Editors' Introduction

• Author: Brian W. Head,Gary VanLandingham,Kimberley R. Isett
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12792
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Date: 01 July 2017

485

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 4, pp. 485. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12792.

Evidence in Public

Administration

Editors’

Introduction

I n this issue our feature looks at social media use

practices of public agencies. The practice piece on

Issaquah, Washington, by Kargarise and Zavattaro,

outlines one city ’ s proactive approach to establishing

electronic relationships within their jurisdiction and the

public more generally. The authors illustrate a feasible

approach to real interactions that jurisdictions can take

to leverage social media. Their approach contrasts with

the one-way “push” of information from governments

to citizens—essentially using Web 2.0 platforms

as a passive dissemination tool, documented as the

approach used by most agencies. Instead not only does

Issaquah allow the “pull” of information from citizens

by answering questions and pointing to resources, but

also employs the “social” aspect of social media with

engagement. The evidence critique to Kargarise and

Zavattaro was written by Ines Mergel. In her piece,

Mergel illustrates the continuum of possibility that

governments have with regard to social media use for

public good. She concurs that Issaquah is further along

in their approach than the anchor of the continuum of

“push,” but also points to the possibilities that are out

there and attainable for agencies or jurisdictions that

want to invest in serious social network measurement

of reach, sentiment, and amplification—to know the

who and what of their messaging. This gold standard

does not come inexpensively, especially with regard

to human capital, but could provide real insight for

public managers with the will and resources to harness

existing methodological techniques and personnel.

Both pieces provide food for thought for both practice

and research.

Kimberley R. Isett

Georgia Institute of Technology

Brian W. Head

University of Queensland, Australia

Gary VanLandingham

The Pew Charitable Trusts