Public Administrators’ Use of Social Media Platforms

• DOI: 10.1177/0095399713503463
• Author: Claire Connolly Knox
• Date: 01 May 2016
• Published date: 01 May 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

Administration & Society

2016, Vol. 48(4) 477 –496

© The Author(s) 2013

DOI: 10.1177/0095399713503463

aas.sagepub.com

Article

Public Administrators’

Use of Social Media

Platforms: Overcoming

the Legitimacy Dilemma?

Claire Connolly Knox1

Abstract

Previous research incorporates Habermas’ theory of communicative action

with implications of social media for public discourse, yet few studies

consider the theory’s relevance and applicability to public administrators.

This article addresses this weak link by focusing on the administration

legitimacy dilemma. While social media can be useful to public administrators

facilitating collaborative interactions with citizens, these platforms are not

automatically suited to public participation in governance. Habermas’ theory

offers a framework for understanding these possibilities and challenges, as

well as adapting social media constructively to administrative practice.

Keywords

social media, legitimacy dilemma, critical theory, Habermas

Introduction

Scholarly research on the Internet and its effect on public participation and

democracy, commonly referred to as e-democracy, has changed through the

years from “early enthusiasm to pessimistic reaction, and to the recent, more

balanced and empirically driven approaches of the post-dotcom era”

1University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Claire Connolly Knox, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando,

FL 32816-1395, USA.

Email: Claire.Knox@ucf.edu

503463AAS48410.1177/0095399713503463Administration & SocietyKnox

research-article2013

478 Administration & Society 48(4)

(Chadwick, 2009, pp. 11-12). When past media were introduced, they were

viewed as a new utopia in public engagement, discourse, and participation

(e.g., radio in the 1920s, television in the 1960s, cable television in the

1980s). Similarly, Internet discussions in the 1990s held high hopes for creat-

ing a new utopia because of the new level of interactivity that was lacking in

the previous media (Breindl & Francq, 2008). Specifically, the Internet’s high

expectation of a deliberative space, or new public sphere, that would facili-

tate “‘rich, critical, self-reflective, tolerant and sustained citizen engage-

ment,’ allowing citizens to ‘deliberate free from the constraints of time’” is

continuously discussed by many postmodern political theorists (Khan, Gilani,

& Nawaz, 2012; Petrik, 2010, p. 18). While there is a new promise and simi-

lar high expectation for social media platforms in government, researchers

recognize technology as a challenge facing the future of public administra-

tion (i.e., Bretschneider & Mergel, 2011; Farazmand, 2012; Johnston, 2010;

Norris, 2010; Zavattaro, 2013).1

Researchers often use political and discourse theorists’ normative ideas

and concepts in the study of e-democracy and public participation (i.e.,

Barber, 1984; Box, 2005; Fox & Miller, 1995; King & Stivers, 1998;

Macpherson, 1977; McSwite, 1997; Parkinson, 2006; Pateman, 1970).

Habermas’ concept of the deliberative public sphere has been highly influen-

tial in normative and empirical research on e-democracy and computer-mediated

communication (i.e., Albrecht, 2006; Chadwick, 2009; Dahlberg, 2001; Ess,

1996; Heng & de Moor, 2003; Khan et al., 2012). Yet, application of

Habermas’ theory of communicative action to public administrators’ use or

nonuse of social media platforms is absent in the literature. The goal of this

article is to address a weak link in the literature between Habermas’ theory

and social media by focusing on the administration legitimacy dilemma. The

latter is the contradiction faced by administrators as they exercise discretion

when translating abstract laws and policies into concrete rules, procedures,

and actions, while remaining flexible and open to the public.

The politics–administration dichotomy in public administration theory

and practice tends to assume away this discretion, but law and policy inevita-

bly require interpretation and adjustment in application. If administrators

stick dogmatically to the letter of the law, they are accused of being “bureau-

cratic” in the worst sense of the term. If they are more flexible, they expose

themselves to criticism for usurping legislative authority or being arbitrary

and capricious. To overcome the administrative legitimacy dilemma,

Habermas states it will involve the “interplay of institutional imagination and

cautious experimentation” (1996, p. 441).

In the advancing technological age, roles of the public administrator and

the citizen are changing. New expectations on the use of social media tools