Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-sor in the School o.docx

Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-
sor in the School of Public, Nonprofi t and
Health Administration at Grand Valley State
University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His
research examines the interplay between
bureaucracy and democracy, with particular
interest in the impacts of administra-
tive decision processes on the perceived
legitimacy of governance structures. His
work focuses mainly on state and local
governments.
E-mail: [email protected]
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License,
which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, 573
the use is non-commercial and no modifi cations or adaptations
are made.
Public Administration Review,

Vol. 74, Iss. 5, pp. 573–584. © 2014
The Authors. Public Administration Review
published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on
behalf of The American Society for Public
Administration. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12217.
Neal D. Buckwalter
Grand Valley State University
Th is article develops a better theoretical understanding
of the linkage between the processes and outcomes associ-
ated with government-organized public participation,
including its potential to empower citizens in guiding
administrative decisions. Special focus is given to those
factors that shape the development
and maintenance of the citizen–
administrator relationship. To this
end, the research examines the
work of federally mandated citizen
review panels and their interac-
tions with state child protection
agency administrators. Based on
52 in-depth interviews conducted
with citizens and administrators
in three U.S. states, a grounded
theory approach is employed to derive a series of test-
able theoretical propositions. Th e insights gained are of
importance not only to public administration scholars but
also to citizens and administrators who engage one another
through formally organized channels of participation.
Public administration scholars and practitioners have long

grappled with the prospects of bal-ancing democracy’s aims at
openness and public
inclusion with bureaucracy’s focus on effi ciency and
expertise. A better understanding of these tensions
has become increasingly important as a wide range of
citizen participation opportunities have emerged dur-
ing the past half century, many of which have sought
to bring citizens to a more infl uential position relative
to administration (Arnstein 1969; Kweit and Kweit
1981; Roberts 2004; Th omas 1995). Broadly speak-
ing, citizen participation mechanisms are categorized
as either citizen driven or government organized
(Simonsen and Robbins 2000; Wandersman 1984).
Th e latter is the focus of this article, and it is most
often the result of legislative mandate; thus, it is at
times referred to as mandated participation.
Under the auspices of a vast regime of intergov-
ernmental grants, the U.S. federal government has
over the past 50 years increasingly linked funding
eligibility, at least in part, to the recipient jurisdiction’s
willingness and ability to facilitate public involve-
ment. Even with such provisions for participation,
the recipient subnational government (i.e., state or
locality) often retains signifi cant discretion to interpret
and implement the provisions
for increased public inclusion.
In other words, once public par-
ticipation has been mandated,
the choice for administrators
is not necessarily whether to
include the public but rather
how inclusive to be in terms
of quality of interaction and

potential for impact.
Government-Mandated Citizen Participation
Th e modern origins of mandated participation in
the United States reach back to the mid-twentieth
century, a pivotal time in the development of direct
citizen inclusion in policy making and implementa-
tion (Roberts 2004). Two concurrent trends made
this possible. Not only was the scope of government
responsibility growing, but also a notable decline in
public trust in traditional governing institutions was
beginning. Th ese conditions fueled the rising interest
in more direct citizen involvement, including diff er-
ent varieties of government-sponsored participation
(Simonsen and Robbins 2000).
In the 1960s, the Community Action Programs of
Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty emphasized
“maximum feasible participation.” Mandated public
involvement was further institutionalized during
the 1970s with the expansion of federal grant-in-aid
programs to states and localities. By 1978, public
participation requirements were featured prominently
in 155 separate grant programs, which accounted
for more than four out of every fi ve dollars of federal
grant funds (ACIR 1979). Despite recognition of
the challenges to measuring its eff ectiveness (Rosener
1978), the number of policy areas with direct citizen
involvement has ballooned far beyond community
Th e Potential for Public Empowerment through
Government-Organized Participation
Th e choice for administrators
is not necessarily whether to
include the public but rather

how inclusive to be in terms
of quality of interaction and
potential for impact.
574 Public Administration Review • September | October 2014
as their level of responsiveness to citizen input (Bryer 2007,
2009;
Yang and Callahan 2007).
A number of conceptual and empirical studies have examined
fac-
tors that purportedly impact administrative responsiveness to
direct
public participation. Robert and Mary Kweit (1980)
hypothesized
that the closer citizen involvement aligns with bureaucratic
forms
and goals, the more facilitative and responsive administrators
will be
to citizen input. Further, they suggested that administrative
toler-
ance for public involvement is a by-product of the resources
that
citizens are perceived to bring to the table, so to speak, as well
as the
environmental contexts, pressures, and constraints under which
the
participation processes emerge. Empirical evidence lends
support.
For example, stakeholder pressure, such as that from elected
offi cials
(Yang and Callahan 2007) or, more broadly, from media-driven

public opinion (Yang and Pandey 2007), has shown positive
associa-
tion with bureaucratic openness to public involvement.
Effi ciency and expertise are important administrative values to
consider for their eff ects on bureaucratic responsiveness
(Kaufman
1956). Not only does the engagement of citizens lengthen
decision
processes, but also citizen-participants are often perceived by
admin-
istrators as lacking the technical expertise required to address
major
public concerns (Hadden 1981; Stewart 2007). Th is may cause
administrators to grapple with how to balance their own
expertise
with the input provided by the public, ultimately weighing
citizen
interactions in terms of the costs and benefi ts involved. Irvin
and
Stansbury (2004) found that administrators were more likely to
per-
ceive lower costs of information sharing when the information
was
less technical in nature or when the capacity of citizen-
participants
was suffi ciently high that they required less help in
understanding
it. On the side of benefi t, administrators may consider
meaningful
public inclusion a means to strengthen perceptions of the
legitimacy
for governance mechanisms (Moynihan 2003). Even so, positive
disposition of administrators toward participation has been
found
to be strongly tempered by time and resource constraints (Yang

and
Callahan 2007).
In his examination of citizen–administrator interactions in Los
Angeles neighborhood councils, Th omas Bryer (2009)
highlighted
an increase in responsiveness when there was a relationship of
trust,
when there was a sense of goal alignment between citizens and
administrators, and when there was a willingness on the part of
administrators to learn from the citizens. Th is raises the
question
of how to identify and pursue more unifying eff orts that would
facilitate these conditions, especially when the mandate for
citizen
involvement so often emerges in an environ-
ment of low trust in government and when
participation is seen as an additional check
against administrative misbehavior. Such an
environment may foster and perpetuate an
adversarial relationship, which would work
against trust-building eff orts.
Th e existing literature has focused much more
on administrator willingness to structure
participation processes (i.e., formal empower-
ment), with much less theory development
as to how those processes move toward
planning to include state energy policy (Timney 1998), public
health and AIDS prevention (Foley 1998), transportation
planning
(Kathlene and Martin 1991), environmental protection (Rich et
al.
1995), and watershed management (Irvin and Stansbury 2004),

to
name just a few.
Research suggests that some forms of participation are more
con-
ducive to public empowerment (i.e., public impact) than others,
although widespread agreement on these outcomes has been
elusive.
For example, one of the most common participation
mechanisms—
the public hearing—is frequently denigrated for its ineff
ectiveness
and the ease with which it is so often subverted by
administrators
(Innes and Booher 2004; King, Feltey, and Susel 1998).
However,
variations of the public hearing format have been hailed as
highly
successful in certain contexts (Moynihan 2003), such as when
steps
are taken by managers to meaningfully invite public attendance
(Hock, Anderson, and Potoski 2013), and especially when such
processes approximate true deliberation rather than being
treated as
formality (Lukensmeyer and Brigham 2005). Similar
counterbalanc-
ing arguments have been made about the use of citizen boards
or
community panels (Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer 1986; Houghton
1988; Kathlene and Martin 1991).
Seeking a Link between Citizens and Administrators
In what is still one of the most-cited typologies of citizen par-
ticipation, Sherry Arnstein (1969) described a range of citi-
zen–administrator interactions as representing various rungs on
a ladder. As one progresses up the ladder, the public becomes

increasingly involved, fi rst in manipulated or “token” ways
but with greater citizen control manifest at the highest rungs.
Subsequent treatments of participation models have adapted
similar characterizations. For example, Mary Timney (2011)
recently developed a 10-point scorecard of participation
methods
ranging from unitary, passive models in which agencies control
the
participation process to more inclusive, active models of
increased
citizen consideration. Such models provide a useful framework
for understanding the potential for public empowerment through
participation.
Administrators play a dual role in public empowerment, infl
uenc-
ing both its processes and its outcomes. First, they help create
the
conditions for empowerment by shaping the venues in which the
public participates and by providing information and other
critical
resources to build participant effi cacy. Th is is what the
commu-
nity psychology literature describes as formal and instrumental
empowerment, the former referring to citizen access to
participation
processes and the latter being the “individual’s
actual capacity for participating in and infl u-
encing a decision-making process” (Rich et al.
1995, 667). Second, administrators infl uence
the outcomes of participation, or “substantive
empowerment” (Rich et al. 1995, 668), by
working together with the public to make and
then carry out eff ective decisions. Th erefore,
the processes and outcomes of empowerment
are directly impacted by the administrator’s

willingness to blend more democratic means
with dominant administrative values and
goals (King, Feltey, and Susel 1998), as well
Th ere is a need for under-
standing how processes link
with outcomes, how par-
ticipation mechanisms shape
citizen capacity, and how these
phenomena interact with
administrator responsiveness
to move toward substantive
empowerment.
The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-
Organized Participation 575
to receive CAPTA grant funds, states would now be required to
establish a minimum of three citizen review panels (CRPs) with
the specifi c role of providing systemic evaluation of state child
protection policy and practice. So as not to overburden states
with
the requirement, the legislation included provisions allowing
the
use of already-existing citizen boards (e.g., child fatality review
teams and/or foster care review boards) to meet the CRP
require-
ment; states could decide to support the creation of new panels
or not. Th ese CRPs were to be composed of citizen volunteers,
with a membership broadly representative of the community it

served but also including individuals with some level of
expertise
in child welfare. Importantly, the CRPs would meet regularly,
and
their activities and recommendations for agency improvements
would be documented in an annual public report. States would
be
under obligation to provide adequate assistance in order for
panels
to perform their functions, including staff support and access to
necessary information. While this more targeted approach to
public
inclusion moved closer toward a potentially empowered public,
it
lacked a crucial element, namely, the ability to gauge
administrative
response.
CAPTA was again reauthorized in 2003 as the Keeping Children
and Families Safe Act (P.L. 108-36). One signifi cant change
was
that state agency administrators were now required to respond
to
the CRP’s annual report of recommendations within six months,
acknowledging and detailing how they intended to address item-
ized concerns. Although the state is not
obliged to implement the recommendations
of the CRP, their written responses give the
panels a chance to assess the citizen-partici-
pants’ substantive empowerment. With wide
variation in state responsiveness to these
citizen groups, there exists a range of possible
empowerment outcomes.
empowered outcomes (i.e., substantive empowerment). As

visualized
in fi gure 1, there exists a sort of black box between
participation
structures/processes and the impacts of direct citizen
involvement.
Th ere is a need for understanding how processes link with out-
comes, how participation mechanisms shape citizen capacity,
and
how these phenomena interact with administrator
responsiveness to
move toward substantive empowerment. Th e next section
describes
the policy context in which the present research is framed to
begin
fi lling these gaps in our understanding of public empowerment
through mandated participation.
Research Context and Design
In recent years, state child protection as a policy area has
experi-
enced a number of important reforms that make it a natural
context
in which to study elements of public empowerment. Of
particular
interest are various provisions accompanying the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as shown in fi gure 2.
Originally passed in 1974, CAPTA made some (albeit limited)
grant funding available to encourage states to begin more
systematic
eff orts to examine and address child maltreatment. Th e
legislation
established parameters for defi ning abuse and neglect,
promoted the
tracking and measurement of these phenomena through a central
data clearinghouse, and encouraged states to conform their
manda-

tory reporting requirements to a federal standard. Th ese
require-
ments for information gathering and dissemination represent a
partial step in the direction of potential public empowerment by
increasing the public’s ability to access infor-
mation about child abuse.
In 1996, however, a reauthorization of
CAPTA (P.L. 104-235) made signifi cant steps
toward public empowerment by mandating
greater citizen involvement in state child
protection policy and practice. In order
Substantive Empowerment
Decisions leading to desired outcomes
Formal Empowerment
Mechanism for public involvement
Participant
Capacity
Capacity for influencing
decisions
Administrator
Responsiveness
Willingness to engage
and share power
???
Agency Openness to
Participation

(e.g., tolerance for participation,
perceived benefits/costs)
Figure 1 The Black Box of Public Empowerment
With wide variation in state
responsiveness to these citizen
groups, there exists a range
of possible empowerment
outcomes.
predictors of perceived eff ectiveness in impacting child welfare
policy and practices have been noted, including the level of
group
cohesion, the level of information fl ow between the state
agency and
the CRP, and the degree of perceived self-governance (i.e.,
auton-
omy) by the panels (Bryan, Jones, and Lawson 2010).
Methodology
Within a grounded theory framework, the present research
employs a
qualitative multicase analysis of citizen–agency relationships in
three
U.S. states. Th e rationale for selecting this methodology was to
allow
the researcher to more deeply examine relationships and
interactions
within the contexts in which they occur. Data collection,

coding,
categorization, and theory development were engaged
concurrently.
Th e principal benefi t of such an approach is its fl exibility in
allow-
ing unforeseen themes and patterns to emerge from the data,
thus
facilitating theory development (Strauss and Corbin 1998).
Selection Strategy and Criteria
Th ree states were selected for in-depth analysis and case
develop-
ment: Kentucky, Utah, and Pennsylvania. A purposeful selection
strategy was used to ensure diversity among the cases in the
study
and to increase the richness of within- and across-case
comparisons.
Th e logic behind this nonrandom approach to case selection is
a
hallmark of many qualitative studies, in which the aim is less
about
generalization but rather “to select information-rich cases
whose
study will illuminate the questions under study” (Patton 1990,
169). Th e richness of information was amplifi ed by the
selection
of cases with characteristics that were intrinsically interesting
and
informative because of their uniqueness within the study’s
context
(Creswell 1998; Patton 1990; Stake 1995).
In the majority of states, administration of child protective
services
resides in a central child protection agency, with regional or
county

Today, all 50 states have some form of CRP process in place.
Almost
all were compliant by the 1999 deadline, although at least two
states—Indiana (in 2005) and Pennsylvania (in 2006)—lagged
in meeting the CRP requirement. Th ere is wide variation in
how
the states have implemented the rather vague citizen
participation
description in the CAPTA legislation, indicating that some
states
may take the work of the CRPs more seriously than others.
Only recently has the work of CRPs in child welfare been the
focus
of empirical examination, almost exclusively in the social work
literature. Despite its limited scope, the existing research has
shed
light on the characteristics and perceptions of eff ectiveness of
the
CRP process. Demographic surveys of participants indicate that
the
groups are skewed toward participation by highly educated,
middle-
age females (Jones and Royse 2008a). Additionally, a very high
proportion of CRP members come directly from social service
pro-
fessions, although generally outside the state child protection
agency
(Bryan, Jones, and Lawson 2010). Even though these
participants
come with advanced degrees, often including relevant
experience in
professions related to child welfare, customized training is
needed
for them to be eff ective in carrying out the functions of the

CRP.
Th is training becomes particularly important for individuals
with no
experience working within a large bureaucracy such as a state
child
welfare system (Collins-Camargo, Jones, and Krusich 2009).
Aside from training needs, other challenges to the eff ective
work of
CRPs include a lack of funding, a perception of defensive
posturing
by the state agency (Jones and Royse 2008b), a perception of
dis-
trust that characterizes many relationships between the agency
and
the citizen-participants (Collins-Camargo, Jones, and Krusich
2009;
Jones 2004), and a pessimistic view by agency personnel
regarding
the ability of the citizen panels to make informed recommenda-
tions (Jones, Litzelfelner, and Ford (2003). Several strong,
positive
Information Gathering
and Dissemination
Targeting Knowledge
and Inclusiveness
Toward Empowerment
(gauging impact)
National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect
Clearinghouse to collect

and disseminate
information on child
abuse and neglect
Minimum of three
CRPs per state
Office of Child
Abuse and Neglect
Examine state child
protection policy and
procedure
Annual report of panel
recommendations
States to provide
information and
support to panels
Mandatory state response
to recommendations
within six months
and
Additional public
outreach and comment
1974 1996 2003
Figure 2 The Evolution of Empowerment in CAPTA

(Kentucky = 15, Pennsylvania = 16, Utah = 21). On average, the
interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and followed a
guided
discussion format, focusing broadly on perceptions and
experiences
with the panels’ eff orts to shape agency decisions and
outcomes. Th e
data collection process also entailed multiple site visits in each
case
state as well as opportunities for direct observation of panel
training
and activities. Th e interview process continued until no new
data,
or data that were only marginally constructive to new theory,
were
being revealed—a point described as reaching saturation
(Creswell
1998; Strauss and Corbin 1998).
In Kentucky and Utah, one-third of the interviewees were
adminis-
trative representatives of the state child protection agency,
including
regional agencies. In Pennsylvania, fewer state agency
administrators
were interviewed because of the unique child protection
structure,
in which the state Offi ce of Children, Youth and Families
(OCYF)
plays more of a support and monitoring role, while the
individual
counties administer child protective services. To bolster the
limited

administrator perspective, a number of interviews were
conducted
with members of the CRP Subcommittee, a stakeholder group
established and assisted by the OCYF to organize and support
the
citizen review process throughout the state. By including
members
of this group in the interviews, again, one-third of the
interviewees
represented the state agency perspective.
Interviewing and subsequent note transcription was conducted
solely by the researcher. Each set of interview notes was
carefully
transcribed from handwritten to digital format, and open coding
of the responses resulted in the categorization of similar con-
cepts. Conceptual categories were spatially paired on a matrix
and
reordered to see the predominance of themes emerging from the
interviews (Miles and Huberman 1994). Within-case analyses
high-
lighted similarities and distinctions in the structure and
processes
of government-organized citizen participation. Th rough
constant
comparison of data across the cases, the analysis extended to
the
emergence of broader themes from the guided discussions.
In addition to the primary interview data, the research also
made
use of extensive document analysis of publicly available
secondary
resources, including federal and state legislative proceedings,
judicial
rulings, and annual reports of panel activities and state

responses.
Th ese data sources enhanced understanding of the context, tone
of
citizen–administrator interaction, and level of substantive
public
empowerment manifest through formal participation processes.
Furthermore, secondary data allowed confi rmation of insights
revealed through the primary data—an important source of
triangulation in the analysis (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Miles and
Huberman 1994).
Emergent Themes and Testable Propositions
Within- and across-case analyses revealed several important
themes
in regard to the process of moving toward a stronger citizen
voice
in shaping agency decisions. Th ree broad theoretical
propositions
about the potential for government-organized citizen
participation
to empower the public emerged.
1. Th e gap between bureaucratic reality and participant expec-
tations can become a major source of disappointment and
frustration for both citizens and administrators involved.
offi ces acting as extensions (i.e., state administered). In a
smaller
number of states, counties retain signifi cantly greater
discretion in
administering child protection, while the state plays a
supervisory
role (i.e., state supervised, county administered). As a fi rst
criterion,
then, cases were selected to refl ect this variation in local
discretion,

which is believed to impact the ways in which citizen
participation
evolves, based on classifi cation at the Child Welfare
Information
Gateway (2012).
Second, variation was sought in terms of the level of citizen
panel
autonomy, or the ability to self-direct as a group. In theory, less
autonomous citizen groups may fi nd their eff orts being shaped
according to the state agency’s goals rather than directed toward
their own (Houghton 1988). One indicator of CRP autonomy is
the locus of coordination of panel eff orts. Two broad patterns
have
emerged in this regard. Internal coordination, in which a child
protection agency employee oversees the work of the CRPs, has
the potential to reduce panel autonomy, with greater control of
the
citizen groups being left to the agency. On the other hand,
external
coordination by a party separate from the state agency may
increase
panel autonomy, with less control over the process being in the
hands of agency administrators. Cases were selected to refl ect
both
internal and external coordination.
A number of other factors were also considered in selecting the
cases for this study, providing additional opportunities for
variation
and comparison, as shown in table 1 (ordered by sequence of
site
visits and interviews). Because agency openness to participation
is
another key variable relevant to empowerment, cases were
chosen

that had the potential for a range in state response to the
political
mandate to create CRPs. Indicators of state responsiveness in
case
selection include the timing of compliance to the CAPTA
mandate
(immediate or delayed), the number and geographic coverage of
the
panels across the states (limited or comprehensive), whether
states
created new panels or simply used existing citizen groups to
meet
the requirement, whether the state had assigned an agency
liaison to
provide support for the panels, and whether the state had
facilitated
the creation of at least one panel devoted specifi cally to state-
level
policy.
Primary and Secondary Data
Primary original data for the research come from 52 in-depth
personal interviews conducted with state and regional-level
agency administrators and employees, as well as CRP
participants
Table 1 Case Variation on Selection Criteria
Kentucky Utah Pennsylvania
State/county role in child
protective services
State
administered

State
administered
State supervised,
county
administered
Locus of panel
coordination
External Internal External
Timing of compliance Immediate
(1999)
Immediate
(1999)
Delayed (2010)
Number of current CRPs
(as of 2012)
3 8 3
Regional panel coverage Limited Comprehensive Limited
New or existing groups to
meet mandate
New Existing New
Assigned agency liaison Yes Yes Yes
State-level CRP Yes Yes No

a personal “axe to grind” with the agency, this was viewed
widely
across all cases as damaging both the citizen–agency
relationship
and the cohesion between the citizen-participants. Individuals
with
exceptionally strong personal agendas were much more likely to
become frustrated and exit the participation process.
Th e cogent reality of administrative constraints was described
by an
administrator, who said, “Th ere is not generally a lot of wiggle
room
for the [agency]. So many of our guidelines and operating
proce-
dures are dictated by federal and state mandates.” Perhaps the
most
formidable constraint was the ever-present budgetary concern—
the
lack of money to implement new programs or initiate new tech-
nologies. As one panel member acknowledged,
recommendations
that appeared to be “pie in the sky” were most often neglected,
not
because they were undesirable but rather
because they were unfeasible. By tacitly
acknowledging agency constraints, panels can
realistically adjust in advance their expecta-
tions and recommendations in ways that will
maintain a positive tone in the relationship.
One common adjustment in expectations had
to do with the speed of change. As one inter-

viewee noted, “Th e wheels of state govern-
ment turn very slowly.” Because of this, some
panel members observed the panels shifting
from short-term thinking to longer-term
goals, seeing the groups’ eff orts as part of a big-picture process
or
“part of a bigger conversation.” However, for those participants
who
were not content to simply be part of the conversation,
remaining
with the panels was much less likely. Th e more citizens are
able to bal-
ance their pursuit of preferred outcomes with patience for the
process, the
more likely they will continue their involvement. Participant
retention
suff ers as a result of unmet and/or unadjusted expectations.
The mystique (and power) of complexity. In the formal
relationship between the agency and the CRPs, there are two
key
sources of power that the former maintains over the latter. First,
the
agency has statutory and legal authority from the state, which
includes not only the mandate to provide child protective
services
but also the allocation of public resources to do so. Second, and
perhaps less obvious, is the power that comes from being
cloaked in
organizational complexity. In Kentucky, I witnessed one CRP
member concede to the panel coordinator that she could no
longer
participate, in large measure because she found the review
process to
be overly complex and demanding. The initially steep learning

curve, particularly for those with less direct ties to the system,
creates a challenge for the recruitment and retention of panel
members.
While a working knowledge of child welfare was important to
successful panel participation, equally or more important was
the
participants’ willingness to apply themselves in learning about
the
complexities of the child protection system. Th is is no small
task, as
learning ranges from the agency-specifi c dialect and “alphabet
soup”
of government acronyms, to the intricacies of demands fl owing
up
and down through the intergovernmental system, and
horizontally
between intersectoral partners. To achieve this sort of systemic
understanding requires prolonged experience with and exposure
to
2. Th e degree of citizen–administrator interconnectedness
impacts citizens’ feelings of infl uence and empowerment in
the participation process.
3. With legitimate processes in place, the path to empow-
ered outcomes runs through strong citizen–administrator
relationships.
In the discussion that follows, each of these propositions is
explored
in more detail, including a series of testable subpropositions
that
appear in italicized font within the text.
Bureaucratic Realities and Participant Expectations

According to agency administrators, a signifi cant factor shap-
ing the tone of the citizen–administrator relationship is whether
the participating public maintains realistic
expectations for the review process and its
potential outcomes. Fundamentally, this
requires understanding the constraints under
which agency administrators operate and, in
light of these, providing realistic recommen-
dations for agency improvement. Certainly,
this is not to suggest that bureaucratic realities
should not be scrutinized and challenged by
the panels. Th at is, in fact, a key benefi t of the
review process, as noted by interviewees—that
citizens provide an outside perspective and
challenge convention by asking not only how
things are done but also why. Nevertheless, voices from both
sides
underscored the need to be cognizant of constraints.
The balance between passion and patience. Although many
citizen-participants had acquired expertise in fi elds related to
child
welfare, this certainly did not mean that they had a concomitant
understanding of bureaucratic and political structures. While the
source of personal interest in participation varied, one
underlying
characteristic was identifi able across the wide range of
participants,
namely, an expressed, impassioned desire to improve the lives
of
children and families in their state. However, working with a
large
public bureaucracy, infused as it is with the politics of child
welfare,
is often markedly slower and much less fl exible than what
many

citizen-participants initially expect. The resulting gap between
bureaucratic reality and participant expectations can become a
major source disappointment for both the citizens and
administrators involved. Such disappointment can lead, in turn,
to
frustration when participants possess especially strong feelings
or
personal clarity about what they think should be done by an
agency
but do not see as clearly the nuanced reality of what is actually
feasible. This is in line with what the literature has suggested
regarding citizens’ normative expectations (e.g., see James
2011).
At times, preconceived notions caused citizen-participants to
become unbendingly focused on particular issues that they
found
most disconcerting about the agency. Having a “pet issue,”
though,
does not necessarily create a negative tone in the relationship
between the parties involved. However, if an individual brings a
retaliatory mentality based on perceived negative experiences
with
the state (e.g., having one’s own child removed from the home
or
having received poor foster care reviews), the result can be
dramatic.
When the rhetoric takes on a tone of having a “bone to pick” or
According to agency admin-
istrators, a signifi cant factor
shaping the tone of the citizen–
administrator relationship is
whether the participating public

maintains realistic expectations
for the review process and its
potential outcomes.
to secure administrator support for and buy-in to the process. Th
e
panels reported struggling to know where to target their eff orts
and with whom to start the intended dialogue regarding
systemic
improvements—hard enough to do with one administrator, let
alone a dozen.
Eff ective government-organized citizen participation is
facilitated by
the ability of participants to clearly identify relevant
administrative
actors. Th is means that it is useful to keep the number of
adminis-
trative decision makers in the relationship relatively small. Th e
more
diff use the administrative audience—that is, the greater the
number of
decision makers to consider—the less infl uence
citizen-participants will have on agency direc-
tion and decisions.
Moving from apathy to empathy. The next
vital step in moving toward the establishment
of an effective relationship between citizens

and administrators, particularly those at
higher levels of agency infl uence, is to reduce the proximal and
qualitative distance between the parties. The more meaningful,
direct, and sustained the interactions, the greater the chance of
administrators supporting the panels’ efforts to shape agency
direction. A comparison of the three case states is instructive in
this
regard, as the cases represent varying degrees of separation
between
the citizen panels and the administrative decision makers.
In Pennsylvania, there was a sense of deep separation between
the state agency and the CRPs, although this distance should not
be confused with a lack of interest. Two factors contributed to
the apparent divide. First, interpreting the spirit of the CAPTA
legislation as aiming for truly citizen-led panels, the state struc-
tured citizen–agency relationships with a strong tilt toward
panel
autonomy. Explicit eff orts were taken to reduce agency contact
with
the panels lest the contact be interpreted as meddling in the
groups’
work. Second, the unique county-administered structure for
child
protective services made the state’s role in engaging the panels
less
direct by its very nature, as the mandated recommendation and
response dialogue was intended ultimately to be between the
panels
and the county agency administrators. While the state did assign
a liaison initially, this individual’s presence at the panel
meetings
was essentially kept to an invitation-only basis. Indeed, the
liaison
attended just a couple of meetings, in an eff ort to help orient

the
panels. Following that, the only sustained support personnel to
attend regularly was the contracted external coordinator. As
vital as
the coordinator’s role was to the panels’ eff orts, this
arrangement
meant that there was very little direct and sustained interaction
with
the state administrative decision makers.
In Kentucky, the CRPs have historically had more continuous
contact with representatives of the state and regional child
protec-
tion agencies, although this contact has tended to be less direct
with top administrators. Like Pennsylvania, Kentucky’s citizen
panels have an externally contracted coordinator who attends
each
meeting and provides important logistical support for the
groups.
Each panel also has a designated liaison from the state or
regional
agency who regularly attends meetings and provides support for
the participation process. As the title suggests, the liaison is the
one
who links the agency with the panels. However, the liaisons are
not
the agency. Importantly, it also requires that the agency be
willing to
facilitate this learning by sharing pertinent information and
build-
ing participant capacity. With experience, the citizen-
participants’
capacity to engage agency administrators increases. Th e greater
the
capacity to understand the agency—its language, culture, and

politics—
the better positioned citizens will be to engage in dialogue and
shape
agency decisions.
Citizen–Administrator Interconnectedness
Th e public’s greatest ability to shape agency administrators’
deci-
sions will come in working with, not against, the agency. One
very
important step in this regard is securing
willing support from the agency. Obtaining
administrative buy-in to the citizen review
process is vital in setting a positive tone in the
relationship between citizens and the agency
and achieving success in shaping administra-
tive decisions. Th e degree of citizen–admin-
istrator interconnectedness impacts citizens’
feelings of infl uence and empowerment in the participation
process.
A common theme identifi ed by interviewees was the challenge
of
establishing a meaningful and productive relationship in light of
what seems like a revolving door of agency leadership and an
ever-
changing set of administrative priorities. Th e dynamic nature
of
child welfare, with its pendulum-like swings from crisis to
crisis, can
cause seemingly rapid shifts in administrative focus
(Gainsborough
2010). In addition, frequent changes in leaders and issues make
it
diffi cult for the CRPs to gain momentum in their work and
build

sustainable relationships with high-level agency decision
makers.
Th e desire for more face-to-face interactions, described later,
is met
with the reality of time constraints and competing agency
priorities.
Despite these diffi culties, some panels have been quite
successful at
establishing positive and productive relationships with top
agency
offi cials.
Structuring for success. One important consideration in helping
citizen-participants identify and build relationships with
administrators is to structure jurisdictional coverage in ways
that
allow the panels to clearly identify the appropriate
administrative
audience. This includes minimizing the number of
administrators
that panels must take into consideration when crafting their
recommendations. In both Kentucky and Utah, the regional
citizen
panels align with the corresponding regional offi ces of the
state’s
child protection services, while the statewide panels are paired
directly with the central state offi ce. This allows the citizen
groups
in these two states to more clearly identify agency leaders with
whom to engage.
In Pennsylvania, however, the issue is made more diffi cult
because
child protection services are administered by the counties, while
the state’s role is one of supervision. Each of the three CRPs in
Pennsylvania covers about a dozen counties, but these

groupings do
not correspond to a meaningful regional administrative
jurisdiction
of the state child protective service. Because each county
adminis-
ters its own system of child protection, the CRPs have an
average
of 12 agency heads to consider rather than a single agency
direc-
tor. According to the panel participants with whom I spoke,
being
stretched across so many administrative boundaries made it diffi
cult
Th e public’s greatest ability to
shape agency administrators’
decisions will come in working
with, not against, the agency.
with the enabling federal legislation that mandated the creation
of
the panels. However, the interviews also revealed two related
themes explaining the challenge of complete panel autonomy in
agenda setting. First, it is diffi cult to prioritize and reduce the
number of topic choices, with child protection being such a
broad
and encompassing fi eld. Second, panels inevitably realize that
they
do not work in a vacuum and must actively consider their
interrelatedness with the agency when selecting areas of focus.

Ultimately, these two realities lead panels to sense a need (and
even
desire) for some guidance and direction from the state agency in
agenda setting. Interviewees in Pennsylvania, for example,
suggested
that more state direction toward topic selection would be help-
ful because “it is just too big of a system to turn the CRPs
loose.”
Others wanted more guidance because of the newness of the
process
in Pennsylvania, frequently describing their ignorance of the
system
by asserting, “We don’t know what we don’t know.” Similar
senti-
ments were expressed in Kentucky and Utah as well, although
the
connections with the child protection agencies in those states
were
somewhat more developed. Without some agency guidance,
panels
start to wonder about the value of their eff orts and whether
they are
“meeting just to meet.”
Varying degrees of agency infl uence on the agenda of the
citizen
groups were manifest across the three case states. In
Pennsylvania,
interviewees noted practically no infl uence by the state child
protec-
tion agency in setting the panels’ agenda. Th is was attributable
in
large part to the hands-off approach that the state has taken
with
the panels since their inception. In Kentucky,

recent eff orts, such as the annual all-panel
retreat, have increasingly sought to bring
panel members and agency administrators
in closer contact during the agenda-setting
process. While the state agency has no formal
say in which systemic issues will be the focus
of the panels’ yearly review activities, some
panels have started to inquire about agency
priorities, so as to avoid what one adminis-
trator described as the panels simply going
through “an academic exercise.”
In Utah, with administrators participating on the citizen
commit-
tees, agenda items were much more directly prone to being infl
u-
enced by the agency. Surprisingly, only one interviewee felt
that
this arrangement compromised the integrity of the review
process,
evoking the image of a fox guarding the henhouse. Participants
were overwhelmingly satisfi ed with the agency presence and
guid-
ance. For example, one interviewee noted that even when the
agency expressed some needs to the QIC, “the relationship, as it
has evolved, allows such a partnership, so it does not feel like
[the
agency] is overstepping.” Concerns over ceding independence
were counterbalanced by an increase in group infl uence on
agency
decisions.
Th ere is a precarious balance to be sought between the level of
panel
autonomy and the degree of agency control over panel
activities.

With too much agency control, citizen groups can be manipu-
lated in order to weaken their impact or co-opted by the govern-
ment body in order to direct eff orts to the ends that the state
most
high-level agency administrators, and they do not have agency-
wide
decision-making power. Regional and state administrators have
attended panel meetings, but this has been infrequent and
inconsist-
ent. Recent developments, such as a quarterly meeting between
the
panel chairs and higher-level agency administrators, have put
panels
in more direct contact with top agency offi cials, and the
impacts on
panel–agency relationships have been positive. Even so, the
bulk of
sustained interaction between the agency and the panels is
mediated
through the liaison and the externally contracted coordinator.
Finally, in Utah, the quality improvement committees (QICs,
the term for citizen review panels in that state) and the state and
regional child protection agencies are highly interconnected.
Agency
involvement in the review process is direct and ongoing. From
their
inception, the QICs have had agency representatives as sitting
mem-
bers, in addition to the support personnel who attend.
Furthermore,
the QICs are internally coordinated by the state, in direct
contrast
with both Kentucky and Pennsylvania’s external coordinators.
More

importantly, the top regional-level administrators actively
partici-
pate in the monthly meetings of a number of the local
committees.
Th e administrators’ presence is welcomed by the committees
and
recognized as enhancing the groups’ success. Th e high degree
of
interconnectedness has enabled the QICs to have greater infl
uence
on agency decisions and to sense a substantial empowerment in
their participation.
Th e further the distance between citizens and top
administrators,
the less likely these key decision makers are to consider the
panels
and to engage their recommendations seri-
ously. Th e closer citizens and administrators
start to come in interaction and purpose, the
more likely citizen-participants are to be able
to infl uence agency decisions. Th e reason that
sustained and sincere interaction between
the state and panels is important is so that
the CRPs can avoid the lamentable position
of being both out of sight and out of mind.
Furthermore, having the administrators in the
room adds a level of continuity to the proc-
ess. More importantly, it becomes diffi cult
to ignore and dismiss the panels’ eff orts, particularly because
the
administrator begins to take a vested interest in the panels’
success.
Any successful changes brought by such a relationship come
because
the two parties move from coercion to cooperation on shared

ends.
In short, administrative absence from the process fosters apathy,
contact breeds sympathy, and co-experience secures empathy. It
is in
the movement toward empathy that empowerment occurs. Th e
more
sustained the relationship between citizen-participants and the
agency,
and in particular the more direct and frequent the interactions
with
higher-level agency administrators, the more likely a sense of
empower-
ment will result from participation.
Being connected but not controlled. One crucial aspect of panel
autonomy is to be found in its agenda-setting capacity, or, in
other
words, the panels’ ability to establish the course of priorities
where
attention and effort will be spent. Across each of the case
states,
interviewees emphasized the importance of the panels having a
strong measure of self-guidance in choosing which aspects of
the
child protection system to review. This, of course, is consistent
Th e further the distance
between citizens and top
administrators, the less likely
these key decision makers are
to consider the panels and to
engage their recommendations
seriously.

and response decreases—citizens are more likely
to feel that they have an eff ective voice through
the participation process.
Table 2 distinguishes the case states on
the characteristics described earlier, which
emerged as important themes related to secur-
ing administrative buy-in to the citizen review
process. Th e columns are aligned from left to right according
to the
citizen panels’ level of connection with agency administrators
(refer
to the fi rst row). Pennsylvania’s CRPs are indirectly connected
to the
agency through the external coordinator, Kentucky’s CRP–
agency
connections are mediated through the liaison, and Utah’s QICs
are
directly connected with administrators serving as active
participants
on the citizen groups. Th e implications of this type of
connected-
ness on perceptions of empowerment are discussed in the
following
section.
Relationship Building and the Path to Empowered Outcomes
Interviewees were asked to assess whether they considered the
panels
to be valued by the state agency. Th e range of responses shown

in
fi gure 3 depict a continuum that runs from feeling irrelevant at
the
shallow end to feeling increasingly important at deeper levels.
As the
relationships strengthen, perceptions of being valued deepen as
well.
Interviewees were also asked to defi ne success with regard to
the
work of the CRPs, as a way of gauging the eff ectiveness of
citizen
participation. Th ree distinct models emerged from their
responses.
In one model, panel success was contingent on outcomes,
specifi -
cally, changes in agency policy or practice that the CRP had
clearly
infl uenced. Another model defi ned success based on whether
par-
ticipants felt that the agency adequately supported the panels in
the
review process itself. A third model for perceived panel success
also
was revealed, somewhere between outcomes and processes. In
this
view, perceived success was based on the quality of the
relationships
that were developed with the agency representatives during
engage-
ment process. Interestingly, outcomes, processes, and
relationships
also emerged as dominant ways to gauge whether the work of
the
panels was valued by the agency. Figure 4 shows the three
views of

success with representative comments refl ecting each view.
With
legitimate processes in place, the path to empowered outcomes
runs
through strong citizen–administrator relationships. In the
absence
of identifi able outcomes, expectations tend to shift back to an
emphasis on relationships or processes.
Some interesting patterns emerge when comparing the case
states
on these perceptions of success. In Utah, for example, members
of the quality improvement committees were far more precise in
identifying specifi c agency changes that had been directly infl
u-
enced by their recommendations. Importantly, this translated
into a strong propensity to adopt an outcome-based defi nition
of
success. It became clear from the interviews that a sense of
success
raised expectations for future success as well. At the other end
of
the spectrum were respondents in Pennsylvania. At the time the
interviews were conducted, the state still had not issued its fi rst
response to the CRPs, a period of substantial delay lasting more
than 15 months. Not surprisingly, the focus there emphasized
proc-
ess, with participants consistently reiterating that their chief
desire
was that the OCYF would simply provide a response to the
panels’
desires. On the other hand, with too much
panel autonomy, the citizen groups may fi nd
themselves so detached from the state that
they wander without direction or, worse,

fi nd themselves starved of vital connections
and support needed to perform their duties.
Citizen frustration will increase if participants
perceive the agency to be too controlling of the
process. Similarly, frustration will increase if the participants
are too
disconnected from the agency. A balance must be struck
between panel
autonomy and agency control.
Shortening the feedback loop. There is a distinct disjointedness
inherent in the recommendation and response exchange required
in
the CAPTA legislation. As detailed previously, at the end of
each
year’s efforts, the panels issue a report of recommendations to
the
state, which then has six months to provide a formal response to
the
panels. This lag in response segments the process somewhat
artifi cially and renders real-time dialogue nearly impossible.
The
panels resume the next year’s activities while still awaiting
response
to the previous year’s recommendations, making it
exceptionally
diffi cult for the citizen groups to attain a sense of
accomplishment
and closure to their efforts.
Th ere is great value to shortening the communications feedback
loop and bringing fl uidity to the citizen–agency interactions. In
Pennsylvania, the experience of waiting for more than 15
months
to receive the state’s fi rst response to the panel reports was
under-

standably exasperating for the panel participants. It fi nally
required
a face-to-face meeting with representatives from the OCYF to
modify parameters for a more timely state response moving
forward,
the agreement ultimately being a fi xed six-month guideline. In
Kentucky, the feedback loop was shortened through the creation
of
a memorandum of understanding, in which a three-month rec-
ommendation and response timeline was initiated. Utah’s citizen
committees do not issue just one recommendation report
annually
but rather submit formal recommendations on an ongoing basis.
A formal protocol stipulates a one-month response time frame
after the recommendation is received. However, with
administra-
tors at the table and participating on the citizen committees, the
eff ective response to citizen recommendations is often
immediate.
By shortening the feedback mechanism and adding fl uidity to
the
process, the citizen–agency interaction moves closer to an
engaged
dialogue. As the communication between citizens and
administrators
becomes more continuous—that is, as the lag between
recommendation
Table 2 Important Elements of Securing Administrative Buy-In
to Participation
Pennsylvania Kentucky Utah
Connection
with agency

Indirect through ex-
ternal coordinator
Mediated through
liaison
Direct with
administrator
Jurisdictional
alignment
Fragmented Clear alignment Clear alignment
Administrative
audience
Multiple and diffuse Singular head Singular head
Panel autonomy
in agenda
setting
High panel
autonomy; seek-
ing more direction
High panel
autonomy; seeking
more direction
Balance autonomy
with agency
direction
Length of

feedback loop
Long (six months) Medium (three
month)
Near continuity
Th ere is a precarious balance to
be sought between the level of
panel autonomy and the degree
of agency control over panel
activities.
excellent support and the state issued responses on time.
However, panel members felt that their eff orts were not
thought-
fully considered, as if their recommendations were too quickly
dismissed. Interestingly, with process expectations met but out-
come expectations frustrated, many panel members I spoke with
had turned their attention to the quality of the relationships
between the citizen-participants and the agency administrators.
Unable to clearly identify infl uenced outcomes, expectations
for
success and the basis for estimating the panels’ sense of being
valued by the agency shift on the continua depicted in fi gures
3 and 4. Citizen-participants desire outcomes that are
indicative
of the effi cacy and value of their eff orts. However, process-
and
relationship-based expectations must be satisfi ed before a focus

on
outcomes is plausible.
Discussion: Rethinking the “Power” in Empowerment
A comparison of the three cases in this study reveals that public
empowerment in the context of government-organized citizen
participation requires a reconceptualization of power itself,
mov-
ing from traditional control-based approaches toward those
rooted
more in cooperation. In the traditional view,
power is the ability of an individual or group
to control the actions of other entities because
of the unequal bases on which each stands
in the relationship (see, e.g., Dahl 1957).
However, there are other power confi gurations
that are not control based but start instead
from a premise of alignment (Follett 1940).
Cooperative power does not necessarily
reports. Th e sentiments of one panel member capture the
collective
mood quite well: “Can’t they just answer us? Does it have to be
this
hard?”
In the middle was Kentucky, where there
was evidence of both outcome- and
process-based assessments of success and
perceived value. When asked to identify an
agency change infl uenced by the panels,
few interviewees could do so specifi cally.
Expectations about the process were largely
being met; the panels were being provided

Whether we have done a
good job of
researching/presenting well-
thought recommendations
Being able to reach a
collaborative partnership
between CRPs and the
agency
To see that something
happens as a result of our
work
Seeing how things fit within
the bigger cross-systems
picture
Having a mutually respectful
relationship
A positive outcome for a
child or family
Bringing attention to
systematic factors that are
not working well
Our work becomes part of a
larger conversation in the
agency
When a change is
implemented, whether small
or sweeping, and as a result
kids and families are better

served
People who care, trying to
make a difference
Working together to come
up with solutions
Outcomes made possible
because of the work we have
done
Process Relationship Outcome
Figure 4 Three Views for Assessing Participation Success
Cooperative power does not
necessarily consider the empow-
erment of one party to come at
the expense of another party; it
can be mutually benefi cial and
synergistic.
Irrelevant
Tolerated
Valued
Taken
Seriously
Considered
I think [the panels] are seen as irrelevant.

The agency is not hostile, just indifferent.
If we [the CRPs] went away, I don’t think we’d be missed [by
the state].
It is up to us to prove our worth and show why we exist, beyond
just being mandated.
They [the state] have more important fish to fry.
It appears it is just a waste of [the agency’s] time to have to
deal with us.
They view us as a bunch of busy-bodies.
The process is not embraced by the Cabinet in the way it should
be.
The Cabinet often has to endure being criticized, sometimes
unfairly or based on
sketchy work.
On the whole, we’re probably seen as a nuisance—one more
thing on their plate.
The panels’ recommendations come up frequently in [the
agency’s] meetings.
We [the agency] respect what [the panels] see [as concerns],
even if we can’t get it
implemented.
They are respectful of us; but value us? I don’t know.
There is evidence that [the agency] takes it very seriously,
politically speaking; they
don’t want us to lambast them.
We [the agency] do look at the recommendations seriously.
Yes, we value the panels, as evidenced by all of the support we
provide them.
The fact that [the state] has put so much into the development
of truly independent,
stand-alone panels indicates that they do value the panels.
People just want to know that they’ve been heard—in person,

not at a distance.
Actually using our recommendations allows us to feel useful.
The administrator does a good job or recognizing and valuing
the work we do. She
tells us and we feel it.
Figure 3 Levels of Perceived Value of Citizen-Participants
consider the empowerment of one party to come at the expense
of
another party; it can be mutually benefi cial and synergistic.
Th ere are two specifi c challenges in applying a control-based
view
of power to government-organized citizen participation in
general
and the citizen review process in particular. First, there exists a
stark
mismatch in power bases between the state agencies and the
CRPs.
Although established by federal mandate, the CRPs clearly are
not endowed with power to match or supersede the legal-
rational
authority of the state agency. Second, there is a tendency for
each
party to view itself in the power position with respect to the
other.
Th e state perceives itself in the power position primarily
because it
is tasked with creating and supporting the citizen panels. Th e
CRPs,

alternatively, have some expectation of infl uence because they
are
federally mandated and because the state is required to respond
to
the panels’ recommendations. Th is divergence in role
agreement can
be a source of angst for both parties.
As described in the CAPTA legislation, states are required to
respond in writing within six months to the recommendations
given
by the CRPs. Th e citizen panels cannot, however, dictate what
that
response will be; the mandate is to reply, not necessarily
comply.
If the CRPs enter the participation process assuming that they
can
force the state agency to adopt their specifi c recommendations,
unmet expectations will almost certainly cause initial optimism
to give way to frustration. Indeed, several
outcomes are reasonable to imagine. For
instance, if the panels present themselves in a
combative or controlling way, the state may
choose to minimize the support it provides for
the review process. Th is would dramatically
weaken the already-tentative power base of the
CRPs. Alternatively, rather than subverting
the process itself, the state agency may assert
control over the outcomes by simply choosing to give superfi
cial
consideration to the panels’ recommendations—a sort of
“thanks
but no thanks” to the panel for its eff orts. Either way, the tone
of
interaction between the CRPs and agency will turn negative, and
the participants will become frustrated or disillusioned in both

the
processes and outcomes of citizen review. Ultimately, for CRPs
to
be eff ective in infl uencing agency direction and decisions,
they must
concentrate on strengthening relationships and establishing
shared
foundations of cooperative engagement.
Conclusion
Previous research has paid more particular attention to those
factors
that lead to formal empowerment processes, but with much less
knowledge on how citizen–administrator engagement can lead to
substantively empowered outcomes. Th is study begins to fi ll in
our
understanding of the linkages between participation
mechanisms,
participant capacity, and administrative responsiveness,
highlight-
ing the vital and dynamic citizen–administrator relationship that
connects processes to outcomes within the black box (fi gure 1).
Emergent themes from across the cases fostered a series of
testable
propositions regarding the potential for government-organized
citi-
zen participation to empower the public. Th ere is a need to
recon-
ceptualize empowerment in the context of government-
organized
citizen participation, moving away from a control-based norm to
one of cooperation. Th e tone of relationship acts as a transition
mechanism toward cooperative engagement. Two critical factors
shaping the tone of relationship emerged from the cases,
including

(1) the need for citizen-participants to maintain realistic
expecta-
tions for the participation process and outcomes in light of
agency
constraints and (2) the importance of administrators
demonstrating
a high level of buy-in and support of the participation process.
Th e
analysis also showed the connection between process-,
relationship-,
and outcome-based expectations for participation success.
Having a venue in which to participate does not guarantee that
the participant will have a voice in shaping administrative deci-
sions. Voice entails more than speaking; it is also being heard
and
understood. It is no coincidence then that the citizen-
participants
in Utah, who were most clear in their ability to gauge impact on
administrative decisions, were similarly adamant that they had
an
eff ective voice through the review process. Kentucky’s
participants
expressed a nuanced and qualifi ed assessment of having a
voice, and,
in the absence of any state response up to that time,
Pennsylvania’s
participants were guardedly hopeful but uncertain. Although
they
were given a venue to speak, there was no way of knowing
whether
they were being heard.
Building relationships between citizens and administrators is
vital to
empowering citizens in the context of government-organized

public
participation. Th e development of relationships, however, does
not
connote just one party moving over into the
camp of the other. Rather, it was manifest
most strongly as administrators and citizens
met somewhere in the middle in terms of
adapting to each other, with citizens coming
to appreciate certain bureaucratic realities and
administrators buying in to the citizen review
process, balancing their expertise with a will-
ingness to consider outside points of view. Th e
deeper those interactions go, both in terms of exposure and
creating
shared goals, the stronger will be the ensuing relationship. Th e
result
is a concomitant move toward an empowered citizenry.
Th e study also provided insight into citizen-government
relation-
ships within the rich context child protective services and
opened
a lens through which to understand the motives and methods of
public empowerment through organized participation. Th rough
these discussions, both citizens and administrators can better
discern
processes and structures that most eff ectively leverage the
impact
that public participation can have on shaping agency direction
and
decisions. Future research, both qualitative and quantitative,
should
expand the number and types of citizen participation contexts
by designing studies to test the propositions emerging from this

analysis.
References
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR).
1979. Citizen
Participation in the American Federal System. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government
Printing Offi ce.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation.
Journal of the American
Planning Association 35(4): 216–24.
Bryan, Valerie, Blake Jones, and Emily Lawson. 2010. Key
Features of Eff ective
Citizen–State Child Welfare Partnerships: Findings from a
National Study of
Citizen Review Panels. Children and Youth Services Review
32(4): 595–603.
Building relationships between
citizens and administrators is
vital to empowering citizens
in the context of government-
organized public participation.
Bryer, Th omas A. 2007. Toward a Relevant Agenda for a
Responsive Public
Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Th eory 17(3):

479–500.
———. 2009. Explaining Responsiveness in Collaboration:
Administrator and
Citizen Role Perceptions. Public Administration Review 69(2):
271–83.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2012. State vs. County
Administration of Child
Welfare Services.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/services.pdf
[accessed June 3, 2014].
Collins-Camargo, Crystal, Blake L. Jones, and Seth Krusich.
2009. What Do We
Know about Strategies for Involving Citizen in Public Child
Welfare: A Review
of Recent Literature and Implications for Policy, Practice, and
Future Research.
Journal of Public Child Welfare 3(3): 287–304.
Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research
Design: Choosing among
Five Traditions. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crosby, Ned, Janet M. Kelly, and Paul Schaefer. 1986. Citizen
Panels: A New
Approach to Citizen Participation. Public Administration
Review 46(2):
170–78.
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. Th e Concept of Power. Behavioral
Science 2(3): 201–15.
Foley, Dolores. 1998. We Want Your Input: Dilemmas of
Citizen Participation. In

Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-
Government Era, edited by
Cheryl Simrell King and Camilla Stivers, 140–57. Th ousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Follett, Mary P. 1940. Power. In Dynamic Administration: Th e
Collected Works of Mary
Parker Follett, edited by Henry C. Metcalf and Lyndall Urwick,
95–116. New
York: Harper & Brothers.
Gainsborough, Juliet F. 2010. Scandalous Politics: Child
Welfare Policy in the United
States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hadden, Susan G. 1981. Technical Information for Citizen
Participation. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 17(4): 537–49.
Hock, Scott, Sarah Anderson, and Matthew Potoski. 2013.
Invitation Phone Calls
Increase Attendance at Civic Meetings: Evidence from a Field
Experiment.
Public Administration Review 73(2): 221–28.
Houghton, David G. 1988. Citizen Advisory Boards: Autonomy
and Eff ectiveness.
American Review of Public Administration 18(3): 283–96.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2004. Reframing Public
Participation:
Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Th eory and Practice
5(4): 419–36.
Irvin, Reneé A., and John Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation

in Decision
Making: Is It Worth the Eff ort? Public Administration Review
64(1): 55–65.
James, Oliver. 2011. Managing Citizens’ Expectations of Public
Service Performance:
Evidence from Observation and Experimentation in Local
Government. Public
Administration 89(4): 1419–35.
Jones, Blake L. 2004. Eff ectiveness of Citizen Review Panels.
Children and Youth
Services Review 26(12): 1117–27.
Jones, Blake L., Pat Litzelfelner, and Janet Ford. 2003. Th e
Value and Role of Citizen
Review Panels in Child Welfare: Perceptions of Citizens
Review Panel Members
and Child Protection Workers. Child Abuse and Neglect 27(6):
699–704.
Jones, Blake L., and David Royse. 2008a. Citizen Review
Panels for Child Protective
Services: A National Profi le. Child Welfare 87(3): 143–62.
———. 2008b. Citizen Review Panels: Th e Connection
between Training and
Perceived Eff ectiveness. Child Abuse and Neglect 32(10): 918–
19.
Kathlene, Lyn, and John A. Martin. 1991. Enhancing Citizen
Participation: Panel
Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formation. Journal of Policy
Analysis and
Management 10(1): 46–63.

Kaufman, Herbert. 1956. Emerging Confl icts in the Doctrines
of Public
Administration. American Political Science Review 50(4):
1057–73.
King, Cheryl Simrell, Kathryn M. Feltey, and Bridget O’Neill
Susel. 1998. Th e
Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public
Participation in Public
Administration. Public Administration Review 58(4): 317–26.
Kweit, Mary Grisez, and Robert W. Kweit. 1981. Implementing
Citizen Participation
in a Bureaucratic Society: A Contingency Approach. New York:
Praeger.
Kweit, Robert W., and Mary Grisez Kweit. 1980. Bureaucratic
Decision-Making:
Impediments to Citizen Participation. Polity 12(4): 647–66.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic
Inquiry. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.
Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., and Steven Brigham. 2005. Taking
Democracy to Scale:
Large Scale Interventions—for Citizens. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science
41(1): 47–60.
Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994.
Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Moynihan, Donald P. 2003. Normative and Instrumental

Perspectives on Public
Participation: Citizen Summits in Washington, D.C. American
Review of Public
Administration 33(2): 164–88.
Patton, Michael Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research
Methods. 2nd ed.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rich, Richard C., Michael Edelstein, William K. Hallman, and
Abraham H.
Wandersman. 1995. Citizen Participation and Empowerment: Th
e Case of
Local Environmental Hazards. American Journal of Community
Psychology 23(5):
657–76.
Roberts, Nancy. 2004. Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct
Citizen Participation.
American Review of Public Administration 34(4): 315–53.
Rosener, Judy B. 1978. Citizen Participation: Can We Measure
Its Eff ectiveness?
Public Administration Review 38(5): 457–63.
Simonsen, William, and Mark D. Robbins. 2000. Citizen
Participation in Resource
Allocation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stake, Robert E. 1995. Th e Art of Case Study Research. Th
ousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Stewart, Kennedy. 2007. Write the Rules and Win:
Understanding Citizen
Participation Game Dynamics. Public Administration Review

67(6): 1067–76.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Th eory. 2nd ed. Th
ousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Th omas, John C. 1995. Public Participation in Public
Decisions: New Skills and
Strategies for Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Timney, Mary M. 1998. Overcoming Administrative Barriers to
Citizen
Participation: Citizens as Partners, Not Adversaries. In
Government Is Us: Public
Administration in an Anti-Government Era, edited by Cheryl
Simrell King and
Camilla Stivers, 88–101. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
———. 2011. Models of Citizen Participation: Measuring
Engagement and
Collaboration. In Government Is Us 2.0, edited by Cheryl
Simrell King, 86–100.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wandersman, Abraham. 1984. Citizen Participation. In
Psychology and Community
Change: Challenges of the Future, 2nd ed., edited by Kenneth
Heller, Richard H.
Price, Shulamit Reinharz, Stephanie Riger, Abraham
Wandersman, and Th omas
A. D’Aunno, 337–79. Pacifi c Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Yang, Kaifeng, and Kathe Callahan. 2007. Citizen Involvement

Eff orts and
Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Participatory Values, Stakeholder
Pressures, and
Administrative Practicality. Public Administration Review
67(2): 249–64.
Yang, Kaifeng, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. Public
Responsiveness of Government
Organizations: Testing a Preliminary Model. Public
Performance and
Management Review 31(2): 215–40.
Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of
Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Collaborating across institutional and
jurisdictional boundaries: enabling the
emergence of a national innovation system
through public knowledge management
Richard Vines1,2
Michael Jones2 and
Gavan McCarthy2
1Department of Environment and Primary

Industries, Knoxfield, Victoria, Australia;
2eScholarship Research Centre, University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Correspondence: Richard Vines, Department
of Environment and Primary Industries,
621 Burwood Highway, Knoxfield,
Victoria, VIC 3180.
E-mails: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Abstract
Public institutions involved in research that aims to strengthen
the productivity,
profitability and adaptiveness of industries face a multiplicity
of challenges when
managing for the emergence of cost effective solutions to
problems. We reflect
upon the learnings of a Government sponsored Visiting Fellow’s
programme that
we describe as a knowledge management (KM) intervention
within Australia’s
primary industries Research, Development and Extension (R, D
and E) system. Our
central concern is to draw upon the learnings of an internet-
based initiative in the
United States called eXtension to show how ‘traditional’ D and
E activities can be
transformed. We argue that organisations and networks involved
in such D and E
activities need to perceive themselves as belonging to systems
that are socio-
technical in nature. That is, the development and deployment of
cross-jurisdictional
and cross-institutional innovations are shaped by both the social
interactions

between people and the systematic use of technology to support
distributed
learning. We explain how the elements of an integrated model
to support public
KM can be developed to create the conditions for enhanced
innovation. Our
findings have relevance to a wide range of other industry
sectors considering
contemporary service models involving public and private
partnerships.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2015) 13(2),
187–197.
doi:10.1057/kmrp.2013.41; published online 19 August 2013
Keywords: agriculture; networks; knowledge management
practice; explicit knowledge,
tacit knowledge; systems thinking
The online version of this article is available Open Access
A good sheep is a good sheep regardless of how you get there,
but I don’t believe
in the figure world or picking a ram off a computer. … I’d
rather put my trust in
looking at the sheep and seeing how it performs, than in some
number dreamed
up by some scientists on a bit of paper. (Mr. Wal Merriman -
Former President,
Australian Stud Merino breeders Association, cited in Neale,
2012)
Introduction
Organisations with responsibilities that mediate public and
private interests
in Australian agriculture face a substantial knowledge
challenge. Signifi-

cantly, a core element of this challenge is how to agree on,
identify and
maintain ‘trusted knowledge’, including how knowledge is
created, commu-
nicated and used to create and deploy innovations, solve
identified prob-
lems and enable change. We consider this to be a public
knowledge
management (KM) challenge.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2015) 13, 187–
197
© 2015 Operational Research Society. All rights reserved 1477-
8238/15
www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.41
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp
In this paper, a case study of a KM intervention is
presented in order to explore some of the public KM
challenges that need to be taken into account as the
Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Indus-
tries (DEPI) works to strengthen its services, including
those related to: agricultural productivity and profitability;
the sustainable management of water resources, public
land, forests and ecosystems; and climate change and
natural disasters such as bushfires. DEPI is the name of
the Department created in April 2013 through the merger
of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and the
Department of Sustainability and the Environment
(DSE). As this occurred during the case study in question,
the Department is referred to as DPI or DEPI where
appropriate.

There are three different aspects to this case study. First,
it is based on the findings of DPI Visiting Fellow’s pro-
gramme. The objective of the programme is ‘to access new
knowledge, skills and technologies, foster new relation-
ships and create new strategic networks, alliances and
collaborations with overseas scientists and experts’
(Department of Primary Industries (DPI), 2012). Through
this programme, the Farm Services Victoria Division of
DPI hosted two Visiting Fellows from the US eXtension
initiative – National Director, Mr. Dan Cotton (hereafter
‘Cotton’) and Associate Director, Dr. Craig Wood (here-
after ‘Wood’) in the periods 10–14 September 2012 and
18–27 March 2013, respectively. The US eXtension initia-
tive was established in 2004 as a small-scale internet
business designed to support the transformation of work
practices of the Cooperative Extension System (CES) of the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). It has
become a national internet-based network providing
access to reliable, science-based information from land-
grant universities and partners nationwide. It aims to serve
the needs of new and traditional customers, partners and
stakeholders by providing the most relevant information
and educational programmes generated by CES nation-
wide (Cotton, 2012).
From the outset, the eXtension initiative was conceived
to be transformational (eXtension, 2013a). It was devel-
oped from scratch as a virtual extension service (e-CES) in
classic, new market entrant, start-up mode ‘to overcome
the traditional barriers to which incumbents appear blind
or by which they are constrained’ (King & Boehlje, 2000).
Central to the initiative is the idea of cross-institutional
and cross-jurisdictional collaborations – working together
across existing boundaries to broker national priorities
tailored to local needs and local needs addressed at all

levels (Cotton, 2012). DPI was particularly keen to learn as
much as possible about eXtension, how it operates and
what might have been the major lessons learned since its
establishment in 2004.
The second aspect of this case study is that the visits by
Cotton and Wood have been set within the context of
Australia’s primary industries Research, Development and
Extension (R, D and E) framework developed through the
Primary Industries Standing Committee (PISC) umbrella
structure. This framework recognises that basic strategic R
can be undertaken at a national level, with regional
adaptive D for this research, combined with local E. The
objectives of this approach are to improve the uptake of
innovation within industry (DAFF, 2009) and to harness
local, regional, state and national resources in a coordi-
nated way to minimise duplication of effort and to foster
what we regard might be a primary industries R, D and E
innovation system.
The third aspect of the case study is that a serious
attempt has been undertaken to analyse what might need
to be taken into account if aspects of the US eXtension
model are to be adapted to an Australian context. This
analysis was undertaken through a business consultancy
that involved Mr. Michael Jones and Associate Professor
Gavan McCarthy (joint authors of this paper) from the
eScholarship Research Centre (eSRC) at the University of
Melbourne. Their assignment was to shadow Wood
throughout his visit, to provide an accurate summary of
key themes discussed and synthesise aspects of key events
and themes to provide expert advice to DPI based on
preliminary analysis. The purpose of this was to identify
what might need to be required going forward to further
develop an eXtension type business model in order to suit

Australia’s specific institutional and policy requirements.
Overall, the objective has been to create the conditions
within which Australia’s primary industries R, D and E
framework could emerge as a driver and enabler of local,
regional, state and national innovation.
Using the DPI Visiting Fellow’s programme as the
primary lens for describing this case study as a KM inter-
vention is consistent with the KM literature. For example,
Aujirapongpan et al (2010) undertook a literature review
related to capabilities required for KM and concluded that
KM consists of four core processes – knowledge acquisi-
tion, knowledge creation, knowledge storage and knowl-
edge application. The DPI Visiting Fellow’s programme is
consistent with two of the four core KM processes – in that
the programme has allowed the pursuit of knowledge
acquisition objectives, but explicitly with the intention of
applying this knowledge (knowledge application).
Developing this paper as a case study of a KM interven-
tion has added benefit because it provides a framework
within which the implications of acquiring and applying
new knowledge can be iteratively analysed. This also is
consistent with the literature in that core KM processes
should not be treated as discrete and separate, but cyclic
and interactive in line with the SECI1 model (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al, 2006), as well as complex
systems perspectives of KM including single and double
loop learning (Blackman et al, 2004), the knowledge life
cycle (Firestone & McElroy, 2003a); Observation, Orienta-
tion, Decision and Action (Boyd, 1976–1996) and a four
tiered knowledge hierarchy (Vines et al, 2011). For exam-
ple, knowledge can be acquired both from internal or
1SECI refers to Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination and
Internalisation.

Collaborating across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries
Richard Vines et al188
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
external sources to an organisation (knowledge acquisi-
tion) and then applied to test its relevance in an unfamiliar
context (knowledge application). Knowledge is created
when a trial or pilot is enacted within a specific context
and findings are written up (knowledge creation). The
knowledge artefacts including documents, videos, data-
bases and the like are iteratively created throughout these
knowledge cycling activities so these can be stored (knowl-
edge storage).
Description of the system intervention
Target audience
In establishing the agendas for the visits by Cotton and
Wood some clearly defined objectives were set. For exam-
ple, Cotton’s visit provided an opportunity to fully brief
DPI staff and representatives from Australia’s agricultural
industries about the nature of the eXtension initiative, its
objectives and how it operates. Following on from the
success of this visit, Wood’s visit aimed to provide oppor-
tunities to discuss how an eXtension type initiative might
be specifically applied to the grains, beef, horticultural and
dairy industries within an Australian context. A wide range
of events involved representatives from several different
DPI divisions, Research and Development Corporations
(RDCs), private service providers, farmers, industry bodies
and other research organisations such as cooperative
research centres. Two 1-day national forums were held.

The first involved the chief executive officers of Australia’s
RDCs and senior leaders from relevant state government
agencies to explore the level of interest in further investi-
gating the applicability of the eXtension business model to
Australia. The other was devoted solely to investigating the
possibility of establishing two pilot learning networks in
Australia’s Grains industry in the specialist areas of soil
nutrition and crop pathology. The term ‘users’ referenced
hereafter encompasses experts, researchers, employees of
organisations (commercial and non-commercial), farmers
and producers, and includes people who are not ‘tradi-
tional’ extension clients. Broadly, the term refers to citi-
zens or the population at large. When referring specifically
to farmers, producers and related consumers (whether
traditional extension clients or not) we use the term ‘end
users’.
Key themes
During their visits, Cotton (2012) and Wood (2013)
explored a number of key concepts and topics that form
the basis of the eXtension Initiative in the United States.
Central to the initiative are notions of cross-institutional
and cross-jurisdictional collaborations – working together
across existing boundaries to help solve common pro-
blems and meet the shared needs of users and end users.
This approach is supported by three key features of eXten-
sion. Conceptually, eXtension is based on the idea that
people are looking to solve real challenges and find reliable
answers in real time, without any vested interest in
whether those answers come from government agencies,
universities, industry groups or others – provided the
information is understandable, reliable and applicable to
their situation – and that people working collectively
provide greater benefit to all stakeholders than people
working separately. Organisationally, eXtension is gov-

erned by the not-for-profit eXtension Foundation, which
sits outside the specific organisations making up the
network and has negotiated agreements with all those
involved regarding intellectual property and liability.
Technologically, eXtension has been set up as an online
collaborative environment that operates separately from
internal organisational systems and information
technology.
The key groups supported by this framework are com-
munities of interest (groups of people with common
interests, issues or concerns about life events – hereafter
referred to as CoIs), communities of practice (groups of
people with related expertise – hereafter referred to as
CoPs), and learning networks (where these two com-
munities engage and interact to share information and
expertise for the mutual benefit of both – hereafter referred
to as LNs). Each community works collectively to develop
shared values, a ‘code of conduct’, and a collaborative
approach to knowledge creation and the resolution of
issues. When most effective, these groups are not specifi-
cally created or imposed based on existing organisational
structures or strategies. They form and emerge based on
interaction and feedback between the people involved.
Technology is used to support new ways of engaging
with users. Working in the ‘cloud’ means communities
and networks no longer need to be co-located to work
together. Content can be drafted, reviewed and published
in a shared environment, and can continue to evolve in
response to emerging issues and new ideas. Peer review by
the relevant community ensures this content is authorita-
tive and reliable. Moreover, well-structured and main-
tained systems ensure all content is discoverable, publicly
accessible and preservable over time.
The intention of online collaborations via the eXtension

framework is not to replace existing commitments to
extension practice. Instead, working online across existing
boundaries means those involved have an opportunity to
transform the way they work by supporting collaboration
across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries. This leads
to opportunities for shared access to expertise and author-
itative content. ‘End users’ also have enhanced access to
reliable material and expertise in real time, and can utilise
existing content or ask questions directly using an online
‘Ask an Expert’ module. Therefore, online collaborative
eXtension helps to reach new audiences, better supports
existing end users, improves access to information and
expertise across the sector, and makes more effective use of
existing resources.
Feedback
The polling of participants throughout Cotton and
Wood’s visits indicated a high level of interest in and
Richard Vines et al 189
engagement with the eXtension initiative. For example,
88% of participants who completed survey forms indi-
cated that their expectations had been met (or exceeded),
87% indicated they learned something new and 76%
indicated they planned to use what they had learned in
their work going forward. However, equally, there was
unanimous feedback noting that the land grant university
institutional context for eXtension in the United States is
fundamentally different to the Australian context. Discus-

sions highlighted that R, D and E activities in Australia are
funded and carried out by a complex web of research
providers and investors. Participants emphasised that the
purpose of the primary industries R, D and E framework is
to support collaboration, and improve information flows,
knowledge and capability sharing, specifically as these
relate to research outputs. For example, the KM guidelines
that underpin this framework include the requirement that
metadata about resources be harvested by the National
Library of Australia. Further, background research related
to this visit, indicates that the R, D and E expertise required
to effectively support an eXtension type initiative in Aus-
tralia is currently distributed across multiple state and
federal agencies encompassed by three key funding nodes
that make up the $A1.6 billion spent on rural related R, D
and E activities in Australia – the Australian Common-
wealth Government – comprising 48%; state and territory
governments – comprising 28%; and private industry –
comprising 24% (Australian Productivity Commission,
2011). It was noted many times that Australian RDCs play
a significant role in terms of brokering cross-jurisdictional
and cross-institutional agreements. Recent announcements
also made by the NSW and Victorian State Governments
referenced during discussions indicate that nationally
orientated R, D and E services will need to become more
integrated with state and regionally based environmental
and natural resource management activities, creating new
expanded models of land services (NSW Department of
Primary Industries, 2012).
Exploring the evolution of the eXtension initiative
through a theoretical lens
One of the core principles underpinning the focus of the
eXtension initiative is the organisational commitment to
placing the audience at the centre of everything that it

does. At its most fundamental level, this involves listening
into the questions, issues or impact of life events raised by
individuals (Cotton, 2012). These users develop their own
particular knowledge frameworks to make decisions. For
example, Former President of the Australian Stud Merino
Breeders Association Mr. Mal Merriman’s personal deci-
sion-making principles (his quote of 11 August 2012 opens
this paper) could be representative of any end user of an
online extension initiative within Australia. According to
Merriman, putting his trust in ‘looking at the sheep
and seeing how it performs’ will lead to better results or
greater value, than the use of objective scientific research
using the ‘newest generic breeding value assessment tool’
(Neale, 2012).
Personal and explicit knowledge
Merriman’s quote highlights there are many different
types of knowledge that must first be understood in some
detail if we are to appreciate the way the eXtension
initiative is structured. We first focus on differences
between personal and explicit knowledge. Personal knowl-
edge includes dispositional or subjective knowledge
(Polanyi, 1958, 1966; Popper, 1972; Vines et al, 2011) and
refers to the knowledge embodied in people’s natural
talent, habit and skill. It also refers to their unconscious
propensity to act in certain ways. Such knowledge is
subjective and resides in people’s minds and may be tacit
or implicit in nature. Tacit, in the sense that it cannot be
made explicit; implicit, in the sense that it can be made
explicit, but it has not yet been (Nickols, 2000; Vines et al,
2011). Merriman’s ability to look at a sheep and judge its
performance is enabled by his personal knowledge – tacit
and implicit – developed through years of experience.
Explicit knowledge on the other hand refers to knowl-
edge that is codified in an objectively persistent format

(Vines et al, 2011). To fully understand the nature of
explicit knowledge, below we have drawn upon theories
of personal KM, records management and archival prac-
tice, and hierarchically complex systems to develop a
conceptual framework – as outlined in Figure 1. In devel-
oping this framework, our central concerns are twofold.
First, we want to use this framework as a basis for designing
and developing online collaborative environments to sup-
port and extend the work of ‘traditional’ development and
Figure 1 The elements of an integrated model to support public
KM.
Richard Vines et al190
extension practice, including what might need to be
considered if the eXtension model were to be adopted in
Australia. Second, by drawing upon five conceptual ele-
ments into an integrated model we aim to support what
we call ‘public KM’.
Elements of a conceptual framework to support
public KM
The first element of our conceptual framework is the idea
of a ‘problem solving context’. We use this term to take
into account the perspective that solving problems with
knowledge involves both understanding the context of the
problem, the context of the knowledge and the relation-
ship of these to the individual actors themselves. We
choose this term carefully in order to reflect the same sense
as Yakhlef (2008) in his critique of understandings of early

conceptual frameworks of CoPs by Lave & Wenger (1991).
In this critique, Yakhlef joins Pepperell (1995), Hayles
(1999) to describe a new post-human learning context,
whereby ‘the individual is not the only source or locus of
knowledge. Knowing and learning are the outcome of
interactions among individuals, artefacts and the struc-
tures in the environment; they are uncontrollable and
unpredictable’. Yakhlef draws on Latour (1993) to claim
that ‘subjectivity is not located in consciousness but
emergent from networks that are “materially real, socially
regulated, and discursively constructed” ’. Thus, in using
the term problem solving context, we argue that organisa-
tions and networks need to be understood as socio-
technical in nature. That is, the factors that influence
action-orientated decisions (Smith et al 2006) relevant to
specific contexts are shaped by the social interactions of
people as they go about their work, learn from each other
and solve problems collaboratively; and the innovative use
of technology to support engagement with audiences,
learning, and access to experience and information created
in other problem solving contexts (Vines, 2013).
The second element of our framework is the idea of
personal KM. Here we focus on individual people as part of
a framework for public KM. Jarche (2013) describes perso-
nal KM as ‘a continuous process of seeking, sensing, and
sharing … Seeking is finding things out and keeping up to
date … Sensing is how we personalize information and
use it … Sharing includes exchanging resources, ideas, and
experiences with our networks as well as collaborating
with our colleagues’.
For eXtension, the focus on personal KM is of funda-
mental importance. For example, a CoI emerges when a
wide range of consumers come together because of shared
interests in solving common problems – each within their

Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-sor in the School o.docx

Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-sor in the School o.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-sor in the School o.docx

Similar to Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-sor in the School o.docx (20)

More from hallettfaustina

More from hallettfaustina (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-sor in the School o.docx