Collaborating across institutional andjurisdictional boundar.docx

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.
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
own contexts. Part of the evolution of a CoI involves what
Vines et al (2011) has described as a ‘shared context’. This
develops via the emergence of a common language to
discuss these problems and to pluralise these understand-
ings in some public way. We contend that all of these
dynamics fall within the scope of Jarche’s concept of
personal KM outlined above.
Since its launch, eXtension has developed and deployed
technology to support personal KM. However, in doing
this, the focus is not just on the individual as the key lens
for decision making. It locates the objectives of personal KM
within a wider and interdependent network of agents. For
example, experts and industry professionals rely on feed-
back from users to help guide content creation; content
creators rely on other users for peer review; all members of
the network rely on the technology base and shared agree-
ments regarding content and liability; the eXtension gov-
ernance is dependent on ongoing support from land-grant
universities and the federal government; users rely on the
network as a whole for advice and assistance and so on. To

this extent, eXtension needs to be understood as a socio-
technical organisation in the way that Harvey (1968)
describes the phenomena of people using their machines
to mediate internal and external organisational processes.
The third element of our framework is the records
continuum developed in Australia (McKemmish et al,
2009). This continuum includes four dimensions, the first
of which commences at the point in which explicit knowl-
edge artefacts are created and can become a record of
evidence of actions taken. The first dimension can also be
referred to as ‘pre-communication’ or ‘pre-dissemination’
(Upward, 1996). In the agricultural sector, this dimension
could refer to the use of evidence in the form of records
created, accessed and used by farmers as a basis for making
more informed decisions.
To fully understand the implications of ‘using evidence
as a basis for decision making’, we think the addition of a
fourth element of our conceptual framework is required.
We call this fourth element a ‘knowledge hierarchy’ – as
developed by Vines et al (2011). The term ‘knowledge
hierarchy’ is used because knowledge emerges within the
context of hierarchically complex systems. Such systems
are those where individual parts interact to form a desig-
nated system at one ‘level of focus’ which upon closer
inspection can be seen to be composed of several (or
many) interacting components at a more detailed, ‘lower’,
level of focus (Simon, 1962, 1973). Vines et al (2011)
propose that in research intensive networks knowledge
emerges in a hierarchically complex system comprised of
at least four interacting levels of focus – that is, at the
individual, group, organisational and societal levels. Inclu-
sion of this knowledge hierarchy takes into account that
evidence of ‘what works in solving problems’ emerges as a
knowledge creation process and this involves the social

processes of critiquing, reviewing and testing of knowl-
edge. This is referred to as knowledge cycling, and involves
a knowledge creation process that is not explicitly part of
the four dimensions of the records continuum.
A description of the dimensions of the records conti-
nuum (McKemmish et al, 2009) and the linkages to the
different levels of a knowledge hierarchy (Vines et al, 2011)
is provided as follows.
Dimension 1: Documents and content are created as
trace. This first dimension encompasses the actors
who carry out the act (decisions, communications,
acts), the acts themselves, the creation of content and
documents that records the acts and the evidential
trace to these acts (McKemmish et al, 2009). In the
knowledge hierarchy, this equates to the individual
level where actions are taken and encompass the core
concepts associated with personal KM.
Dimension 2: Records-as-evidence are captured. This
encompasses the personal and corporate record-keep-
ing systems that capture records in ways that support
their capacity to act as evidence of the social and
business activities of the units responsible for the
activities (McKemmish et al, 2009). In the knowledge
hierarchy, this equates to the records created and
authorised at a group level. An example of this dimen-

sion and level of hierarchy is the eXtension ‘Create’
module discussed later in this paper. This is a colla-
borative workspace used for developing, reviewing
and publishing content. All material developed within
Create is publicly accessible; however, the site is not
indexed by search engines so is not discoverable with-
out provision of a link to a specific page www.exten-
sion.org website.
Dimension 3: Records-as-corporate memory are orga-
nised. This encompasses the coordination of record
keeping processes. It is concerned with the manner in
which a corporate body, organisation or individual
defines the record keeping regime and in so doing
constitutes the archive as memory of its business or
social functions (McKemmish et al, 2009). In the
knowledge hierarchy, different levels of formal knowl-
edge emerge over time in the form of records that have
been critiqued and approved within an organisation
or via external peer review. eXtension ensures there is
a level of authority ascribed to this content by requir-
ing that relevant CoPs review each piece of content
before that content is formally published. After the
review process (and any required revisions) is com-
plete, content is copy edited and published to the
public eXtension.org learning environment. If con-
tent is out of date or no longer relevant it can be
marked as inactive.
Dimension 4: Records-as-collective memory are plura-
lised. This dimension concerns the manner in which
the records are brought into an encompassing frame-
work in order to provide a collective, social, historical
and cultural memory of the institutionalised social
purposes and roles of individuals and corporate bodies
(McKemmish et al, 2009). At the societal norms level

the records of individuals and corporate bodies exist
within the context of a range of cultural, legal and
regulatory norms. In the case of Australia’s primary
industries R, D and E framework such norms are
established through the publishing of industry sector
and cross sector strategies that form an integral part of
the framework. A key message advocated in this paper,
is that more effort needs to be made to create and
publish identifiers in dimension four of the records
continuum, so that relationships can be created
between sector priorities for R, D and E investments
(i.e., sector and cross sector strategies) with records to
providing evidence of actions taken, including the
evolutionary impact of interventions as these emerge
through time.
The fifth element of our framework relates closely to
dimension 4 of the continuum and involves the articula-
tion of what we call ‘problem solving objectives’.
In the United States, eXtension now plays a role in the
fulfilment of the national policy objectives of the US
Federal Government through the USDA and its National
Institute of Food and Agriculture – NIFA (Wood, 2013).
NIFA positively encourages applicants to provide evi-
dence of how they will adopt eXtension systems and
processes as part of their grant applications. In Australia,
national problem solving objectives are published within
individual R, D and E sector and cross sector strategies.
For example, the national grains R, D and E strategy
document provides ‘a framework to encourage greater
involvement in priority setting, continuity of investment
and improvement in the efficacy and efficiency of R,
D and E’ (PISC Research, Development and Extension
Subcommittee, 2011).

In the cases of both the US and Australia these problem
solving objectives emerge as part of the dynamics of a
much larger super-system, as compared to the extension
related activities that emerge at the local farmer or regional
levels. In hierarchically complex systems, the dynamics of
these larger super-systems are much slower than lower
level systems – thus establishing boundary conditions
(Salthe 1985, 1993; Simon, 1973, 2002). Constraints
applying downward control may be negative (inhibitory)
or positive (facilitative). The dynamic structure of a focal
system (the specific states, interactions and trajectories of
the components comprising the system) at a point in
time establishes conditions that provide a downward
control over the dynamic possibilities available to the
subsystems comprising the focal system (Pattee, 1973,
2000). The structures providing that control can be
considered to embody ‘control information’ (Corning,
2001; Pattee, 2000). Thus, in practical terms, the content
of national R, D and E sector and cross sector strategies
act as boundary objects that play a role in constraining
the dynamic possibilities of lower level systems. In
principle, the objective is to ensure resource allocations
are maximised, that resources are allocated to appropriate
priorities and that cross cutting innovation opportuni-
ties are exploited so that public value impacts can be
monitored and maximised. Taking the Grains Industry
National Research, Development and Extension Strategy
as an example, the current strategy document highlights
the need to integrate effectively with other agricultural
R, D and E sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies; and
highlights the need for ‘common definitions and

www.extension.org
www.extension.org
common impact evaluation assessments’ (PISC – Research,
Development and Extension sub-committee, 2011).
Implications for the practice of public KM
Complexity theory and public KM
We contend this conceptual framework allows us to better
understand the dynamics of public KM and what will be
required to enable the emergence of a more effective
national innovation system within Australia’s primary
industries R, D and E framework. We hypothesise that
public KM involves working with the dynamics of two
distinctly different but overlapping knowledge spaces as
outlined in Figure 2. We refer to these as a ‘personal knowl-
edge space’ and a ‘public knowledge space’ and a ‘boundary
space’ where there is overlap. This hypothesis correlates
with complexity theory and the use of such theory to
explain the emergent patterns of CoPs conceived as com-
plex adaptive systems. For example, Borzillo & Kaminska-
Labbé (2011) undertook an analysis of five different CoPs
and hypothesised that knowledge creation in CoPs results
from the co-existence and co-evolution of both top-down
and bottom-up processes. These co-evolutionary processes
involved the combination and recombination of four com-
plexity constructs, which they called ‘adaptive tension’,
‘enabling leadership’, ‘enhanced cooperation’ and ‘bound-
ary spanning’. Knowledge creation results from ‘CoPs oscil-
lating between guided and self-directed modes’. To discuss
these matters in more depth, we begin by focusing on the
dynamics of a personal knowledge space.

Personal KM in a public sphere
The dynamics of a personal knowledge space involves a
primary focus on personal KM, the actions taken by and
behaviours that emerge when people seek solutions to
problems. Drawing upon the experiences of eXtension, it
would seem at face value that eXtension is enabling a
traditional hierarchical model of knowledge dissemina-
tion, with one group (the CoP) taking up a position of
authority to pass information ‘down’ to a receiving group
(the CoI). However, as eXtension CoIs and CoIs have
evolved, Borzillo & Kaminska-Labbé’s (2011) notion of
‘adaptive tension’ appears to have been at work, to the
extent that in recent years eXtension has been aiming to
support the evolution of their CoIs and CoPs into LNs. LNs
are conceived as more organic, non-hierarchical collabora-
tive groups of related people, with two-way information
flows drawing upon people’s personal knowledge (whether
they be ‘experts’, researchers, industry professionals or
users, producers and consumers). The result is ‘enhanced
cooperation’ (Borzillo & Kaminska-Labbé, 2011) with users
drawing upon users’ personal knowledge as much as
delivering information to them. By implication, moving
to non-hierarchical LNs requires a re-evaluation of tradi-
tional notions of authority. The idea that a person in a
certain field is necessarily more qualified to give advice or
create content based on their employment status or orga-
nisational affiliation no longer applies. However, in retain-
ing the idea of ‘experts’ and allowing LNs to evolve over
time, eXtension has ensured this change has not resulted
in a diminution of the value of knowledge with firm
foundations in experience and education. Instead, the
concept of a ‘learning network’ is based on decentralising
authority. That is to say, the authority of a learning
network evolves as part of the distributed network itself,

rather than being considered external to the interaction
between people.
Further, when CoPs and LNs form, the way in which
each community will work is established from within
the community itself. For example, on start-up specific
attention is paid to ‘enabling leadership’ (Borzillo &
Kaminska-Labbé, 2011), whereby founding members of
the community come together physically or virtually to
reach a collective agreement on the roles of leaders,
rotating leadership roles, codes of conduct, commitments
to how the group will work and shared values.
Iaquinto et al (2011) suggests that this enabling leader-
ship could perhaps even be subject of a CoP in its own
right – in order to more systematically span the boundary
between CoP and organisational learning. This is in line
with the ‘boundary spanning’ function described by
Borzillo & Kaminska-Labbé (2011) – for example, ensuring
there is license to operate across the boundaries between
private and organisational realms through adoption of
appropriate policies. For a community to become fully
functional, the authority of content is also negotiated by a
community process. For example, if there are contested
ideas about the best approach to a problem facing the
Figure 2 The dynamics of public KM: a complex adaptive
systems perspective.

relevant community of interest, the result is not pre-
determined or confirmed by asserting a dominant view
on the community. Two or more pieces of content that
outline different options available can be submitted and
the users themselves are equipped to make their own
decisions on which approach is to be acted upon.
Such debate and critique is an important feature,
because it relies on a commitment to supporting what
works best in any given environment or sector. Thus, the
online collaborative environment becomes one in which
new or existing knowledge is tested and evolves through
time, learning as much by what fails as by what succeeds.
Recommendations to support the practice and
deployment of public KM
In this final section, we now focus on our key recommen-
dations arising from this case study of a KM intervention
described in this paper. Our objective now is to provide
suggestions about how the socio-technical aspects of
Australia’s primary industries R, D and E framework could
be further developed to enable public KM and through this
create the conditions for the emergence of a more effective
innovation system for agriculture.
Enable the emergence of collaborative LNs via a focus on
personal KM
Since its launch, eXtension has developed and deployed
technology to streamline the incorporation of end user
needs into the processes of developing and deploying
innovations. It has been doing this by developing a series
of interacting support-system modules that allow for
effective engagement between CoIs and CoPs. The core
modules include provision for a public facing website
(Extension.org); a registration system for people (people.
extension.org); a collaborative publishing system/work-

space (create.extension.org); a system to ask questions
(ask.extension.org), a custom search engine (search.exten-
sion.org); and a system to support distributed learning
(learn.extension.org). Some of the reported critical success
factors identified are the capacity by which eXtension has
provided access to system-wide expertise to respond to
client needs; that gaps in institutional capability have
been filled through cross-institutional and cross-jurisdic-
tional collaborations; that substantially more grant fund-
ing has been leveraged though the communities; that
professional development opportunities are enhanced;
that communities are able to use social media in new ways
to extend the reach and engagement and; that the use of
extension.org extension website extends the reach, disco-
verability and engagement of extension organisations
(eXtension, 2013b).
We conclude here therefore that the learnings derived
from the US eXtension experience provides a robust
foundation to pilot the establishment of a range of LNs
and we would encourage that in an Australian context, the
specific inclusion of private sector service providers expli-
citly be included in any on-going initiative.
Engage multiple institutions in adopting
standards-based content management
In the United States, as LNs have evolved from the
collaborations between members of CoIs and CoPs, it
has been found there is often a shift away from creating
content as knowledge artefacts towards becoming curators
of content from across multiple institutional repositories.
This represents the idea that members of LNs, become
curators of distributed content (Cotton, 2012). The inten-
tion of eXtension then is not necessarily to hold or
manage these publications.
This sort of approach to KM does represent additional

challenges beyond current KM policy directions in Austra-
lia. For example, the PISC KM Working Group (2012)
published a set of KM guidelines in August 2012 in which
it states that ‘Each research organisation will need to have
its own repository and contribute its records to the
National Library of Australia’s Trove2 harvester and aggre-
gator search engine’ (ibid, p 5). ‘Agencies should store their
publicly available research outputs and associated meta-
data in their own digital repositories in a format and
manner that makes them available to aggregator and
harvester systems. The OAI-PMH is the internationally
recognised approach for achieving this compliance’ (ibid,
p 6). The guidelines go on to state that ‘Compliance with
OAI-PMH Exchange Protocol requires use of Dublin Core
(DC) metadata vocabulary.’ (ibid, p 13). However, it is the
case that the common element across systems will be the
people, organisations, projects and other conceptual (or
context) entities that both produce resources, but also are
key components of LNs themselves. We conclude from
this that any decision to adopt an eXtension type business
model in Australia would require a shift beyond a primary
focus on resource metadata towards a conceptual model
based on context entities. The 2001 ‘Toronto Tenets:
Principles and Criteria for a Model for Archival Context
Information’ provides details of this requirement (Pitti,
2001). ‘Context information is not metadata that describes
other information resources, but information that des-
cribes entities that are part of the environment in which
information resources (i.e., records) have existed’.
Create a registry system to share expertise and
encourage innovation
Our contention is that the eXtension initiative in the
United States has gone some of the way to establishing
the foundation for the public use of context entities. This

idea is embryonic within its ‘people module’. For all
eXtension modules other than the extension.org website,
full functionality is only accessible with an eXtension ID.
Once an eXtension ID has been confirmed, the user can set
up a profile, including information such as their contact
details, institutional affiliation, areas of interest and social
2Eight years in the making, Trove is a search engine developed
by the National Library that aggregates the information from
1000
libraries, art galleries, archives, research repositories and
museums
in Australia (Vyver, 2010).
media identities. During his visit, Wood (2013) indicated
there are plans to develop the capability of this module to
support interoperability with other eXtension modules.
Additional functionality could thus be incorporated as
part of the development of a primary industries R, D and
E authority register to facilitate the sharing of expertise
across jurisdictions and to support innovation. The
Encoded Archival Context – Corporate Bodies, Persons
and Families (EAC-CPF) is an existing international
standard for developing a register of context entities
(Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin and the Society of American
Archivists, 2009) and it was specifically created to ‘provide
a communication standard for the exchange of authority
records based on International Standard for Archival
Authority Records—Corporate Bodies, Persons, Families ’.

This standard is fully compliant with OAI-PMH reposi-
tories and the harvesting of content from these. The
National Library of Australia already actively uses and
supports this standard to harvest information (including
about resources) from distributed knowledge resources for
discovery and display.
Expand the scope of ‘shared context’ to include open
access policies
The use of an authority register for context entities as a
foundation for public KM has the potential to expand
the scope of ‘shared context’ into the societal domain of
the knowledge hierarchy and the fourth dimension of the
records continuum. It is by locating these context entities
in dimension 4 of the records continuum that it becomes
possible to interconnect separate information systems in
an open contextual information framework (McCarthy
and Upshall, 2006). Public KM becomes a task that
involves the management of the boundary dynamics that
emerge between a public and a personal knowledge space,
as well as the support for interoperability between digital
repositories of the institutions involved in the realm of
personal KM as previously described. By locating con-
text entities such as people, organisations, and R, D and
E concepts like sector and cross-sector strategies, pro-
grammes and projects in dimension 4 of the records
continuum there is potential to create linkages with a
wider range of stakeholders including users, research,
policy, practice change personnel and private sector ser-
vice providers. It is likely that this trend towards a more
formal approach to integrating records management within
the context of on-line repositories as outlined in the records
continuum model are likely to accelerate. For example, a
recent announcement by the Victorian Government indi-
cates going forward that all government data and informa-

tion will be made accessible by the general public
(Department of Treasury and Finance 2012). This trend is
extending into the agricultural domain with the launch by
USDA (2013) Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack of a virtual
community to give increased public access to food, agricul-
ture and rural data. The Obama administration has now
entered this policy realm with the recent Presidential
Executive Order declaring that ‘information is a valuable
national asset whose value is multiplied when it is made
easily accessible to the public’ (White House, 2013).
Overall, we conclude that analysis of the DPI Visiting
Fellow’s programme outlined in this paper has cast light
on what we have described as the practice of public KM.
We have argued this involves combining the principles
and practices underpinning open information access, con-
textual information management and collaborative LNs.
Through this, we see there is potential to strengthen the
capacity of Australia’s primary industries R, D and E system
as a national innovation system and thus create and
deploy solutions to problems more efficiently and
effectively.
Acknowledgements
Richard Vines would like to acknowledge the generous
practical and intellectual support of Bill Hall and Carl Sudholz
in previous collaborations relevant to the authoring of this
paper. Special mention is due to Tim Ada, Traci Griffin, Kieran
Murphy and Michael Crawford from within DEPI. A huge
debt is owed to both Dan Cotton, National Director of the
US eXtension and Craig Wood, Associate Director of eXten-
sion. Their generous and creative influences permeate this
entire paper.
References
AUJIRAPONGPAN S, VADHANASINDHU C,

CHANDRACHAI A and COOPARAT P
(2010) Indicators of KM capability for KM. The Journal of
Information
and KM Systems 40(2), 183–203.
BLACKMAN D, CONNELLY J and HENDERSON S (2004)
Does double
loop learning create reliable knowledge? The Learning
Organization
11(1), 11–27.
BORZILLO S and KAMINSKA-LABBÉ R (2011) Unravelling
the dynamics of
knowledge creation in communities of practice though
complexity
theory lenses. Knowledge Management Research & Practice
9(4),
353–366.
BOYD JR (1976–1996) Unpublished briefings under the name
‘A Discourse on
winning and losing’: Introduction (1996), Patterns of conflict
(1986),
Organic design for command and control (1987), Strategic game
of?
and? (1987), Destruction and creation (1976), and the essence
of
Winning and Losing (1996). http://www.esc-
pau.fr/documents/cahiers%
20recherche%2008/cahier-10-art3.pdf (accessed 6 May 2013).
CORNING PA (2001) ‘Control information’: the missing
element in Norbert
Wiener’s cybernetic paradigm? Kybernetes 30(9/10), 1272–

1288.
COTTON D (2012) Introduction to the US eXtension Initiative.
DPIV Visiting
Fellows Program powerpoint presentations, Melbourne,
Australia, September.
DAFF (2009) National R, D, E: statement of intent. [WWW
document]
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1450631/rd
e-
statement-intent.pdf (accessed 9 August 2012).
Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (2012) Visiting
Fellow’s Program.
DEPI Intranet (accessed 16 April 2013).
Department of Treasury and Finance (2012) DataVic access
policy.
August [WWW document] http://www.data.vic.gov.au/
(accessed
22 September 2012).
http://www.esc-
pau.fr/documents/cahiers%20recherche%2008/cahier-10-
art3.pdf
http://www.esc-
art3.pdf
e-statement-intent.pdf

e-statement-intent.pdf
http://www.data.vic.gov.au/
eXtension (2013a) About Us, National eXtension initiative.
[WWW
document] http://about.extension.org/about/ (accessed 2 May
2013).
eXtension (2013b) Critical success factors executive summary,
2012.
[WWW document] http://create.extension.org/node/95315
(accessed
30 July 2013).
FIRESTONE J and MCELROY M (2003a) Key Issues in the
New KM, Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
HARVEY E (1968) Technology and the structure of
organizations. American
Sociological Review 33(2), 247–259.
HAYLES NK (1999) How We Became Posthuman; Virtual
Bodies in Cybernetics,
Literature and Informatics, Chicago and London: The University
of
Chicago Press.
IAQUINTO B, ISON R and FAGGIAN R (2011) Creating
communities of practice:
scoping purposeful design. Journal of Knowledge Management
15(1), 4–21.
JARCHE H (2013) Personal knowledge management. [WWW

document]
http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PKM-
2013.pdf
(accessed 18 April 2013).
KING D and BOEHLJE M (2000) Extension: on the brink of
extinction or
distinction? Journal of Extension. October, 38(5). [WWW
document]
http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.php (accessed 6
May 2013).
LATOUR B (1993) We have never been modern, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University Press.
LAVE J and WENGER E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral
Participation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MCCARTHY G and UPSHALL I (2006) Radioactive Waste
Information: Meeting
Our Obligations to Future Generations with Regard to the
Safety of Waste
Disposal Facilities, International Council of Archives, Paris.
MCKEMMISH S, REED B and UPWARD F (2009) Records
Continuum Model.
In Encyclopaedia of Library and Information Sciences (BATES
MJ and MAACK
MN, Eds) London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
NICKOLS F (2000) The knowledge in KM. In The KM
Yearbook 2001–2002
(CORTADA JW and WOODS JA, Eds) Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann,

pp. 12–21.
NONAKA I and TAKEUCHI H (1995) The Knowledge Creating
Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynasties of Innovation. Oxford
Univer-
sity Press, New York.
NONAKA I, VON KROGH G and VOELPEL S (2006)
Organizational knowledge
creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances.
Organization
Studies 27(8), 1179–1208.
NSW Department of Primary Industries (2012) Local Land
Services.
[WWW document]
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/locallandservices/
(accessed 2 May 2013).
PATTEE HH (1973) The physical basis and origin of
hierarchical control.
In PATTEE HH (ed.) Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of
Complex Systems,
New York: Braziller, pp. 71–108.
PATTEE HH (2000) Causation, control, and the evolution of
complexity.
In Downward Causation – Minds, Body and Matter
(ANDERSON PB,
EMMECHE C, FINNEMANN NO and CHRISTIANSEN PV,
Eds) Arhus: Arhus
University Press, pp. 63–77.
PEPPERELL R (1995) The Post-Human Condition, Exeter, UK:
Intellect Books,

Literature, and Informatics. Chicago and London: The
University of
Chicago Press.
PISC KM Working Group (2012) Open access guidelines. Phase
1 scientific
research papers, August.
PISC – Research Development and Extension sub-committee
(2011)
Grains industry. National Research, Development and Extension
Strategy.
April, p. VI. [WWW document]
http://www.npirdef.org/files/resource
Library/resource/7_GINRDEStrategy_webversion.pdf (accessed
9 August
2013).
PITTI D (2001) Creator description: encoded archival context.
In Com-
puting Arts 2001: Digital Resources for Research in the
Humanities – Papers
from a conference held at the University of Sydney (COLE C
and
CRAIG H, Eds) Sydney: University of Sydney, 26–28
September 2001,
pp. 74–101.
POLANYI M (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-
Critical Philosophy.
corrected ed., 1962, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
POLANYI M (1966) The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge
& Kegan
Paul.

POPPER KR (1972) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary
Approach, London:
Oxford University Press.
Productivity Commission (2011) Rural Research and
Development Cor-
porations, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 52,
Final Inquiry
Report, Commonwealth of Australia, 10 February.
SALTHE S (1985) Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their
Structure and Represen-
tation, New York: Columbia University Press.
SALTHE S (1993) Development and Evolution: Complexity and
Change in
Biology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
SIMON HA (1973) The organization of complex systems. In
Hierarchy
Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems (PATTEE HH, Ed.)
New York:
Braziller, pp 1–27.
SIMON HA (2002) Near decomposability and the speed of
evolution.
Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3),pp 587–599.
SMITH HA, MCKEEN JD and SINGH S (2006) Making
knowledge work: five
principles for action-oriented KM. Knowledge Management
Research &
Practice 4(2), 116–124.
Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin and the Society of American

Archivists (2009)
Development of the EAC-CPF Standard, encoded archival
context –
corporate bodies, persons and families. [WWW document]
http://eac
.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/about/development.html (accessed 2
May 2013).
NEALE S (2012) Woolgrowers accused of fleecing gene
research, The
Australian 11 August. [WWW document]
http://www.theaustralian
.com.au/news/nation/woolgrowers-accused-of-fleecing-gene-
research/
story-e6frg6nf-1226447891615 (accessed 20 September 2012).
UPWARD F (1996) Structuring the records continuum – Part
one: post-
custodial principles and properties. [WWW document]
http://tinyurl
.com/qb82lee (accessed 16 May 2013).
USDA (2013) News Release No. 0079.13. G-8 open data for
agriculture
conference aims to help feed a growing population and fulfil
new
alliance for food security and nutrition commitment. [WWW
document]
http://tinyurl.com/p4zrwd9 (accessed 22 May 2013).
VINES R (2013) How big data and KM can work together. In
Image and
Data Manager. 17 April. [WWW document] http://tinyurl.com/
caa7w53 (accessed 26 May 2013).
VINES R, HALL W and MCCARTHY G (2011) Textual

representations and
knowledge support-systems in research intensive networks. In
Towards
a Semantic Web: Connecting knowledge in academic research
(COPE W,
KALANTZIS M and MAGEE L, Eds) Philadelphia, PA:
Woodhead Publishing,
pp. 145–195, [WWW document] http://tinyurl.com/27qd4of
(accessed
20 March 2012).
VYVER J (2010) The search engine for all things Aussie –
Australian Broad-
casting Corporation (ABC), Canberra, 7 September. [WWW
document]
http://tinyurl.com/7a738cb (accessed 16 April 2012).
White House (2013) Obama administration releases historic
open data
rules to enhance government efficiency and fuel economic
growth.
[WWW document] http://tinyurl.com/cwmv57z (accessed 22
May 2013).
WOOD C (2013) eXtension: America’s research-based learning
network.
DPIV Visiting Fellows Program powerpoint presentations and
‘lessons
learned’ notes. University of Kentucky.
YAKHLEF A (2008) Towards a post-human distributed
cognition environ-
ment. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6, 287–297.
[WWW
document] http://www.esc-
pau.fr/documents/cahiers%20recherche%

2008/cahier-10-art3.pdf, accessed 6 May 2013.
About the Authors
Richard Vines has, for over 15 years, been leading and
brokering knowledge related programs, projects and consul-
tancies spanning industry, government and academia. In
December 2010 he joined the Victorian Government’s
Department of Environment and Primary Industries in a
start-up knowledge management initiative. In this role he
has continued to forge on-going collaborations with the
eScholarship Research Centre at the University of Melbourne
on matters to do with public knowledge management.
Michael Jones is a Senior Research Archivist at the Uni-
versity of Melbourne’s eSRC. Since starting at the Centre in
http://about.extension.org/about/
http://create.extension.org/node/95315
http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PKM-
2013.pdf
http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.php
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/locallandservices/
http://www.npirdef.org/files/resourceLibrary/resource/7_GINR
DEStrategy_webversion.pdf
http://www.npirdef.org/files/resourceLibrary/resource/7_GINR
DEStrategy_webversion.pdf
http://eac.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/about/development.html
http://eac.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/about/development.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/woolgrowers-
accused-of-fleecing-gene-research/story-e6frg6nf-

1226447891615
1226447891615
1226447891615
http://tinyurl.com/qb82lee
http://tinyurl.com/qb82lee
http://tinyurl.com/p4zrwd9
http://tinyurl.com/caa7w53
http://tinyurl.com/caa7w53
http://tinyurl.com/27qd4of
http://tinyurl.com/7a738cb
http://tinyurl.com/cwmv57z
http://www.esc-
art3.pdf
http://www.esc-
art3.pdf
2008, he has worked on numerous paper-based and
digital archival projects. His positions have included:
National Program Manager for the Find & Connect
Web Resource project; Advisory Group Member on the
University’s Digital Research and Data Preservation Strat-
egy and Reviewer for the Journal of Knowledge Management.
Prior to joining the Centre, he completed a Masters
(Research) in Art History at the University of Edinburgh,
and worked as a trainer, manager and project officer in
the corporate sector.
Gavan McCarthy is a leader in the field of cultural
informatics with emphasis on the building of sustainable

information resources and services to support research.
The Australian Science Archives Project, which com-
menced in 1985, pioneered the development of national
information services and infrastructure to support the
history of Australian science, technology, medicine and
engineering through the utilisation of the emerging digital
technologies. He is noted in Australia and overseas for his
innovative and research-driven approach.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
Unported License. To view a copy of this
license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Collaborating across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries:
enabling the emergence of a national innovation system through
public knowledge managementIntroductionDescription of the
system interventionTarget audienceKey
themesFeedbackExploring the evolution of the eXtension
initiative through a theoretical lensPersonal and explicit
knowledgeFigure 1The elements of an integrated model to
support public KM.Elements of a conceptual framework to
support public KMImplications for the practice of public
KMComplexity theory and public KMPersonal KM in a public
sphereFigure 2The dynamics of public KM: a complex adaptive
systems perspective.Recommendations to support the practice
and deployment of public KMEnable the emergence of

collaborative LNs via a focus on personal KMEngage multiple
institutions in adopting standards-based content
managementCreate a registry system to share expertise and
encourage innovationExpand the scope of ‘shared
context’ to include open access policiesRichard Vines
would like to acknowledge the generous practical and
intellectual support of Bill Hall and Carl Sudholz in previous
collaborations relevant to the authoring of this paper. Special
mention is due to Tim Ada, Traci Griffin, Kieran Murphy and
MACKNOWLEDGEMENTS1SECI refers to Socialisation,
Externalisation, Combination and Internalisation.2Eight years in
the making, Trove is a search engine developed by the National
Library that aggregates the information from 1000 libraries, art
galleries, archives, research
rAujirapongpanSVadhanasindhuCChandrachaiACooparatP2010I
ndicators of KM capability for KMThe Journal of Information
and KM
Systems402183203BlackmanDConnellyJHendersonS2004Does
double loop learning create reliable knowledge?The Learning
Organization1111127BoAbout the Authors
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

Collaborating across institutional andjurisdictional boundar.docx

Collaborating across institutional andjurisdictional boundar.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Collaborating across institutional andjurisdictional boundar.docx

Similar to Collaborating across institutional andjurisdictional boundar.docx (20)

More from pickersgillkayne

More from pickersgillkayne (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Collaborating across institutional andjurisdictional boundar.docx