher education. The analysis results in a framework focused on (1) conceptualizations, (3) learning styles and learning content and (3) existing limitations of the literature on transdisciplinarity in digital public governance education.
AndrewsL. (2019). Public administration, public leadership and the construction of public value in the age of the algorithm and ‘big data’. Public Administration, 97(2), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12534
2.
ArkseyH.O'malleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
3.
BannykhG.KostinaS.ZaitsevaE. (2023). Overview of the practice of training civil servants in post-Soviet countries in the context of digitalization. Teaching Public Administration, 42(3), 308–330.
4.
Beckett-CamarataJ. (2007). Using critical thinking in a web-based public budgeting course. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(5), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701206093
5.
BernsteinJ. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11, 1.
6.
BevirM. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
7.
BrandleS. M. (2018). Opening up to OERs: Electronic original sourcebook versus traditional textbook in the introduction to American government course. Journal of Political Science Education, 14(4), 535–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2017.1420482
8.
BrownD. (2005). Electronic government and public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852305053883
9.
ChristianP. C.DavisT. J. (2016). Revisiting the information technology skills gap in master of public administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002238
10.
CiarliT.KenneyM.MassiniS.PiscitelloL. (2021). Digital technologies, innovation, and skills: Emerging trajectories and challenges. Research Policy, 50(7), 104289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104289
11.
DawesS. S.CresswellA. M.PardoT. A. (2009). From “need to know” to “need to share”: Tangled problems, information boundaries, and the building of public sector knowledge networks. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.01987_2.x
12.
DrechslerW. (2022). Public administration studies: The digital trajectory. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, (s), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.SI2022.4
13.
DunleavyP.MargettsH. (2025). Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2), 185–124.
14.
ExmeyerP. C.BodenD. (2020). The 8-bit bureaucrat: Can video games teach us about administrative ethics?Public Integrity, 22(5), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2020.1731056
15.
GanapatiS.ReddickC. G. (2016). An ostrich burying its head in the sand? The 2009 NASPAA standards and scope of information technology and E-government curricula. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002245
16.
GoldfinchS. (2007). Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00778.x
17.
HardyC. A.WilliamsS. P. (2011). Assembling e-government research designs: A transdisciplinary view and interactive approach. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02361.x
18.
HaugN.DanS.MergelI. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
19.
HeatonD.NicheleE.ClosJ.FischerJ. E. (2023). “The algorithm will screw you”: Blame, social actors and the 2020 A level results algorithm on twitter. Plos one, 18(7), e0288662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288662
20.
HuQ. (2022). Preparing public managers for the digital era: Incorporating information management, use, and technology into public affairs graduate curricula. In Gil-GarciaJ. R.DawesS. S.PardoT. A. (Eds.), Digital government and public management (pp. 134–155). Routledge.
21.
Jakoet-SalieA.RamalobeK. (2023). The digitalization of learning and teaching practices in higher education institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching Public Administration, 41(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394221092275
22.
KaufmanD.MossD.OsbornT. A. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond the boundaries: A transdisciplinary approach to learning and teaching. Bloomsbury.
KleinJ. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S116–S123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010
25.
LawrenceR. J. (2010). Deciphering interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary contributions. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1. https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0003
26.
MacintoshA.GordonT. F.RentonA. (2009). Providing argument support for e-participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680802662113
27.
MancillasL. K.BrusoeP. W. (2016). Born digital: Integrating media technology in the political science classroom. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(4), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2015.1096792
28.
ManoharanA. P.McQuistonJ. (2016). Technology and pedagogy: Information technology competencies in public administration and public policy programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002239
29.
ManoharanA. P.RangarajanN. (2023). Communication pedagogy in public affairs programs: Insights from a study of MPA and MPP curricula. Teaching Public Administration, 41(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394221084492
30.
MeijerA.IngramsA.ZouridisS. (2022). Public management in an information age: Towards strategic public information management. Bloomsbury Publishing.
31.
MeijerA. J.EttlingerK. (2025). Transdisciplinary public administration research: Developing and testing a model for transdisciplinary knowledge integration in the public sector. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 8(2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf009
32.
MuR.WangH. (2022). A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: Comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Management Review, 24(4), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1838787
33.
NegroponteN. (2015). Being digital. Vintage.
34.
NewswanderL. K.NewswanderC. B. (2012). Encouraging cognitive flexibility and interdisciplinarity in public administration programs. Administration & Society, 44(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711413073
35.
NiA. Y.ChenY. C. (2016). A conceptual model of information technology competence for public managers: Designing relevant MPA curricula for effective public service. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002241
NissaniM. (1997). Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. The Social Science Journal, 34(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(97)90051-3
38.
NurlybaevaG. (2022). The creation of international collaborative governance discourse during the process of teaching vocabulary at the university. Teaching Public Administration, 40(3), 422–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394211058165
39.
NurlybaevaG. K. (2023). The experience of teaching public administration in Russia during the pandemic in 2020–2021. Teaching Public Administration, 41(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394221087885
40.
OsborneS. P.RadnorZ.NasiG. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935
41.
PedersenD.TangkjærC. (2013). Building leadership capacity in the involving network state. Teaching Public Administration, 31(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739413478963
42.
PeetersR.WidlakA. C. (2023). Administrative exclusion in the infrastructure-level bureaucracy: The case of the Dutch daycare benefit scandal. Public Administration Review, 83(4), 863–877.
43.
PericoloE.FedeleP.IacuzziS.PauluzzoR.GarlattiA. (2023). Public sector accounting education: International trends and Italian curricula. Public Money & Management, 43(7), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2023.2249247
44.
RiccucciN. M. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Georgetown University Press.
45.
Rodriguez MüllerA. P.Casiano FloresC.AlbrechtV.SteenT.CrompvoetsJ. (2021). A scoping review of empirical evidence on (digital) public services co-creation. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040130
46.
SaninaA.KuterginaE.BalashovA. (2020). The co-creative approach to digital simulation games in social science education. Computers & Education, 149, 103813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103813
47.
ScharffR. C.StoneD. A. (2022). Transdisciplinarity without method: On being interdisciplinary in a technoscientific world. Human Studies, 45(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-021-09616-0
48.
ShorttD.RobsonB.SabatM. (2020, January). Bridging the digital skills gap. Public Policy Forum.
49.
SinervoL. M.KorkA. A.HasanenK. (2023). Challenges in curriculum development process aimed at revising the capabilities of future public financial managers. Teaching Public Administration, 41(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394211051878
50.
TakeuchiM. A.SenguptaP.ShanahanM. C.AdamsJ. D.HachemM. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1755802
51.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O'BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.McGowanJ.StewartL.HartlingL.AldcroftA.WilsonM. G.GarrittyC.StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
52.
TummersL.RoccoP. (2015). Serving clients when the server crashes: How frontline workers cope with E-government challenges. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12379
53.
TursunbayevaA.FrancoM.PagliariC. (2017). Use of social media for e-government in the public health sector: A systematic review of published studies. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.04.001
54.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2. UNESCO.
55.
Van LaarE.Van DeursenA. J.Van DijkJ. A.De HaanJ. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
56.
WilliamsonB. (2016). Political computational thinking: Policy networks, digital governance and ‘learning to code’. Critical Policy Studies, 10(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1052003
57.
World Economic Forum, J. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. WEF.
58.
YeungE.CarlinL.SandassieS.JaglalS. (2021). Transdisciplinary training: What does it take to address today’s “wicked problems”?Innovation and Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42862-021-00011-1
