Knowledge Construction in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis of Public Value

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13005
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Published date: 01 July 2019

488 Public Administration Review • July | A ugus t 201 9

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 79, Iss. 4, pp. 488–499. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13005.

Franziska Wallmeier

Bernd Helmig

University of Mannheim, Germany

Mary K. Feeney

Arizona State University

Knowledge Construction in Public Administration:

A Discourse Analysis of Public Value

Abstract: Public administration is a relatively young field with a growing academic community. Against the

background of enduring discussions about theory and increasing research output and diversification within the field,

the authors apply the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse that combines discourse theories and a social

constructionist tradition to the exemplary case of “public value” research. The authors scrutinize 50 articles from

12 journals over 18 years to trace the development of public value as a concept in public administration research.

Drawing from this exemplary case, they develop propositions and propose a framework for knowledge construction

that is uniquely characterized as public administration. From the anchor points of manageability, economization, and

democratic accountability, the authors develop a framework for analyzing and investigating knowledge development in

other concepts such as network governance, representative bureaucracy, and coproduction.

Evidence for Practice

• Public administration knowledge construction is characterized by manageability, economization, and

democratic accountability.

• The Three Pillars of Public Administration Knowledge Construction provide a framework to interpret

knowledge developments in public administration.

• Manageability: Public administration research develops solutions for real-world problems.

• Economization: Public administration research defends collective values against the intrusion of an economic

system.

• Democratic accountability: Public administration research and practice serve the public interest.

The social study of science is a meta-science

that targets the analysis of science itself.

The interest in and need to analyze how

knowledge construction and progress take place in

scientific communities has gained importance since

Kuhn’s (1962) research on scientific revolutions. In

public administration (PA), the scholarly debate on

knowledge construction is reflected in the discussion

of the nature, scope, and interdisciplinarity of PA

(Raadschelders 2011). Scholars have examined this

empirically, for example, by taking stock of the body

of knowledge as published in specific academic

journals (Raadschelders and Lee 2011) or by analyzing

coauthorship networks (Hatmaker et al. 2017). Yet

few studies have investigated knowledge construction

in PA as socially constructed reality (Berger and

Luckman 1966).

As the intellectual diversification of the scholarly field

of PA is increasing (Nesbit et al. 2011), understanding

the question of knowledge construction is critical

for progress and theory building (Aimo 2002;

Raadschelders 2011; Riccucci 2010). Developing

fields face the challenge of sorting among and

connecting knowledge from different perspectives and

almost “endless sources of knowledge” (Raadschelders

2005, 627). As researchers, scholars, teachers, and

practitioners select among these endless sources

of knowledge, the field becomes defined by these

choices—by what is included and what is excluded.

In the case of PA, scientific progress in the field

has recently been shaped by powerful paradigms.

Predicting the future of PA scholarship, “The likely

answer is that it will look a lot like it looks now, but

with a different set of buzzwords. In the 1990s, they

were reinvention, New Public Management, and

agency” (Barzelay and Thompson 2010, 295). While

some scholars raise concerns about a loss of theoretical

progress in favor of more and more empirical research

(Meier 2015), it is increasingly important to consider

how the field develops knowledge and advances

theoretical work.

Critical to PA theory building is addressing how

knowledge (what we know) comes into being.

A starting point for the process of knowledge

Mary K. Feeney is associate professor

and Lincoln Professor of Ethics in Public

Affairs and associate director for the Center

for Science, Technology and Environmental

Policy Studies at Arizona State University.

Her research focuses on public

management, nonprofit management, and

technology use in government.

E-mail: mkfeeney@asu.edu

Bernd Helmig is full professor of

business administration and chair of

public and nonprofit management at the

University of Mannheim, Germany. His

primary areas of research interest are public

management, nonprofit management, and

service management.

E-mail: sekretariat.helmig@uni-mannheim.de

Franziska Wallmeier earned her

PhD at the University of Mannheim,

Germany. Her research focuses on public

management, public participation, and

qualitative research methods. She currently

works for the Hessen State Ministry for

Higher Education, Research and the Arts, in

Wiesbaden, Germany.

E-mail: wallmeier@bwl.uni-mannheim.de

Research Article