Who Should We Count as Citizens? Categorizing People in Public Administration Research

• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Author: Alasdair Roberts
• Date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13270

286 Public Administration Review • March | Apri l 202 1

Alasdair Roberts

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Who Should We Count as Citizens? Categorizing People in

Public Administration Research

Abstract: Citizenship is a core concept in public administration research. This article examines how the concept was

employed in 29 research articles published in Public Administration Review since 2009. It finds two difficulties.

The first is a tendency to omit an explicit definition of the concept, contrary to good practice. The second is a tendency

to adopt an implied definition of citizenship that encompasses all of the general population. The article considers

possible justifications for current practice. Research would be improved by using the concept less frequently, defining

it explicitly, adopting a definition that is closer to ordinary usage, and attending more carefully to the ways in which

attitudes and behavior are influenced by a person’s status within a jurisdiction.

Citizenship is a core concept within the field

of public administration. A growing body of

empirical work in the field explores citizen

attitudes and behavior. However, this impressive body

of research may rest on a shaky foundation, because

we are not always careful about defining who we

count as citizens.

Public administration is largely concerned with the

governance of persons or people within a jurisdiction. This

collectivity is sometimes called the general population,

the general public, or simply the public. Some of these

people can be categorized as residents because they live

permanently in the jurisdiction. But every jurisdiction

contains visitors or transients, too. Some people are

also citizens, in the legal sense that they are recognized

members of the country in which the jurisdiction

is located, with concomitant rights and obligations.

But some are noncitizens. Some noncitizens have

authorization from the government to visit or reside in

the jurisdiction, while others are unauthorized or “illegal.”

Some residents are taxpayers, while others are not.

People in a jurisdiction can be sorted into many

categories, and there is reason to believe that these

categories are important determinants of attitudes

and behavior. Similarly, the attitudes and behavior

of government officials may be shaped by their

perception of a person’s category. For example,

officials probably treat citizen residents differently

than illegal transients.

Empirical research in public administration sometimes

overlooks these different categories and their

significance. Instead, researchers often combine people

into a single category, by labeling everyone a citizen

regardless of legal status and sometimes residency

status. This very broad definition of citizenship is

unusual, and the decision to adopt it is not always

explicit. A reader who is not careful might think

that researchers are talking about citizens in the legal

sense when they are really talking about people in

general. In sum, we have a problem in research design

combined with a problem of miscommunication.

I illustrate difficulties in current practice by looking at

empirical research published in Public Administration

Review between 2009 and 2019. I retrieved every

contribution that referred to citizenship in both the

title and abstract. Book reviews and commentaries

were removed from the sample, as were contributions

without an empirical component. This left 29 original

articles. I asked two questions about these articles: Did

researchers say explicitly what the category of citizen

meant in the context of their study? And if no explicit

definition was provided, what definition was implied?

My purpose is not to insist on a particular definition

of citizenship. Researchers can follow Humpty

Dumpty’s rule—“When I use a word, it means just

what I choose it to mean” (Carroll1872, 124)—so

long as they are explicit about their definition.

However, the obligation to be explicit is heavier

when words are used unconventionally. Moreover, a

definition may diverge so far from conventional usage

that it becomes preferable to use another word or

phrase—such as the general population, the public,

residents, or people—that is appropriate for the

research project.

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 2, pp. 286–290. © 2020 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13270.

Alasdair Roberts is a professor of public

policy at the University of Massachusetts

Amherst and director of its School of

Public Policy. His latest book is

Strategies

for Governing: Reinventing Public

Administration for a Dangerous Century

(Cornell University Press, 2019).

Email: asroberts@umass.edu

Viewpoint Article