summer 2012 - National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and ...

JPAE 

volume 18 Number 3 

journal of public affairs education 

Flagship journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration 

Summer 2012

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration 

(NASPAA) 

Nadia Rubaii, President 

Jack Knott, Vice President 

Frances S. Berry, Immediate Past President 

Laurel McFarland, Executive Director 

JPAE Oversight Committee: 

Andrew Ewoh, Greg Lindsey & Amy Donahue 

David Schultz, Editor in Chief, Hamline University 

Kristen Norman-Major, Managing Editor, Hamline University 

Iris Geva-May, Associate Editor for International and Comparative Education, Simon Fraser University 

Lisa Dejoras, Editorial Assistant, Hamline University 

Copy Editor: Chris Thillen Layout and Cover Design: Val Escher 

EDITOR’S COUNCIL 

H. George Frederickson, Founding Editor, University of Kansas James L. Perry, Indiana University, Bloomington 

Danny L. Balfour, Grand Valley State University 

Mario A. Rivera, University of New Mexico 

Marc Holzer, Rutgers University 

Heather E. Campbell, Claremont Graduate University 

Edward T. Jennings, University of Kentucky 

BOARD OF EDITORS 

Muhittin Acar, Hacettepe University Turkey 

Kristina Lambright, Binghamton University, 

Mohamad Alkadry, Florida International University 

State University of New York 

Burt Barnow, George Washington University 

Laura Langbein, American University 

Peter J. Bergerson, Florida Gulf Coast University 

Scott Lazenby, City of Sandy, Oregon 

Rajade Berry-James, North Carolina State University 

Deanna Malatesta, Indiana University-Purdue 

John Bohte, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 

University Indianapolis 

Espiridion Borrego, University of Texas Pan American 

Steven R. Maxwell, Florida Gulf Coast University 

John M. Bryson, University of Minnesota 

Barbara McCabe, University of Texas 

Lysa Burnier, Ohio University 

Juliet Musso, University of Southern California 

N. Joseph Cayer, Arizona State University 

Michael O’Hare, University of California, Berkeley 

Heather Campbell, Claremont Graduate University 

David Powell, California State University, Long Beach 

Barbara Crosby, University of Minnesota 

David Reingold, Indiana University 

Robert B. Cunningham, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

Dahlia Remler, Baruch College CUNY 

Dwight Denison, University of Kentucky 

R. Karl Rethemeyer, University at Albany SUNY 

Anand Desai, Ohio State University 

Michelle Saint-Germain, California State University, Long Beach 

James W. Douglas, University of North Carolina at Charlotte 

Jodi Sandfort, University of Minnesota 

Robert Durant, American University 

Robert A. Schuhmann, University of Wyoming 

Jo Ann G. Ewalt, Eastern Kentucky University 

Patricia M. Shields, Texas State University 

Cynthia Fukami, University of Denver 

Robert Smith, Kennesaw State University 

Susan Gooden, Virginia Commonwealth University 

Jessica Sowa, University of Colorado 

Cynthia Jackson-Elmoore, Michigan State University 

Kendra Stewart, University of Charleston 

Meagan Jordan, University of Arkansas at Little Rock 

Giovanni Valotti, Università Bocconi 

Edward Kellough, University of Georgia 

David Van Slyke, Syracuse University 

Don Kettl, University of Maryland, College Park 

Karel Van der Molen, Stellenbosch University, South Africa 

John Kiefer, University of New Orleans 

Howard Whitton, Griffith University 

William Earle Klay, Florida State University 

Blue Wooldridge, Virginia Commonwealth University 

Chris Koliba, University of Vermont 

Firuz Demir Yasamıs, American University in the Emirates 

CORRESPONDENTS 

Khalid Al-Yahya, Dubai School of Government 

Charlene M. L. Roach, University of the West Indies, 

Edgar Ramirez Delacruz, Center for Research and 

St. Augustine Campus 

Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico 

Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. 

Claims for missing numbers should be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publishers expect to 

supply missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit. Subscription Rates: 

Institution, $125; Individual, $50; Student, $40; Non-U.S., add $20 to applicable rate. Electronic JPAE articles can be accessed at www. 

naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. Change of Address: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old and new addresses. 

Please allow four weeks for the change. Postmaster: Send address changes to JPAE, National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and 

Administration, 1029 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., 20005-3517. Educators and Copy Centers: Copyright 2010. 

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. All rights reserved. Educators may reproduce any material for 

classroom use only and authors may reproduce their articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce JPAE in 

all other instances. Please contact Jacqueline Lewis, NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., 20005-3517, phone: 

202-628-8965, fax: 202-626-4978, email: jlewis@naspaa.org. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of 

American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. JPAE is 

abstracted or indexed in JSTOR, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Education Full Text Index. ISSN 1523-6803 (formerly 1087–7789).

Journal of Public Affairs Education 

Summer 2012 Volume 18, No. 3 

From the Editor—Carpe Diem! Embrace Change! 

David Schultz.....................................................................................................ii 

From the Guest Editors—Social and Technological Innovations in 

Teaching Public Affairs: Introduction to the Symposium 

Thomas A. Bryer and Angela M. Eikenberry..................................................... 423 

Theoretical and Instrumental Rationales of Student Empowerment through 

Social and Web-Based Technologies 

Thomas A. Bryer and Daniel Seigler................................................................. 429 

Social Networking, Learning, and Civic Engagement: New Relationships 

between Professors and Students, Public Administrators and Citizens 

Angela M. Eikenberry...................................................................................... 449 

The Public Manager 2.0: Preparing the Social Media Generation for a 

Networked Workplace 

Ines Mergel...................................................................................................... 467 

Using a Wiki-Based Course Design to Create a Student-Centered Learning 

Environment: Strategies and Lessons 

Qian Hu and Erik Johnston............................................................................. 493 

Exploring the Role of Interactive Computer Simulations in Public 

Administration Education 

Qian Hu, Erik Johnston, Libby Hemphill, Rashmi Krishnamurthy, and Ajay Vinze.... 513 

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Higher Education: How to Use 

SET More Effectively and Efficiently in Public Affairs Education 

Koichiro Otani, B. Joon Kim, and Jeong-IL Cho............................................... 531 

An Executive MPA Program for China: Lessons from the Field 

Wenxuan Yu, Marilyn Rubin, and Wei Wu....................................................... 545 

Teaching Collaborative Governance: Phases, Competencies, and 

Case-Based Learning 

Ricardo S. Morse and John B. Stephens............................................................. 565 

Classrooms as Communities of Practice: Designing and Facilitating Learning in a 

Networked Environment 

Naim Kapucu................................................................................................. 585 

Review of Accountable Governance: Problems and Promises 

Peter W. McDanel........................................................................................... 611 

Erratum.......................................................................................................... 615 

Information for Contributors.....................................................Inside back cover 

Cover design by Val Escher. Cover design property of NASPAA. 

Cover photos: (top) Health and Public Affairs I, University of Central Florida; (bottom) The College of Public Affairs and 

Community Service Building, University of Nebraska-Omaha.

From the Editor— 

Carpe diem! Embrace change! 

The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus declared that one cannot step 

into the same river twice—it is everywhere in flux and change. Heraclitus would 

have made a terrific public affairs teacher. He understood the world is constantly 

changing, demanding always something new of all public administrators and 

citizens, thereby necessitating that the education we deliver go with the flow. 

Juxtapose the nineteenth-century Luddites who destroyed the new machines 

they viewed as a threat to their jobs and society. Their world was one hostile 

and fearful of change and new ideas; they preferred the old, reliable, and cozy. 

They would have been horrible teachers. Standing between Heraclitus and the 

Luddites are many public affairs teachers and programs. Many desire continuity, 

fidelity to tried-and-true methods and values; others seek change for itself. The 

art of good teaching is balancing what works with experimentalism. 

There is no question that changes in the world render imperative a 

rethinking of public affairs education. They include a new democratic model 

for governance, expectations that managers be more collaborative, and 

communications between citizens and officials that are increasingly mediated by 

the social and new media. Additionally, faculty are witness to a new generation 

of students more tech savvy than we ever were, and to a demand to integrate 

the classroom to the community in ways that defy most of our educational 

experiences. In short, effective public affairs teaching now calls for innovation 

and reflecting changes in the world, in much the same way that the business 

community demands of both. It might be trite to say that public affairs teaching 

must evolve or die, but certainly seize the day is a good message to live by. 

This issue of JPAE might be called the “Carpe diem!” one. It features a 

special symposium on learning and technology, and it also showcases articles that 

capture some of the other changes in society that are driving new pedagogies in 

the classroom. What this issue aims to do is survey the new landscape of teaching 

and to assess what works and why. The balance that the articles seek to effect is 

encouraging experimentation in teaching while respecting two other values. The 

first is how to enhance and respect democratic values; the second is how to do 

what “works,” whatever works might mean. Promote change, respect democracy, 

and be effective—this is the focus of the Summer 2012 issue. 

Thomas A. Bryer and Angela M. Eikenberry are the guest editors and 

introduce the symposium on technology. They note the diversity of technologies 

employed in the classroom, ranging from old-fashioned chalk to perhaps the 

latest downloadable app, seeking to explain not only what tools are being used, 

but to what effect. Are the latest technologies demonstrably better in enhancing 

learning? Do they create a more enjoyable learning environment? Or do the 

ii 

Journal of Public Affairs Education

From the Editor 

rationales for their use lies elsewhere, perhaps in terms of empowering students 

and thereby fostering a democratic ethos in the class that carries over into work? 

The Bryer and Eikenberry review begins by offering a brief state-of-the-discipline 

discussion of what is known about technology in the classroom, setting the 

foundation for the five articles forming this symposium. 

Thomas Bryer and Daniel Seigler, in “Theoretical and Instrumental 

Rationales of Student Empowerment through Social and Web-Based 

Technologies,” locate the value of Web-based teaching “in terms of how it 

empowers students in the classroom by buying into the course, thereby preparing 

them for later democratic governance in the workplace.” 

Angela Eikenberry looks at social networking sites as a powerful medium 

for teaching in “Social Networking, Learning, and Civic Engagement: Creating 

New Relationships between Professors and Students, Public Administrator and 

Citizens.” At a time when Facebook and other social media offer the promise 

of connecting citizens and public officials in new ways, Eikenberry investigates 

their promise as teaching tools to promote civic engagement and an enhanced 

classroom learning environment. 

Ines Mergel follows up on Eikenberry’s analysis by looking at how the 

coming generation of citizens and leaders will be more connected than ever. 

“The Public Manager 2.0: Preparing the Social Media Generation for a 

Networked Workplace” describes the new networked workplace and how 

managers need to adapt to it as they recruit a new cohort of workers. This piece 

describes the results of a hands-on social media class and the lessons it offers for 

teaching to this new generation. 

Nearly all of us have heard of Wikipedia. While we may have contrasting 

views on the value of the content, the process of producing the entries—a 

collaborative group process—is a fascinating exercise in learning. But at the core 

of the project is Wiki-based technology. Might not the principles of Wiki be 

ideal for the classroom? Qian Hu and Erik Johnston thought that, too. In their 

“Using a Wiki-Based Course Design to Create a Student-Centered Learning 

Environment: Strategies and Lessons,” they describe their experiences with a 

wiki-based online course, called ePublic Affairs, intended for MPA, MPP, and 

PhD students. This case study highlights how Wiki collaboration enhanced the 

online experience, but the authors also provide important cautionary notes 

for faculty. 

Qian Hu and coauthors also contribute their article, “Exploring the Role 

of Interactive Computer Simulations in Public Administration Education.” 

Computer simulations can be a powerful teaching tool, modeling scenarios that 

officials might confront in practice. In this piece the authors present the evidence 

on the value of the interactive simulations, presenting results on several cases 

studies in their application. 

Journal of Public Affairs Education iii


What do we learn from these five articles? Bryer and Eikenberry tell 

us that there is much that we do not yet know about how all these new 

technologies are transforming learning and the classroom. They conclude not 

only by encouraging more research into these tools, but more important, by 

emphasizing experimenting with them to see what works and how. The world is 

technologically changing, and so must the classroom. 

While technology is the subject of the symposium, the other pieces that 

make up this issue offer excellent perspectives on diverse trends in society and 

therefore in public affairs teaching. Improving teaching is a goal all educators 

share. But what exactly do students think constitutes effective teaching when 

they evaluate us? Koichiro Otani, B. Joon Kim, and Jeong-IL Cho, in “Student 

Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Higher Education: How to Use SET More 

Effectively and Efficiently in Public Affairs,” offer some answers. Drawing from 

a sample of more than 1,400 students across several classes, they found that four 

variables stood out: clear explanations by professors, an effective use of class time, 

a positive learning environment, and stimulating course materials. 

Collaboration has long been a staple in business schools and increasingly is 

being emphasized in public administration research and practice. Universities 

also engage in practice by the delivery of public affairs programs. Public 

administration programs are delivered around the world to meet the growing 

demand for professional government service. As a result, many programs offer 

more traditional MPA programs while others provide executive programs. Many 

of these programs are joint programs between a domestic school and a foreign 

university, often one based in the United States. But how well do these joint 

ventures serve student needs? In “An Executive MPA Program for China: Lessons 

from the Field,” by Wenxuan Yu, Marilyn Rubin, and Wei Wu, the authors survey 

students in China and Singapore, assessing demographic differences between 

students enrolled in a traditional MPA versus those in an Executive MPA. The 

article finds critical differences in the types of students involved in each program, 

offering important advice about how to set up executive programs in China. 

Equally important, the authors provide insights into what schools need to know 

when setting up joint educational ventures in this or perhaps other countries. 

Another related question is: how should collaboration be taught? 

“Teaching Collaborative Governance: Phases, Competencies, and Case-Based 

Learning,” by Ricardo S. Morse and John B. Stephens, outlines a four-phase 

model of collaborative governance and corresponding competencies to help 

ground education and training for this skill. The strength of this piece is in its 

demonstration of how to instruct collaborative governance by offering a teaching 

case to highlight its pedagogy. 

Naim Kapucu’s “Classrooms as Communities of Practice: Designing 

and Facilitating Learning in a Networked Environment” brings together two 

iv 



contemporary trends in public administration teaching. Many faculty emphasize 

the importance of technology in fostering connectedness while others see 

learning as occurring among peers. Both approaches emphasize a social learning 

environment, and in this article the focus is on learning activities within a 

graduate-level public administration program promoting a networked classroom. 

The results demonstrate greater friendship relations among students but only a 

slight increase in the advice network between students. 

Finally, Peter W. McDanel reviews Accountable Governance: Problems 

and Promises, edited by Melvin J. Dubnick and H. George Frederickson. 

Accountability is a requisite of democratic governance. According to McDanel, 

this volume offers a “rich diversification of thought from 25 of the best-known 

scholars in the field of public affairs on the various aspects of accountability, 

providing a rich framework for further dialogue between government officials, 

educators, and citizens.” The book is lauded as terrific tool for graduate public 

administration classes as well as a good reference for those looking to do research 

on accountability. 

The lessons of the articles in this issue are about embracing change. The 

definition of public affairs is evolving—and with it, what we do in the classroom, 

and how it connects to the “real world,” also must evolve to remain current and 

relevant in this new world. 

— David Schultz 

Editor in Chief 

Hamline University 

dschultz@hamline.edu 

Journal of Public Affairs Education v

vi 


Social and Technological Innovations 

in Teaching Public Affairs: 

Introduction to the Symposium 

Thomas A. Bryer 

University of Central Florida 

Angela M. Eikenberry 

University of Nebraska at Omaha 

Technology can be defined as “the social, material, or cloud/cyberspace tools 

used to manipulate human behavior to achieve a specified objective.” In the 

classroom, teachers use a variety of technologies to elicit desired student response 

or output and ultimately to achieve a level of learning appropriate for particular 

students. For example, decisions to use a chalk/white board versus PowerPoint 

during a lecture are often made based on the nature of engagement desired with 

the students. Arranging seats or desks in a classroom in a lecture format, an 

open circle, or an open square generates different types of engagement among 

and with students. Social media and networking tools enable relationships to 

develop that may not have been possible in a strictly face-to-face environment, 

particularly within the time constraints of a typical class period. 

These technologies can be applied with the purpose of empowering students 

in the learning process, or democratizing learning. Several examples of these are 

described in Wankel’s 2010 edited volume, Cutting-Edge Social Media Approaches 

to Business Education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and 

Blogs. Using social media and Web 2.0 technologies, students have the opportunity 

to co-create their learning environment as well as the content delivered and 

discussed in the course. In the face-to-face environment, Ira Schor (1996) has 

written on “democratic classrooms,” in which students are empowered to craft 

core components of course syllabi, including assignments, course structure, and 

content. These are but two examples that suggest the ability to empower students 

through the application of technologies to teaching. It remains uncertain however, 

what the impact of using these tools has on learning, how they can be applied 

practically, and what the implications are for the public affairs classroom. 

JPAE 18(3), 423–428 

Journal of Public Affairs Education 423

T. A. Bryer & A. M. Eikenberry 

The five articles in this symposium consider such issues in depth. In 

developing the symposium, we sought theoretical exploration and empirical 

studies, including case examples that critically assess the use of social, material, or 

cloud/cyberspace technologies for student empowerment. We provide a preview 

of the articles here, followed by a brief review of practical next steps and areas in 

need of further research. 

Summary of Symposium Contributions 

Overall, the articles in this symposium generally advocate and provide 

guidance and suggestions for using new technologies in the classroom to 

empower and engage students. Use of these new, more interactive technologies is 

necessary, as several of the authors argue, because there is growing pressure from 

above and below for public administrators to effectively use social networking 

tools to engage with citizens. There is also a greater desire for active, engaged 

learning experiences among our students, which can be facilitated by new 

technologies such as social networking. 

Bryer and Seigler set the context by digging into theoretical and instrumental 

rationales for student empowerment through social and Web-based technologies. 

This article also provides a useful framework through which to interpret the 

remaining articles in the symposium. Specifically, the authors present six rationales 

for student empowerment: (1) develop the ethical reasoning and judgment of 

students in complex contexts, (2) develop the leadership and management skills 

of students in complex contexts, (3) develop student ownership in the learning 

process, (4) provide space to allow the teacher to show passion and engage that 

passion with students, (5) ensure student buy-in to course objectives, and (6) 

ensure student buy-in to course content delivery methods. Bryer and Seigler 

define student empowerment in five parts: (1) granting control of course content 

to students, (2) permitting students to co-create subject matter content with each 

other and with the teachers, (3) enabling the voice of students, (4) enabling choice 

for students, and (5) enabling creativity with students. The authors present a 

variety of approaches to student empowerment in face-to-face, online, and virtual 

environments, ranging from videoconferencing and using touchpad technology in 

the face-to-face classroom to Second Life or OpenSim in the virtual environment. 

These tools and empowerment philosophy assume a different kind of relationship 

between the instructor and students, addressed more directly in Eikenberry’s 

symposium article. 

Eikenberry provides an overview of research on the use of social networking 

tools, with a special focus on public affairs classrooms. The article maintains 

a focus on the link between social networking for learning, professor-student 

relationships, and ultimately, how students, through more networked 

relationships, might be better prepared to engage civically through social 

networking. Among the areas explored is the relationship between teacher and 

student. As she states, “Using social networking applications in more formal 

learning environments . . . may open up opportunities for professors to connect 

424 Journal of Public Affairs Education


with students in new and exciting, although perhaps tenuous, ways to enhance 

student learning and relationships.” If faculty members empower students in 

the manner Bryer and Seigler suggest, does such empowerment fundamentally 

transform the student-professor relationship? If so, what is gained, and what is 

lost? Both Eikenberry and Bryer and Seigler suggest much can be gained through 

such transformation, including more civically engaged students and more 

virtuous citizens; however, such an approach requires the professor to shift away 

from a traditional authoritarian role to a more collaborative one. 

Two cases offer practical examples of student empowerment through the 

use of newer technologies. Mergel offers a detailed case assessment of a class on 

“Government 2.0,” which is offered face-to-face but is supplemented by a variety 

of online and virtual world interactions. Hu and Johnston offer an assessment 

of a class on “ePublic Affairs,” taught fully online and primarily using a wiki for 

course content delivery and student interaction. Each offers unique lessons. 

Mergel’s course, described in her article, combines face-to-face, online, 

and virtual elements to ensure students “feel comfortable using social media 

and interacting with their peers online.” To integrate student academic and 

practitioner experiences, they are asked to immerse themselves in the social 

media to “improve their digital competencies and online conversation skills 

in order to understand the pitfalls of online engagement in the public sector.” 

With a focus on both online and offline experiences, Mergel describes design 

of the course to include social skill development as well as provide students a 

firm grounding in legal requirements, such as those necessitated by individuals 

with sensory disabilities. By combining these perspectives, Mergel offers a clear 

alignment between teaching students with and about social media and future 

needs in public administration professions. 

Hu and Johnston also offer a deep description of a class grounded in studentcentered 

learning with social media tools. Their ePublic Affairs course is entirely 

Web-based, using a wiki as the primary tool for content development and 

delivery. Their class demonstrates some of the components of the empowered 

learning environment defined by Bryer and Seigler. Specifically, students in 

ePublic Affairs were empowered to co-design and co-create substantial elements 

of the course through the use of collaborative communication tools. This is a 

study of an innovative class taught experientially with the tools students might 

be expected to use effectively once they enter the world of practice. Interestingly, 

Hu and Johnston’s findings suggest that intrinsic motivation to perform based on 

community and collaborative norms might not be sufficient to engage students 

in the work of the class; extrinsic factors, such as grades, are still likely necessary 

to ensure that students work as part of a collaborative team. 

This paper also begins to address an area that seems to be greatly lacking in 

the literature at present (and discussed by Eikenberry): how use of these new 

technologies might affect student learning and empowerment outcomes. Hu and 

Johnston comment that their 



wiki course found that an open process of participation in co-creating 

wiki pages and the integration of multiple social media communication 

tools can strengthen students’ feeling of responsibility, foster students’ 

sense of community, and develop students’ collaborative orientation 

toward group work. 

The final paper—by Hu, Johnston, Hemphill, Krishnamurthy, and 

Vinze—also suggests, through a study on interactive computer simulations and 

decision-making in public affairs education, that computer technologies that 

enable collaborative role-playing activities with students can be powerful tools 

for student empowerment. However, the authors also observe potential ethical 

challenges in the delivery of such content. For example, even when creating a 

process that gives students freedom to develop their own dialogue and provides 

more relevant information to make informed choices, it is possible that student 

choice is equally constrained by knowledge areas chosen by course instructors 

and established by the parameters of the simulation. This situation may establish 

a superficial empowerment, however well intended. 

Practical Application 

The assembled pieces in the symposium suggest some important steps faculty 

can take in preparing to use social and Web-based technologies for student 

empowerment. Bryer and Seigler offer a set of guiding principles: For example, be 

open to learning about technologies and do not try to use a small set of technology 

solutions for all manner of pedagogical dilemmas or objectives. Among other 

things, Mergel offers the insight that in order for a class to be successful and 

relevant, it needs to tie into the emergent legal and institutional frameworks for the 

use of technologies in the public administration workplace. Eikenberry identifies, 

at least implicitly, the importance of carefully understanding and clarifying the 

desired student-teacher relationship in the use of social networking tools. Hu et 

al. similarly focus on ethics, but more on how teachers might unduly influence 

student decision-making based on potentially biased decision parameters developed 

for use with technologies. Finally, Hu and Johnston’s work focuses attention on 

the level of systematic and interlocking detail required to successfully implement 

a technology-based course, as well as on the importance of acting on feedback 

received from students in a transparent process. 

Many of these new technologies are available at little or no cost to faculty, 

but the articles in the symposium suggest that how we think about investing 

time in courses may need to shift to accommodate an empowerment-focused 

learning structure. While faculty may be able to spend less time on the front end 

of a course planning the curriculum, writing or recording lectures, and so on, 

they may need to spend more time coordinating student interactions, responding 

to and guiding dialogue, and providing direction to resources in reaction to the 

flow of a course. This is not meant to imply that a student-empowered course 

using new technologies is an anarchic free-for-all; structure is still necessary, but 



it may need to be more porous and flexible. Faculty may also need to spend time 

learning about and understanding how to use new technologies; universities 

might provide support to faculty who are willing to try out and experiment with 

such technologies. Providing support to assess the effect of using new technology 

tools would also be invaluable to individual faculty members and the field. 

What We Still Need to Find Out 

While the five articles in this symposium begin to assess the use of social, 

material, or cloud/cyberspace technologies for student empowerment, there 

is much room for more work in this area. There remain, for example, many 

questions about the implications of empowering students in the classroom, 

no matter what tools are used to do this. A student-empowerment model 

fundamentally challenges many public affairs professors’ assumptions about 

students’ learning and their view of human nature. For instance, can we assume 

that students know enough to know what they need to learn? Alternatively, can 

we safely assume that professors know what students need to know, especially 

given a rapidly changing public affairs work environment? There is also a 

question about how learning outcomes should be defined and measured in an 

empowered learning environment. 

With a focus on newer technologies, the papers in this symposium begin to 

help us understand what their effect might be on empowerment and learning 

outcomes. Much more needs to be done in this area. Ultimately, do the 

knowledge and use of new technologies such as social networking lead to better 

and more learning as well as to more effective, self-aware, and ethical public 

service practitioners? As many schools of public administration and affairs act 

to address the new NASPAA accreditation standards, understanding the effect 

of these new tools on student learning outcomes will be increasingly important. 

Whether or not they do affect outcomes, can we afford not to incorporate their 

use into our classrooms given citizen demands? The papers in the symposium 

suggest that we need to do more to integrate new technologies and information 

about them into public affairs classrooms. 

Yet, a question we posed in the call for papers still lingers: by empowering 

students in the classroom, are we preparing students to become transformational 

change agents, or are we preparing them for frustration and failure given the 

intransigence of institutional rules and norms? This begs the large, perpetual 

question about the role of public administrators in society. Are public 

administrators meant to be change agents? If so, empowerment in the classroom 

is likely essential to empowerment outside of the classroom. Or are public 

administrators meant to be neutral bureaucrats objectively implementing policy? 

If so, a traditional top-down model of education may be more appropriate. 

In summary, what we know from research in this symposium and through 

other studies cited by symposium authors are that the use of social media and 

networking tools may be effective for enhancing student learning through social 

processes and for preparing student s to be more effective public administrators. 



Further, research suggests there are also challenges that can prevent social media 

and networking from being deployed successfully. Strategic integration of these 

tools is vital for a successful teaching and learning process, regardless of whether 

a class is taught fully online (as in the case described by Hu and Johnston) or fully 

face-to-face with supplemented technology (as in the case described by Mergel). 

Conclusion 

Literature on the use of new technologies for teaching and student 

empowerment is slowly beginning to emerge. The authors in this symposium 

have provided important citations and examples to the most engaging and 

thoughtful studies; we encourage the reader to review these closely. It is our 

hope that these assembled articles provide readers with ideas for experimenting 

with new technologies for teaching in a student-empowered classroom and 

to the development of emergent theoretical frameworks to understand the 

implementation and utility of these tools. 

References 

Shor, I. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. Chicago: The 

University of Chicago Press. 

Wankel, C., Marovich, M., & Stanaittyte, J. (Eds.). (2010). Cutting-edge social media approaches to 

business education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and blogs. Scottsdale, AZ: 

IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc. 

Thomas A. Bryer is director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management 

and assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at the University 

of Central Florida. His research and teaching focuses on public participation 

and collaborative governance. He has published in numerous journals, including 

Public Administration Review, American Review of Public Administration, Journal 

of Public Administration Research & Theory, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 

and Journal of Public Affairs Education. He has won four awards for teaching, 

including an award for excellence in graduate teaching and an award for his 

scholarship of teaching and learning. 

Angela M. Eikenberry is an associate professor in the School of Public 

Administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, where she also serves 

as the advisor for the nonprofit concentration in the MPA program. Her main 

research interests include philanthropy and nonprofit organizations and their 

role in democratic governance. Her book, Giving Circles: Philanthropy, Voluntary 

Association, Democracy (Indiana University Press, 2009) won the CASE 2010 

John Grenzebach Research Award for Outstanding Research in Philanthropy. 


Theoretical and Instrumental Rationales 

of Student Empowerment through 

Social and Web-Based Technologies 

Thomas A. Bryer and Daniel Seigler 


Abstract 

Empowering students in public affairs education is vital to the mission of 

developing effective and ethical public servants. Emergent technologies present 

new opportunities for modeling, simulating, and/or re-creating complex 

environments in which students are likely to find themselves after completion 

of their studies. This article offers a conceptual framing for empowering 

students using social and web-based technologies across face-to-face, online, 

and virtual world classes using communication tools that are synchronous, 

asynchronous, and automated pre-scripted. It further specifies six student- and 

instructor-based rationales for empowerment: (a) Develop ethical reasoning 

and judgment in complex contexts, (b) Develop leadership and management 

skills in complex contexts, (c) Develop ownership in the learning process, (d) 

Provide space to allow the teacher to show passion and engage that passion 

with students, (e) Ensure buy-in to course objectives, and (f) Ensure buy-in to 

course content delivery methods. Suggestions to faculty to strategically design 

courses to empower students using technology are offered in conclusion. 

Students are not mere sponges who absorb information provided by a 

teacher and countless articles and books; they are social creatures who learn 

through interaction, open discourse, application, and experience. Limiting the 

role students play in their learning process has the potential to hamper learning 

itself, since students are potentially cut off from diversity of thought, values, 

behavior, and skill that exists in any given classroom or social environment. 

Efforts to ensure students are fully integrated in mind, body, and spirit with 

the teaching and learning process have been labeled “student-centered learning” 

(Weimer, 2002) and have taken the form of relatively low-cost, low-risk 

classroom exercises as well as higher-cost, higher-risk classroom democratization 

experiments (Shor, 1997). The full range is valid. 

JPAE 18(3), 429–448 


T. A. Bryer & D. Seigler 

This essay provides both theoretical and instrumental rationales for 

empowering students in the teaching and learning process, specifically through 

social and web-based technologies, which provide different, though not 

necessarily superior, opportunities for students to play a role in their learning 

process as compared to face-to-face pedagogical techniques (e.g., Weimer, 2002; 

Shor, 1997). The need for a clear and substantiated rationale is significant given 

the emergent use of social media tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wiki) 

in teaching and learning, as well as the credible concerns that faculty in public 

administration and other fields have expressed regarding the use of these tools 

(Bryer & Chen, 2010; Cao & Hong, 2011). Our concern is to frame the use 

of these social and web-based technologies within the context of an empowered 

learning environment. We do not intend to offer a how-to guide or other 

applied strategies for technology adoption; instead, we offer a conceptual frame 

through which strategies can be considered. With a focus on empowerment of 

students, we do not consider web-based tools as superior, but these tools receive 

the greatest focus given their emergence both in teaching and in practice. Other 

articles in this symposium provide more detailed assessment of specific tools and 

their potential learning outcomes. 

Our concern with web-based or online learning tools is also based on the 

increasing use of the Web and Internet for teaching and learning, both at the 

higher education level and in K–12 education. For instance, Florida Virtual 

School is recognized as a national leader in the development and promotion of 

online teaching and learning (Vogel, 2011). Whatever the economic motivations 

behind decisions to develop online courses and, in some cases, whole online 

degree programs, it is important for faculty across disciplines and levels of 

education to consider how to use these tools and to what end. Specifically, in the 

interest of this symposium, how can social and web-based technologies facilitate 

student empowerment? 

To begin, a definition of student empowerment can help guide the work. 

One possible definition is implicitly identified previously but bears repeating: 

Student empowerment ensures that students are fully integrated in mind, body, 

and spirit with the teaching and learning process. This means that students are 

intellectually, socially, physically, and emotionally engaged with the content of the 

course, with the teacher, and with fellow students. Functionally, empowerment, 

we suggest, means (a) granting control of course content to students, (b) permitting 

students to co-create subject-matter content with each other and with the teacher, 

(c) enabling the voice of students, (d) enabling choice for students, and (e) enabling 

creativity with students. Examples of each of these functions are elucidated in sections 

that follow; our argument is that instructors can effectively use social and webbased 

technologies to perform these functions. There are more justifications beyond 

functional concerns. Theories and concepts from broad pedagogical literatures 

are applied, as well as normative and instrumental concerns specific to the field 

of public affairs and administration, to fully address the question “Why empower?” 


Rationales of Student Empowerment 

Why Empower? 

Rationales for student empowerment can be addressed from two 

perspectives: that of the student and that of the teacher. Three rationales are 

suggested on each side, for a combined six rationales for student empowerment. 

On the student side, they are (1) develop ethical reasoning and judgment in 

complex contexts; (2) develop leadership and management skills in complex 

contexts; and (3) develop ownership in the learning process. On the instructor 

side, they are (1) provide space to allow the teacher to show passion and engage 

that passion with students; (2) ensure buy-in to course objectives; and (3) ensure 

buy-in to course content delivery methods. These six rationales are grounded 

in both normative and instrumental theories related to public affairs education 

and are discussed later. Together, these rationales reflect Dewey’s (1916) vision of 

higher education, in which institutions—through their teaching and service— 

promote democracy, encourage citizenship, and serve community. 

Research on Dewey’s (1916) vision within the context of the contemporary 

link between teaching with emergent technologies and future behavior as a 

citizen and/or public servant is limited. However, there is evidence to suggest 

that using social media, social networks, and other emergent technologies 

to empower students can have a potentially significant impact on future 

performance. Three streams of literature allow us to fairly confidently offer 

this conclusion: (a) research showing the link between pedagogical techniques 

and learning outcomes (e.g., Brown, 2005; Oldfield, 2010; Ross, 2009), (b) 

research showing the association between individual and group online activity/ 

interaction and subsequent or parallel off-line activity/interaction (e.g., Brainard, 

2003; Brunsting & Postmes, 2002; Williams, 2006), and (c) research showing 

the association between practicing democracy across spheres of life, including 

workplace, school, home, faith, and society (e.g., Pateman, 1970; Rawlings 

& Catlaw, 2011; Smidt, den Dulk, Penning, Monsma, & Koopman, 2008). 

Together, these literatures suggest the relevance and need to more directly 

study the link between learning with technology and future behavior in the 

public affairs workplace to fulfill the potential that Dewey described. Though 

the literatures do not assure us of the efficacy of empowering students through 

technologies, they are strongly suggestive of the possibility. 

Student-Based Rationales 

In public affairs and administration, there is a rich history of asking our 

students, and our fellow citizens, to be virtuous, ethical, and engaged citizens. 

Always a noble goal but never without challenge, efforts to restore (or instill) 

citizenship values in public administration have been appearing at least, with 

most emphasis, since the late 1960s through the New Public Administration 

philosophies (Marini, 1971). Frederickson (1982) called for a restoration of 

“civism” in public administration and in our larger society; Gawthrop (1984) 



perceived public administration as the best place to revive citizenship (civitas) 

and integrate citizens into the art of government (civilitas). To do so effectively 

requires administrators themselves to act first and foremost as citizens (Cooper, 

1991) and for the administrators and citizens to act virtuously and honorably 

(Hart, 1984). These values have more recently emerged in the New Public 

Service literature (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). 

Given the importance of these values to public administration and public 

administration education, it is imperative that students be empowered, first, to 

develop the attributes of a virtuous citizen (Hart, 1984). Simple indoctrination 

through repetition and cognitive manipulation are not sufficient to inculcate 

these values and develop reflective behaviors; students need to come to own these 

values as if they were developed on their own. Hart identified four attributes of 

the virtuous citizen: (a) doing moral philosophy, (b) belief, (c) individual moral 

responsibility, and (d) civility. 

Hart (1984) described doing moral philosophy as follows: 

In a most practical manner, the Founders believed that government 

must be guided by a moral purpose: the realization of the American 

regime values in the lives of all citizens. But that requires all individuals 

to know what those values are, why they should believe in them, and 

what the implications of action might be. That requires people to do 

philosophy, and particularly moral philosophy. (p. 114) 

Finding moral purpose, though possibly accomplished in isolation through 

contemplation, is achievable through self- and group-identity formation. 

Individuals identify their purpose and identity, and thus reaffirm values, through 

the lens of their relationship with others (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). 

Beyond the self-reflective capacity captured through doing moral philosophy, 

virtuous citizens must believe “that the American regime values are true; not just 

that the majority accepts them or that they are psychologically gratifying, but that 

they are true” (Hart, 1984, p. 114). Belief is established through buy-in; buy-in is 

achieved through opportunities to create or co-create scenarios through which the 

values are tested and affirmed, as through an empowering learning process. 

Virtuous citizens must also exercise and develop a sense of individual moral 

responsibility. According to Hart (1984): 

The obligation of the virtuous citizen to the American regime values 

transcends all other obligations, whether to obey the law or to honor 

promises. Since, by nature, those rights belong to each individual, so 

each individual assumes the obligation of honoring them. Whenever 

anything violates or even compromises the regime values, the virtuous 

citizen is obligated to oppose it. (p. 115) 



Empowering students through choice, voice, control, and creativity tests 

commitment to values through the introduction of moral dilemmas in praxis, 

dialogue, and action. 

Last, virtuous citizens must practice civility and understand the reason for 

it (Hart, 1984). By releasing some structure and rigidness from the learning and 

teaching process, students are permitted to develop norms regarding appropriate 

behavior, rhetoric, and performance. This focus on civility, along with the other 

three attributes of the virtuous citizen, are perhaps best developed through the 

empowered student and an empowering learning process. 

The second student-based rationale for empowering students is to develop 

leadership and management skills. Just as the moral reasoning rationale is 

focused on values, attitudes, and related behaviors, the more instrumental 

rationale of skill development is focused on ability to effectively communicate 

and facilitate the behavior of others in alignment with internalized values. 

“To lead and manage in governance” is one of the universal competencies 

for accreditation of MPA programs required by the National Association of 

Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (Commission on Peer Review and 

Accreditation, 2009). Through empowerment in the learning process, students 

are given the tools and self-awareness to achieve this objective. 

Third, empowering students and creating an empowered learning 

environment will potentially develop ownership in the learning process. 

It might generally be said that students who “own” their learning experience 

might be more committed to the enterprise and thus potentially more 

successful in both internalization of course content and application in 

non-course environments. These instrumental rationales may be consistent 

with the philosophies expressed in some New Public Management literature 

(e.g., Osborne & Gaebler, 1992), which encourage public administrators to 

be entrepreneurial and willing risk takers. By giving ownership of the learning 

process and focusing on skill development, entrepreneurship and risk taking 

might be encouraged as long as risks are taken in alignment with the normative 

rationales previously expressed, or what Bellone and Goerl (1992; 1993) define 

as civic-regarding entrepreneurship. 

Instructor-Based Rationales 

The first rationale from an instructor perspective is essentially to free the 

teacher to teach—or, as Palmer (2007) suggested, to give teachers the courage 

to teach. Palmer argued that the most effective teacher is one who integrates his 

or her passions with the subject matter and in the delivery of course content 

to students. Rather than maintain separate worlds—the subject-matter expert 

and teacher, and the passionate hobbyist of whatever kind—Palmer encouraged 

teachers to join the two. This joining or integration can humanize the teacher, 



establish rapport between teacher and student, and place the teacher squarely in 

the role of co-learner as well as teacher and subject-matter expert. By identifying 

passions, and permitting students through empowerment to play off those 

passions and to reveal their own passions, teachers help facilitate the achievement 

of the three student-based rationales discussed previously. 

Second and third on the instructor-based rationale list are mirror images of 

the third student-based rationale. From a student perspective, buy-in to course 

content and objectives potentially leads to greater educational outcomes. No doubt 

an objective of teachers as well, from a fully pragmatic perspective, student 

buy-in can prevent disruptions to the class that are negative in their impact on 

relationships within the classroom. Buy-in to course content and objectives permits 

smoother, less disruptive management of the classroom and learning process. 

Student Empowerment Across Learning Environments 

and Communication Tools 

Higher education classes provide faculty with multiple opportunities for 

empowering students. The addition of synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous 

(whenever and wherever) online tools into face-to-face and online classes, as well 

as in virtual spaces, enables students to take an active role in their education. 

Students find multiple forms of face-to-face, online, and mixed-mode (a hybrid 

of face-to-face and online) learning environments. Even a student taking a class 

listed on their schedule as face-to-face may find their instructor using a course 

management system (CMS) to enhance the course (Woods, Baker, & Hopper, 

2007). These new and emerging class modalities empower students with the 

flexibility to manage their school and homework schedules, and allow them to 

meet other personal, family, and professional obligations. The addition of online 

tools has the potential to offer students varying levels of voice in the classroom 

and in content development (Brown & Kiriakidis, 2007; Hiltz & Wellman, 

1997; Park & Bonk, 2007; Schullo, Hilbelink, Venable, & Barron, 2007). For 

example, with the addition of online discussion tools, such as a blog or wiki, 

students are able to bring additional discussion and resources to the curriculum 

(Bryer & Chen, 2010; Chen & Bryer, 2012). Presented next are six learning 

environments offered to students when online tools are added to higher learning. 

Six Learning Environments 

Six learning environments are identified across the dimensions of primary 

class location (face-to-face, online, or virtual) and form of communication 

(synchronous, asynchronous, and automated pre-scripted). Each learning 

environment potentially enables different levels of student empowerment based 

on the functional objectives of empowerment (see Table 1). 



Table 1. 

Student Empowerment in the Six Learning Environments 

Grant control 

of course 

content 

to students 

Create 

subject-matter 

content with 

each other and 

with teacher 

Enable 

the voice 

of students 

Enable 

choice 

for students 

Enable 

creativity 

with students 

Face-to-Face 

with Online 

Asynchronous 

Face-to-Face 

with Online 

Synchronous 

Online 

Asynchronous 

Online 

Synchronous 

Virtual 

Asynchronous 

Virtual 

Automated 

Pre-Scripted 

Moderate 

Levels based on 

choice and use of 

tool 

High High High Low 

High High High High High Low 

High High High High High Low/Moderate 

Moderate/ High High Moderate/ High High High Moderate/High 

Moderate/ High High Moderate/ High High High Moderate/High 



Figure 1 visually displays the relationship between the functional objectives, student 

and instructor rationales for empowerment, and these six learning environments. 

Figure 1. 

Student Empowerment through Social Technology Conceptual Model 

In the following discussion, we consider a selection of social media tools, by 

which we specifically mean web-based social media tools. Social media are not 

necessarily limited to web-based technologies; they can include technologies such 

as the telephone, the telegraph, automated response systems (Rishel, 2011), and 

the printing press—each of which, when integrated with a face-to-face social 

exchange, can parallel the potential uses of web-based tools (Bryer & Zavattaro, 

2011; The Economist, 2011). 

Face-to-Face Classes 

The first two learning environments are (1) face-to-face classes with the 

addition of synchronous communication and (2) face-to-face classes with the 

addition of asynchronous communication. 

Face-to-face classes with synchronous communication. Real-time interaction 

allows participants the flexibility to adapt as the discussion progresses. It 

enables the voice of the students, even more when a tool such as Twitter is 

added into a face-to-face discussion. Since this is a face-to-face class, the 

teacher retains a higher level of control over the content, and students are 



given only a moderate level of control. Their contributions to the discussions 

help guide and shape the subject matter that is presented in the class through 

their comments and questions. Student creativity is both high and moderate. 

It is limited by real-time parameters of the face-to-face classroom, but 

they have to adapt and adjust to the discussion as it is happening. Choice 

is also moderate and high. While students maintain the option to join in 

the discussion, since all activities still occur in real time, students do not 

get to choose when they participate beyond the confines of the class. 

Some instructors choose to enhance their classes with the addition of online 

videoconferencing software. This allows guest lecturers or students the option 

to attend class either in person or via videoconferencing. Videoconferencing is 

classified as a synchronous tool because it allows multiple people to communicate 

together in real time (Schullo et al., 2007). In a recent PhD seminar at the 

authors’ institution, students were given the opportunity to use Skype to 

talk with a leading scholar in the public administration field. The interactive 

discussion between students and the guest lecturer via Skype allowed students 

greater empowerment in shaping the content that was presented in class. 

Using Skype is just one example of adding a synchronous tool to a faceto-face 

class. There are other examples of synchronous tools being added to a 

face-to-face class as well. Dr. Monica Rankin of the University of Texas at Dallas 

recently conducted a study of Twitter being used in a face-to-face class. In her 

experiment, students joined a classroom Twitter page and participated in an 

online discussion during class. The Twitter posts helped to guide the discussion, 

and at the end of the class, Rankin highlighted some of the points brought out in 

the tweets. This tool is potentially useful for helping shy students find their voice 

in large classroom settings (Kirkpatrick, 2009). 

Overall, the application of these technologies can further the empowerment 

mission of classroom democratization (Shor, 1997) techniques and the objectives 

of student-centered learning (Weimer, 2002). Whether through Twitter, video 

conferencing, touchpad technology, or other devices, students can engage creatively 

and with confidence, thus providing a useful supplement or complement to 

traditional in-class exercises. 

Face-to-face classes with asynchronous communication. 

Some face-to-face classes are enhanced by the addition of online tools, 

such as a CMS, blog, wiki, Facebook, or Twitter. Unlike synchronous online 

tools, these tools create a virtual learning environment beyond the face-to-face 

classroom. Using a CMS with an online class, for example, allows faculty to add 

asynchronous discussions, assignments, and tests to their classes. Face-to-face class time 

is limited, and therefore the amount of information that is able to be presented 

in that time is also limited. Faculty may use the CMS to provide additional 

information and content to students. Students can then access this information 



at their convenience, post questions, discussions, and responses, or take online 

quizzes and tests at times more convenient for them. Based on what tool and 

how it is being used, this learning environment might give students from limited 

to high-level control over content. Since these are asynchronous tools, student 

participation and voice might increase. Those who are shy or unlikely to speak 

in a public setting may find it easier to express their opinions online, and this 

can lead to more student control in shaping the subject-matter content. Choice 

is high because of the asynchronous component of the tools. Students have more 

choice regarding if, when, and where they use the tool. Creativity may also be 

higher because students have more time, should they use it, to reflect on what 

they want to post or how they want to respond to the posts of others. 

Online Classes 

The next two learning environments are (3) online classes with the addition 

of synchronous communication; and (4) online classes with the addition of 

asynchronous communication. 

Online classes with synchronous communication. Online learning is traditionally 

associated with a CMS and asynchronous tools. Instructors upload their content 

into the CMS and make it available to students, who access the information 

remotely. However, most course management systems also offer a place for 

synchronous discussion forums and interactive activities (Koszalka & Ganesan, 

2004), such as an online chat feature. This allows students and the instructor 

to present materials, hold discussions, and interact synchronously online. Even 

if they decide not to use the synchronous tools built into their school’s CMS, 

faculty can choose from a number of outside synchronous tools. Just as with 

face-to-face classes, Skype and Adobe Connect are two tools that may be added 

to online classes for videoconferencing. Certain social media tools such as 

Facebook and Google+ also have chat features that faculty may use. 

Even though this is an online class, the tools being used in the environment 

are synchronous. This allows for real-time interaction, so students have the 

flexibility to adapt as the discussion progresses. As in face-to-face settings, it enables 

students’ voices. However, because this is an online class, students have a potentially 

higher level of control over the content, and they also have a potentially greater 

role in shaping the subject matter that is presented in the class through their 

discussions and questions. Here again, creativity ranges from moderate to high. 

It is limited by real-time parameters, and students must adapt and adjust to the 

discussion as it is happening. Choice in this learning environment is moderate to 

high as well. Students maintain the option to join the discussion but do not get 

to choose when they participate beyond the established confines. 

Online classes with asynchronous communication. This learning environment 

is typically found in fully online classes using a CMS. However, this learning 

environment is not limited to just the tools of the CMS. Teachers may also use 

outside asynchronous social media tools to further enhance their online class. 



Social media tools, such as blogs, wikis, Twitter, and Facebook, offer venues for 

students to share ideas, express opinions, and collaborate. 

The online environment with the addition of asynchronous tools provides 

a high level of empowerment to students. Being an online class, students have a 

high level of control over the content, and they also have opportunity to shape 

the subject matter that is presented in the class through their discussions and 

questions. Creativity is high: there are no real-time constraints; and students have 

time, should they choose to use it, to reflect on the questions they want to ask, 

what they want to post, and their responses. Choice in this learning environment 

is also high. Students can choose whether or not to join the discussion as well as 

decide when and from where to join. 

Virtual World Classes 

The final two learning environments are (5) virtual classes with 

synchronous online communication; and (6) virtual classes with automated 

pre-scripted communication. 

Virtual classes with synchronous communication. 

Virtual worlds offer considerably more opportunity for student empowerment 

given the three-dimensional (3-D) learning potential. These tools go beyond the 

two-dimensional social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter in how they 

permit high levels of creativity among both students and faculty. Such creativity 

is necessary since teachers and learners are immersed in a new world (Atkinson, 

2009) with new or different opportunities for social engagement (Gee, 2007). 

These 3-D learning environments further allow for open and expansive 

collaboration in the design and use of space, development of character, and 

creation of information leading to knowledge (Kapp & O’Driscoll, 2010). 

Virtual worlds, such as those available through Second Life or OpenSim, 

permit synchronous communication in closed or open environments. Like 

AdobeConnect or other videoconference technology, virtual worlds allow 

the same kind of dialogue, with the same opportunities for document and 

information sharing. Unique to virtual worlds is their fully immersive quality. 

Students who have taken classes in virtual worlds have suggested that they 

particularly enjoy the opportunities for creativity and exploration that are not 

necessarily, or as interestingly, available through other technologies (Gardner & 

Bryer, 2012). Students are granted voice, choice, and creative energy beginning 

with their initial act in the world: creation and design of their individual avatar. 

Figure 2 shows a scene from a virtual world election center established to train 

college-aged poll workers, where students participated in a real-time election 

simulation to test their skill and knowledge of the procedure for processing 

voters. These students went on to serve as actual poll workers during the 2010 

general election with the same level of competency as individuals trained in a 

traditional face-to-face format (Bryer, Fine, Gardner, & Mathews, 2011). 



Figure 2. 

Simulated Polling Location 

Virtual classes with the addition of automated pre-scripted communication. 

Use of virtual worlds does not require synchronous communication. 

Instead, unique to these worlds, faculty can develop media (such as PowerPoint 

or embedded video) with which students interact. They can also develop 

programmed, simulated characters or objects with which students interact as if 

they were communicating live with another person. Use of these tools enables 

the same level of creativity as previously discussed, but limits some degree of 

control and voice for students because they are sole actors interacting with 

pre-scripted programs. Figure 3 shows a scene from the same class of students 

observed in Figure 2; this time they are shown interacting with a pre-scripted 

technology embedded within the virtual world. 

Figure 3. 

Automated Pre-Scripted Communicating in Virtual Polling Location 



Summary 

Table 2 lists the three primary categories of tools discussed in this section: 

CMS, video conferencing, and web-based social media. Based on the previous 

discussion, we offer a summary of which category of tools is more aligned with 

the components of student empowerment. These are suggestions based on our reading 

of research in the use of these tools, as well as our own anecdotal experiences 

using these tools. Additional research can strengthen the argument advanced. 

Table 2. 

Student Empowerment by Tool 

Grant control of 

course content to 

students 

Create subjectmatter 

content 

with each other 

and with teacher 

Enable the voice 

of students 

Enable choice 

for students 

Enable creativity 

with students 

Course Management 

System Tools 

Based on how 

the CMS is enabled and 

used 

Based on how 

the CMS is enabled 

and used 

Videoconferencing 

Tools 

Low 

Based on how the tool 

is used 

Web-Based 

Social Media Tools 

High 

High 

High Moderate and High High 

Face-to-Face: Moderate 

Fully Online: High 

Based on how the CMS is 

enabled and used 

Moderate 

Moderate and High 

High 

High 

Discussion 

Empowering students in public affairs education is vital to the mission of 

developing effective and ethical public servants. Absent empowerment, students 

may not develop the critical skills and may not encounter ethical dilemmas 

that will be a part of professional practice. They are less likely in that scenario 

to emerge as virtuous citizens (Hart, 1984) with theoretically and ethically 

sound leadership and management skills firmly established. Likewise, absent 

empowerment, faculty may not be able to fully engage their passions with 

students (Palmer, 2007; Shor, 1997), potentially leading to disconnected faculty 

and disengaged students. 

Emergent technologies present new opportunities for modeling, simulating, 

and/or re-creating complex environments in which students are likely to find 

themselves after completion of their studies. Regardless of whether those 

technologies are used within or as complements to face-to-face, online, or virtual 

world classes, there are some important pedagogical design principles to consider 

when thinking about the strategic use of technologies for empowerment. 



Five such principles are outlined by Bryer and Chen (2010): “(1) use 

technology, don’t force technology, (2) respect privacy, but encourage 

transparency, (3) promote civility and reduce timidity, (4) teach the technologies 

but be open to learn about the technologies, and (5) facilitate learning through 

social engagement and interaction” (p. 256). The final principle is most closely 

linked to the empowerment discussion herein, but the other components are 

just as significant. From a faculty perspective, it is important to know one’s own 

limitations and sometimes lack of creativity in a certain area. Thus, principle 

4 applies. Learning from students about possible uses of technology can both 

enhance the teaching and learning experience and further empower students 

to influence at least some aspects of course management. Along these lines, it 

is likely students will know if the faculty member does not know how best to 

use the technology. Thus, principle 1 applies. As previously discussed, each tool 

available has strengths and weaknesses for different purposes. Latching onto a 

single tool, such as Facebook or Twitter, is not likely the hammer that will fulfill 

every need. Principles 2 and 3 are also central to empowerment of students, 

particularly with the interest in developing moral judgment and virtuous 

citizens. Transparency and civility are bedrocks of these ideals. 

Theses design principles extend beyond teaching and learning with 

technology to include professional practice with technology. The principles also 

suggest responses to some important questions regarding the theory and practice 

behind the use of these tools in teaching. For instance: How can the tools be used 

to empower students in public affairs/public administration programs for their 

future professional careers? How do the course interactions reflect necessities of 

the future workplace? Why should public affairs teachers add all these different 

tools to their classes? Why are the tools better than other forms of teaching? 

Empowering Students for Future Professional Careers 

Experimenting with the use of emergent technologies in teaching and 

learning is not necessary just to remain “current” with the latest fads. Indeed, 

the latest fads and emergent technologies have potentially transformative 

potential in the practice and art of governance (Bryer & Zavattaro, 2011). 

The transformational potential will likely be realized only if implementation 

is strategic and uses the technologies according to their capacities, or what 

Fountain (2001) considers the implementation of “objective” versus “enacted” 

technologies. Public officials who implement technologies in a way that prevents 

full use and, from a citizen’s perspective, effective use, may do more harm than 

good—at least in terms of long-term democratic trust in government (Bryer, 

2011a). For instance, Brainard and Derrick-Mills (2011), Brainard and McNutt 

(2010), and Hand and Ching (2011) each found a tendency for public agencies 

to use web-based social media tools, intended for synchronous and asynchronous 

two- or multi-way communication, as unidirectional information sharing 

devices. Bryer (2011b) found that citizen-engaged practices using web-based 

technologies in the Obama administration lacked a clear statement of purpose, 

both for participating agencies and citizens. Overall, there is limited study on 



the use of social media in the practice of public administration, but what does 

exist shows either a need for more strategic implementation or for significant 

innovation and willing experimentation (e.g., Noveck, 2009; Mergel, 2011). 

From an experiential perspective, teaching students with these tools 

potentially prepares them to practice effectively with these tools in their 

professional careers. More research is clearly necessary to understand if this link 

would in fact occur, or under what circumstances it would occur. Significantly, 

we cannot escape Fountain’s (2001; Bryer, 2011a) insight that the rules, standard 

operating procedures, and cultures of agencies will shape implementation of 

technologies. In other words, it will take more than individual experience with 

technologies to successfully implement them. Nonetheless, by teaching with 

these tools, empowering students to lead and manage in complex environments, 

we are potentially establishing a foundation for transformation. 

Modeling the Workplace and Work Environment 

We cannot anticipate the future workplace precisely. Generally, however, 

we can reasonably suggest that emergent technologies will be a part of it, and 

the ability to use these tools confidently and in an ethically sound way will 

be pivotal. As discussed in this article, emergent technologies can model and 

simulate the complexity of the “real world,” either by bringing that real world 

into the classroom (e.g., through Skype or other videoconferencing devices) or 

by replicating the real world in virtual environments like Bryer and his colleagues 

did in training students to serve as poll workers during the November 2010 

election (Bryer et al., 2011). Other articles in this symposium suggest other 

techniques with different technologies. 

One question that might be significant, however, is whether it is concerning 

to empower and train students using these emergent technologies, rather than 

preparing them for fully face-to-face interaction. Might we be doing a disservice 

to “shy” students by not preparing them for intensive non-technology-enabled 

discourse and relationship development? First, it might be perfectly natural and 

suitable for an individual to be highly active and engaged behind the “wall” of 

web-based media; a primary example is Wael Ghonim, the Google executive 

who helped facilitate the Egyptian revolution in 2011. He acknowledged in 

his book, Revolution 2.0 (2012), that he would not have been comfortable—or 

indeed able to inspire in the way he did—if his only means for communication 

had been face-to-face. Another consideration is that developing self-efficacy 

and confidence in an online environment can help strengthen identity and 

potentially promote off-line engaged behavior and communication. For example, 

Brainard and Brinkerhoff (2004) found instances of identity formation in what 

they called digital diasporas, or diaspora groups that formed and operated mostly 

through online discussion boards. More research is necessary to clearly show how 

one might transform from an active netizen to an empowered personality in a 

strictly off-line environment. Additionally, future research can examine how the 



empowered online personality is able to help meet the demands of the public 

sector workforce. 

Using Multiple Tools 

In reflecting on the design principles suggested earlier in this section, it 

is important to emphasize the necessity of strategic implementation. Not all 

existing and emergent technologies discussed in this article—and within the 

larger symposium—should be implemented in every class, or indeed in any 

class. Future research can help determine which tools enable what behaviors 

in furtherance of which outcomes; however, ultimately, the decision will be 

context specific and best determined by the individual instructor in the public 

affairs classroom. There may be multiple tools available to accomplish the same 

or similar desired outcomes, which is a necessary recognition in organizational 

design of any kind (Gresov & Drazin, 1997). 

Better Than the Alternative? 

Similarly, it is important to recognize the “equifinality” (Gresov & Drazin, 

1997) of teaching and learning. There are likely to be multiple approaches to 

accomplishing desired empowerment and/or learning objectives. As was stated 

in the introduction, we do not assume the primacy of web-based tools for 

achieving student empowerment. We do emphasize that social and web-based 

technologies open new and different options for achieving the ultimate objective. 

For that reason, they should be explored through research, teaching and learning 

experimentation, and theoretical development. 

In the process of research and experimentation, we—as a teaching and 

learning community—are likely to identify potential drawbacks to the use of 

technologies within certain contexts. For instance, Gardner and Bryer (2012) 

found that students faced some technological capacity issues (i.e., bandwidth) in 

attempting to participate fully in the virtual poll worker environment described 

previously. Public administration faculty reported other concerns, such as 

personal and student privacy as well as crossing the ethical line between personal 

and professional relationships with students (Bryer & Chen, 2010; Chen & 

Bryer, 2012). These are significant issues that need further examination if we are 

to make optimal use of available technologies to empower our students for the 

emerging work environment of the twenty-first century. 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, we are practicing the art and science of teaching in an environment 

with rapidly changing technological opportunities. The burden is on the faculty 

to experiment with and explore avenues for student empowerment and faculty 

self-fulfillment. The tools presented here are not finite, nor are we suggesting 



that these are the only tools for empowering students in the classroom. We are 

suggesting and strongly advocating the need for systematic experimentation, 

exploration, and research. 

References 

Atkinson, T. (2009). Teaching and learning. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve 

Learning, 53(3), 30–32. 

Bellone, C., & Goerl, G. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. Public 

Administration Review, 52(2), 130–134. 

Bellone, C., & Goerl, G. (1993). In defense of civic-regarding entrepreneurship or helping wolves to 

promote good citizenship. Public Administration Review, 53(4), 396–398. 

Brainard, L. A. (2003). Citizen organizing in cyberspace: Illustrations from health care and implications 

for public administration. American Review of Public Administration, 33(4), 384–406. 

Brainard, L. A., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2004). Lost in cyberspace: Shedding light on the dark matter of 

grassroots organizations. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 32S–53S. 

Brainard, L. A., & Derrick-Mills, T. (2011). Electronic commons, community policing, and 

communication: Online police-citizen discussion groups in Washington, DC. Administrative 

Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 383–410. 

Brainard, L. A., & McNutt, J. G. (2010). Virtual government-citizen relations: Informational, 

transactions, or collaborative? Administration & Society, 42(7), 836–858. 

Brown, K. M. (2005). Social justice education for pre-service leaders: Evaluating transformative 

learning strategies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(2), 155–167. 

Brown, M., & Kiriakidis, P. (2007). Student empowerment in an online program. College Teaching 

Methods & Styles Journal, 3(4), 47–54. 

Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age: Predicting 

offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33(5), 525–554. 

Bryer, T. A. (2011a). The costs of democratization: Social media adaptation challenges within 

government agencies. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 341–361. 

_____. (2011b). Online public engagement in the Obama administration: Building a democracy 

bubble? Policy & Internet, 3(4), Article 3. 

Bryer, T. A., & Chen. B. (2010). The use of social media and networks in teaching public administration: 

Perceptions, practices, and concerns. In C. Wankel (Ed.), Cutting-edge social media approaches to 

business education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and Blogs (pp. 241–268). 

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 

Bryer, T. A., Fine, T., Gardner, M., & Mathews, A. (2011). Training in virtual worlds: Engaging the 

next generation of poll workers. National Social Sciences Technology Journal, 1(3), Article 3. 

Bryer, T. A., & Zavattaro, S. (2011). Social media and public administration: Theoretical dimensions 

and introduction to the symposium. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 325–340. 



Cao, Y., & Hong, P. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of social media utilization in college 

teaching: A proposed model with mixed-methods investigation. On the Horizon, 19(4), 297–306. 

Chen, B., & Bryer, T. A. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies of using social media in formal and 

informal learning. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(1), Article 6. 

Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation. (2009, October 16). Accreditation standards for Master’s 

degree programs. National Association for Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. Retrieved 

from www.naspaa.org/accreditation/doc/NS2009FinalVote10.16.2009.pdf 

Cooper, T. L. (1991). An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Denhardt, R., & Denhardt, J. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public 


Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. 

The Economist. (2011). How Luther went viral: Five centuries before Facebook and the Arab spring, 

social media helped bring about the Reformation. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/ 

node/21541719 

Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. 

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 

Frederickson, H. G. (1982). The recovery of civism in public administration. Public Administration 

Review, 42(6), 501–508. 

Gardner, M., & Bryer, T. A. (2012). Training for technological democracy: A civic engagement class 

example. In R. Hinrichs & C. Wankel (Eds.), Engaging the avatar in global education. Charlotte, 

NC: Information Age Publishing. 

Gawthrop, L. C. (1984). Civis, civitas, and civilitas: A new focus for the year 2000. Public 

Administration Review, 44(Special Issue), 101–111. 

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: 

Palgrave Macmillan. 

Ghonim, W. (2012). Revolution 2.0: The power of the people is greater than the people in power. Boston: 

Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt. 

Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Academy 

of Management Review, 22(2), 403–428. 

Hand, L. C., & Ching, B. D. (2011). You have one friend request: An exploration of power and citizen 

engagement in local governments’ use of social media. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 362–383. 

Hart, D. K. (1984). The virtuous citizen, the honorable bureaucrat, and “public” administration Public 

Administration Review, 44(Special Issue), 111–120. 

Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. 

Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44–49. 

Kapp, K., & O’Driscoll, T. (2010). Learning in 3D: Adding a new dimension to enterprise learning and 

collaboration. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. 



Kirkpatrick, M. (2009). How one teacher uses Twitter in the classroom. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved from 

www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_one_teacher_uses_twitter_in_the_classroom.php 

Koszalka, T., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic use of 

features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education. Distance Education, 

25(2), 243–256. 

Marini, F. (Ed.). (1971). Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective. Scranton, 

PA: Chandler. 

Mergel, I. (2011). Using wikis in government: A guide for public managers. Washington, DC: IBM 

Center for the Business of Government. 

Noveck, B. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, 

and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 

Oldfield, K. (2010). Using critical theory to teach public administration students about social class 

inequalities. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(3), 450–472. 

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is 

transforming the public sector from schoolhouse to statehouse, city hall to the Pentagon. Reading, PA: 

Addison-Wesley. 

Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: distance and residential learners’ 

perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 245–264. 

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Rawlings, K. C., & Catlaw, T. (2011). Democracy as a way of life: Rethinking the places and practices 

of public administration. In Cheryl Simrell King (Ed.), Government is us 2.0. Armonk, NY: 

M.E. Sharpe. 

Rishel, N. M. (2011). Digitizing deliberation: Normative concerns for the use of social media in 

deliberative democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 411–432. 

Ross, S. N. (2009). Critical race theory, democratization, and the public good: Deploying postmodern 

understandings of racial identity in the social justice classroom to contest academic capitalism. 

Teaching in Higher Education, 14(5), 517–528. 

Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M., & Barron, A. E. (2007). Selecting a virtual classroom system: 

Eliminate Live vs. Macromedia Breeze (Adobe Connect Professional). MERLOT Journal of Online 

Learning & Teaching, 3(4), 1–14. 

Shor, I. (1997). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. Chicago: 


Smidt, C. E., den Dulk, K. R., Penning, J. M., Monsma, S. V., & Koopman, D. L. (2008). Pews, 

prayers, and participation: Religion and civic responsibility in America. Washington, DC: 

Georgetown University Press. 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & 

W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 



Vogel, M. (2011). Julie Young is a principal entrepreneur: How a restless assistant principal built the 

nation’s leading online public school. FloridaTrend. Retrieved from www.floridatrend.com/print_ 

article.asp?aID=55553 

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Williams, D. (2006). Groups and goblins: The social and civic impact of an online game. Journal of 

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(4), 651–670. 

Woods, R., Baker, J., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of 

web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet & Higher Education, 

7(4), 281–297. 

Thomas A. Bryer is director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management 

and assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at the University 

of Central Florida. His research and teaching focuses on public participation 

and collaborative governance. He has published in numerous journals, including 

Public Administration Review, American Review of Public Administration, Journal 

of Public Administration Research & Theory, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 

and Journal of Public Affairs Education. He has won four awards for teaching, 

including an award for excellence in graduate teaching and an award for his 

scholarship of teaching and learning. 

Daniel (Danny) Seigler is a doctoral student in the School of Public Affairs and an 

instructional designer for the Center of Distributive Learning at the University 

of Central Florida. His research interests include collaborative governance and 

the use of social media to engage citizens in public decision making. 


Social Networking, Learning, and 

Civic Engagement: New Relationships 

between Professors and Students, 

Public Administrators and Citizens 

Angela M. Eikenberry 

University of Nebraska at Omaha 

Abstract 

Social networking is increasingly ubiquitous, and there is growing demand for 

professors and public administrators to use social networking to engage with 

students and citizens in new and more collaborative ways. However, using such 

tools effectively poses challenges for professors and public administrators. The 

focus of this paper is to explore the implications of using social networking 

for learning, professor-student relationships, and civic engagement. Using 

social networking applications in public affairs classrooms may provide an 

opportunity for professors to connect with students in new ways to enhance 

student empowerment and learning and enable students to learn how to 

more effectively use these tools for citizen empowerment and engagement. 

New technologies, such as social networking sites Facebook, Twitter, and 

LinkedIn, “are changing the way people communicate, work and play” (Giles, 

2010, p. 3), enabling many of us to connect to one another more easily (but 

perhaps more superficially) in ways that defy time and distance. This is no less 

true in public affairs, where social networking is increasingly used by public 

administrators to connect with citizens and stakeholders. As Mergel (this issue) 

argues, there is growing pressure from above—through, for example, the Obama 

administration’s goal of increasing government transparency—and below— 

due to the growing use of social networking applications by citizens—for 

public administrators to effectively use social networking tools to engage with 

citizens. Many see this as a potential “game-changer in citizen involvement in 

governance” (Hand & Ching, 2011, p. 362). 

Yet, research on the use of social networking by public and nonprofit 

administration practitioners shows that the potential to use social networking as 

a collaborative forum for civic engagement has largely been missed in practice: 

JPAE 18(3), 449–466 


A. M. Eikenberry 

social networking “tools are still largely used in one-way, asymmetric manners, 

despite the availability of more collaborative spaces” in a Web 2.0 environment 

(Bryer & Zavattaro, 2011, p. 332; see also Hand & Ching, 2011; Brainard & 

McNutt, 2011). The reasons for this may include online social networking tools 

that merely replicate existing social relationships (Thorne & Kouzmin, 2008), 

legal constraints regarding records management (Wilhusen, 2010), privacy and 

ethical concerns; administrative costs (Bryer & Zavattaro, 2011), lack of access 

by government employees (Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010, p. 405), or a 

general lack of training. 

Using social networking applications in more formal learning environments 

may provide an excellent opportunity to enable public administration and affairs 

students to learn how to more effectively use these tools for civic engagement. 

It also may open up opportunities for professors to connect with students in 

new and exciting, although perhaps tenuous, ways to enhance student learning 

and relationships. Mergel (this issue) provides an excellent example of ways to 

integrate social networking into a class geared to this purpose. The focus of this 

paper is to explore the implications of using social networking for learning, 

professor-student relationships, and civic engagement more generally. The paper 

first describes the landscape of social networking and its growing use. Next, it 

examines the implications of using social networking for learning and professorstudent 

relationships. Finally, the paper concludes by linking these implications 

back to the potential for public administration students to use social networking 

for empowering and engaging citizens. 

The Growing Use of Social Networking 

Social networking via the World Wide Web has several defining 

characteristics. Of primary importance is that it involves users generating 

their own content individually and collaboratively (see Box 1). Social 

networking sites include individual profiles with identifiable “handles” and 

personal information about users; the ability for participants to list other 

users/profiles as “friends,” or “contacts,” or some equivalent that is displayed 

on individual profiles for other users to view so they can traverse the network 

through friends of friends of friends; and the space for participants to leave 

comments on others’ profiles for everyone to see. Thus profiles include both an 

individual’s self-expression and what other “friends” say about that individual 

(Boyd, in Mason & Rennie, 2008). Users in this context refers to participants 

in a particular social networking application or site. Nonusers refers to those 

who do not use a particular social networking site. Users of, for example, 

Facebook, would have an account and check their page more or less frequently 

than other users. 


Social Networking, Learning, and Civic Engagement 

Box 1. 

Overview of Select Social Networking Sites 

Facebook is a social networking site that allows users to construct a “profile” page 

containing personal information. A user can become “friends” with other Facebook 

users and, through this link, share status updates, photos, links, and other 

information. Users have control over who they “friend” (they must approve requests 

to be friends) and what information is shared with friends and others. Through 

my Facebook account, I have reconnected with dozens of “old” friends and have 

gotten to know more about new acquaintances (sometimes more information 

than I really wanted), including public administration colleagues. See my profile 

at http://www.facebook.com/aeikenberry. 

LinkedIn is in some ways like Facebook, but oriented for professional networking. 

Like Facebook, users have a profile and request “connections” with other users who 

must approve the request. Users share professional information about themselves, 

such as employment history, and can share updates and information. I use LinkedIn 

to stay in touch with past students and colleagues with whom I’d like to interact 

with on a professional level. See my profile at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/angelaeikenberry/7/65a/29a. 

Both Facebook and LinkedIn also allow users to create “fan” pages for the organizations 

they represent. For example, I manage our school’s Facebook and LinkedIn fan 

pages. We use these group pages to communicate with students, alumni, and other 

friends of the school on a regular basis—sharing event information, news of interest, 

job openings, and so on. See the UNO School of Public Administration Facebook fan 

page at http://www.facebook.com/unospa. 

Twitter is somewhat different from Facebook and LinkedIn. Its focus is not as much 

about sharing personal information about the user (though some of this occurs) as it is 

about sharing general information and commentary through tweets of 140 characters 

or fewer. Most users of Twitter allow anyone who would like to follow them without 

prior approval, and tweets are publicly visible by default—so unlike Facebook, Twitter 

makes it hard to know how many people are reading your tweets. Users subscribe 

to other author tweets—called “following”—often re-tweet messages to expand the 

number of readers, and communicate with anyone else on Twitter by addressing the 

tweet to the person @twittername. I “follow” people who know a lot about my area of 

research and other interests, people in my community, news and other organizations 

I’m interested in or want to learn about, and interesting people. See my twitter stream 

at http://twitter.com/aeikenberry. See also the School of Public Administration’s 

twitter feed at http://twitter.com/unospa. 



Social networking is part of a larger group of social media tools that allow 

for the creation and exchange of user-generated content. Kaplan and Haenlein 

(2010, p. 60) list at least six types of social media: collaborative projects (such as 

wikis and social bookmarking applications), blogs, content communities 

(sharing of media content between users such as Google docs and YouTube), 

virtual game worlds, virtual social worlds (such as Second Life) and social 

networking sites (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter). Use of social 

networking tools has grown tremendously in recent years: a 2011 study from 

Pew Research Center found, for example, that 65% of U.S. online adults used 

social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, or LinkedIn 

(Madden & Zickuhr, 2011). This represents a rise from 56% in 2007 (Kaplan 

& Haenlein, 2010, p. 59) and includes a diverse set of participants. According to 

Madden and Zickuhr (2011): 

Among internet users, social networking sites are most popular with 

women and young adults under age 30. Young adult women ages 

18–29 are the power users of social networking; fully 89% of those 

who are online use the sites overall and 69% do so on an average day. 

As of May 2011, there are no significant differences in use of social 

networking sites based on race and ethnicity, household income, 

education level, or whether the internet user lives in an urban, 

suburban, or rural environment. (pp. 2–3) 

While social networking is increasingly ubiquitous, public administrators 

interested in engaging citizens might be concerned about a digital divide among 

users and nonusers. Because 100 million households in the United States alone 

lack broadband access, and 46% of the poorest households do not own a computer, 

taking advantage of social networking applications may be more difficult for 

some citizens (The Digital Divide, n.d.). Mergel (2010) also points out: 

Most of the popular social networking sites that are promoted in 

government right now are not compliant with Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act and it is extremely difficult for screen readers and 

other aids to navigate Facebook (Twitter is an exception because it’s 

solely text-based)…Social networking sites might increase the digital 

divide, leaving people behind who could hugely benefit from tapping 

into networks that can help them connect to government, help 

themselves and share information. (paras. 8–9) 

In addition, Radovanovic (2011) found in a recent study that inequalities in the 

networked world are emerging, such as “the lack of digital and media literacies; 

critical thinking and communication skills in order to navigate and evaluate data 



online; an information and knowledge gap; and collaboration and participatory 

inequalities” (para. 2). Awareness of these issues and how to address them and 

navigate the networked world are becoming more pressing and are a good reason 

for integrating the use and understanding of social networking into public 

affairs curricula. 

Nonetheless, the use of social networking and other social media is quite 

pervasive among university students in the United States. Stutzman (2006) 

found 90% of undergraduate students at one college used Facebook regularly. 

Researchers at Michigan State University (Ellison et al., 2006), in a survey 

of 800 random Michigan State University students, also found 94% of the 

undergraduates surveyed were members of Facebook. Age and year in school 

were significant predictors of membership; younger students and undergraduate 

students were more likely to belong to Facebook. Although graduate students are 

not as likely to use Facebook, data suggest one of the fastest-growing age groups 

of Facebook by total users is 26- to 34-year-olds and women over the age of 55 

(Smith, 2009). The largest group of Twitter users is 18- to 34-year-olds, and 

most LinkedIn users are 35 years old and over (quantcast.com). Even if students 

have had a good deal of experience using social media and social networking, 

it has often been for personal use and not seen or used consciously as a tool for 

learning, professional development, or civic engagement. Given the networked 

environment we all live in, learning how to better use these tools—no matter our 

age, generation, or experience level—is needed. 

Usage by university professors is somewhat lower but still mirrors the 

increasing use of social networking sites among students. According to a survey 

published in 2010 (Kolowich, 2010), of the 939 professors surveyed from 

Pearson’s network of two- and four-year colleges, about 80% of professors 

used social networking. Nearly 60% kept accounts with more than one 

social networking site, and a quarter used at least four sites (see Box 2). More 

than 30% used social networks to communicate with students, but less than 

10% used interactive social networking for classes. Faculty teaching online 

courses were more likely to have social networking accounts and use them to 

communicate with students. 

In one of the only studies specifically focused on public administration 

faculty, Bryer and Chen (2010) found in a survey of 57 individuals from 

28 universities that nearly 70% were using social networking tools. The 

most popular social networking services used among the faculty surveyed 

were Facebook and LinkedIn. The majority used Facebook for personal 

communication and LinkedIn for professional connections. These respondents 

took advantage of these technologies to “interact with students, help them with 

job seeking, facilitate group projects, organize student association networks, and 

promote their courses, programs, and conferences” (p. 248). However, while 

almost half of the respondents encouraged their students to participate in 



Box 2. 

How I Use Social Networking 

I started my social networking “experiment” of sorts as part ethnographic research, 

part curiosity. I wanted to stay current in the classroom and understand how new 

media are being used by public and nonprofit organizations. I use social networking 

mostly to communicate with friends and family (on Facebook), professional colleagues 

and students (on LinkedIn), and varying groups (on Twitter). I have not required 

the use of these social networking sites in my courses, but I do encourage students to 

follow the school’s pages on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. I also introduce the 

topic of using social networking as part of the curriculum in most classes. After working 

on this paper, I plan to integrate these tools more consciously into coursework. I also 

do not ask current students to connect with my personal profile through these sites; 

however, if they ask, I usually accept being connected on LinkedIn and occasionally 

on Facebook. 

After a few years of using Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, social networking has 

become part of what I do each day to communicate with old and new friends and get 

and share information with colleagues and students. Through social networking, 

I feel connected to a broad range of people and information in a way not possible in 

other venues or in prior times. I also have the chance to share different things about 

myself, my interests, and my opinions in a new way. It has mostly enhanced my relationships 

with colleagues and friends (although in some cases made relationships more 

strained when we disagree about certain topics), led me to new research opportunities 

and media exposure, and generally made me feel more connected to people and events 

around me, especially at the local level. 

The somewhat unique thing about this form of communication, I believe, is that 

more than ever before, when I post to one of these networks, I have to consciously think 

about who I am, how different aspects of my life intersect and overlap, and what part 

of me I want to convey or represent in that posting. This is no doubt something that 

occurs in all forms of communication (Goffman, 1959); but it seems to be especially 

evident in the social networking realm, perhaps because it is a more permanent and 

more public presentation of my identity. 

Using social networking affects how I think about relationships with my students. 

Every time I post something on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook from my personal 

account, I am forced in some way to consider how it will be interpreted by my 

students. The difficulty is that it is impossible to know for certain how what I share 

will be interpreted. Anecdotally, I feel my relationship with some students has been 

strengthened because we find out we share similar interests and so on. I personally 

enjoy being able to get to know my students better. Using social networking already 



matches my teaching style in many ways, so I see it as an extension of my persona in 

the classroom. On the other hand, a student is unlikely to tell me if what I posted 

upset him or her, or otherwise compromised our professional relationship, since I am 

still in some ways an “authority figure” to them. Because in my case the use of these 

tools so far has been optional, students can always choose not to interact with me 

through social networking. This would be trickier if I required the use of these tools in 

the classroom. However, by creating special user accounts or group pages and through 

privacy settings, some degree of separation between the personal and the professional 

might be maintained. 

social networking activities, only 7 out of 41 required them to do so.1 Most of 

the participants in Bryer and Chen’s study did not have an assessment strategy 

specifically designed for social learning, believing that it should be an optional 

part of the class. 

This optional approach makes sense considering some of the problematic 

issues associated with integrating social networking into coursework for student 

learning and professor-student relationships as noted later; however, it may be 

that in today’s networked environment, coupled with the potential benefits 

of social networking, integrating it into our curriculum can no longer be a 

choice. We must all learn how to navigate what Castells (2010) calls “the 

network society,” where a “rapidly growing social demand for the networking of 

everything” (p. xxv) meets the “transportation of space and time in the human 

experience” (p. xxxi). The implications of the network society affect how public 

administrators can or should interact with citizens and how professors can or 

should interact with students. Understanding one may lead to understanding in 

the other. 

Social Networking and Its Implications for Public Affairs Education 

McSwite (2009) suggests that in the network society, we are entering “a 

new stage in the ongoing evolution of human consciousness” (p. 79, emphasis 

in original). This new stage contains more uncertainty about the values that 

underlie morality, decisions about ethical conduct, and personal identity. As 

Catlaw (2006) describes this context, “‘what has been’ no longer provides 

the moral and normative content for ‘what should be done’ in any general 

way” (p. 261). Society today is increasingly characterized by the dissolution 

of traditional authority, parameters, and support systems. This change has 

been described as a shift from the traditional to post-traditional. That is, posttraditional 

philosophers—and increasingly, individuals in society—see the 

world from a social constructivist perspective. They challenge the “myth of 

the given,” believing knowledge and tradition are socially constructed human 

choices. The implications of this post-traditional society have been profound for 



public administration. We see it in changing work patterns and organizational 

structures, and the dissipation of power held by public administrators in the shift 

to network governance (Marshall, 2007). Citizens give less trust and legitimacy 

to the traditional public administration model with its emphasis on an apolitical, 

institutionalized, and bureaucratic expert-driven civil service (Peters, 1996). 

Similarly, in the traditional classroom, the authoritarian professor model 

(Freire [1970] called this the “banking” model of education) once dominated 

and clear boundaries between the role of professors as distant experts and 

students as supplicant learners were established; students “tended to acquire 

information more passively from authority figures” (Barnes, Marateo, & Ferris, 

2007, p. 2). However, today’s students have developed ways of thinking, 

communicating, and learning that do not fit well with this traditional model 

(cf. Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2006; Tapscott, 1998). Students 

increasingly demand more independence and autonomy in their learning 

(Barnes et al., 2007, p. 1) and have a greater desire for active, engaged learning 

experiences (Glenn, 2000; Hay, 2000; Oblinger & Oblinger 2005). The upside 

is a more engaged and motivated learner. The downside is that these students 

appear less likely to accept delayed gratification and have shorter attention spans 

in learning (Barnes et al., 2007, p. 3). This trend away from the traditional 

model has been under way for quite some time in public administration and 

affairs through various modes of active learning (cf. Eikenberry et al., 2009; 

O’Leary, 1997); however, social networking may offer additional or new 

possibilities for such autonomous and engaged learning as discussed later. 

One outcome of this student-empowered learning environment is that the 

power relationships between professors and students are in the process of being 

reformulated. Professors, while still maintaining the power to give the final 

grade, can—through openness to these new learning styles—encourage a more 

democratic and participatory classroom that may help inform students’ behavior 

outside of the classroom and in their relationships with citizens. There are always 

power differentials in democratic society, so the classroom is a good experimental 

testing ground for democracy in action. The point is to make this power open to 

influence and change by those whom it affects and to “constitute forms of power 

that are compatible with democratic values” (Mouffe, 1996, p. 248). 

Social networking may help bring this outcome about in several ways. 

According to Mason and Rennie (2008, pp. 4–14), the benefits of social 

networking include the following: 

1. Users have the tools to actively engage in the construction of their 

experience, rather than passively absorbing existing content. 

2. Content is continually refreshed by the users rather than requiring 

expert input. 

3. Social networking supports collaborative work, thereby allowing 

users to develop the skills of working in teams. 



4. Shared community spaces and inter-group communications are 

a massive part of what excites young people and therefore should 

contribute to users’ persistence and motivation to learn. 

5. Social networks can be excellent tools for allowing learners to clarify 

concepts, establish meaningful links and relationships, and test their 

mental models. 

6. Social networking provides a public forum in which the “process 

of concept formation, refinement, application and revision is fully 

visible to student peers and teachers. By providing a comprehensive 

record of how concepts take form through multiple clusters of 

knowledge, such media can promote more complex and lasting 

retention of course ideas among students.” (p. 6) 

These benefits are all relevant to empowering students and citizens in a 

democratic society and align well with many of the competencies we often hope 

to teach in our public administration and affairs programs. Salamon (2002) 

suggests, for example, that in a network governance environment, public 

administration students need to learn negotiation and persuasion, enablement 

skills, and communication across networks. Indeed, Bryer and Chen (2010) 

found about half of public administration faculty surveyed thought social 

networking enhanced social interaction and sharing, public awareness, research 

skills, and group work; increased engagement; gave students a broader scope; 

provided a venue for less threatening discourse and accommodated multiple ways 

of learning; allowed faculty to get to know students; and “spoke the language” 

of students. 

Due to the relative newness of social networking, it appears that little 

empirical data exists to show the degree to which social networking actually 

makes a difference in learning or democratic outcomes. As some indication of 

social networking’s potential to affect learning, studies have shown distance and 

hybrid or blended learning to be as effective as, or more effective than, face-toface 

teaching when it comes to learning outcomes (cf. Dowling, Godfrey, & 

Gyles, 2003; Motiwalla & Tello, 2001; Strickland, 2009; Wilson & Whitelock, 

1998). On the other hand, in a recent study that sought to connect Facebook 

usage and academic achievement, Karpinksi and Duberstein (cited in Ophus 

& Abbitt, 2009) found a significant difference between users and nonusers of 

Facebook on both GPA and average hours spent studying. Facebook users had 

a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5 (out of 4.0) while nonusers typically had a GPA 

between 3.5 and 4.0. With regard to hours spent studying per week, Facebook 

users averaged between 1 and 5 hours per week, while nonusers averaged 

between 11 and 15 hours per week. As Ophus and Abbitt (2009) conclude, 

“though Karpinksi and Duberstein note that these differences do not imply 

causality, the relationship found is striking” (p. 641). 



Still, the literature has consistently shown that informal contact between 

professors and their students and between fellow students is positively associated 

with personal, social, and intellectual outcomes as well as students’ overall 

satisfaction with their college experience (Cox & Orehovec, 2007; Halawah, 

2006; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Myers, Martin, & Knapp, 2005), which may 

contribute to higher levels of student persistence and retention (Li & Pitts, 2009, 

p. 175). Cain (2008, p. 2) suggests Facebook, for instance, is a tool that aids 

students in finding their ‘‘fit’’ within a college community. This may be especially 

important for a growing number of distance education students who do not 

physically come to campus (Lester & Perini, 2010). 

Simultaneously, a by-product of using social networking tools may be the 

blurred boundaries created between the personal and professional, especially 

between the professor and student. Such blurred boundaries were already 

instigated by more active learning approaches; however, social networking may 

extend the blurring of such boundaries even further because of the collaborative 

knowledge creation and sharing (and simultaneous loss of control to create this 

knowledge by any one individual) that takes place. 

The implications have received mixed reviews from students and professors. 

In a 2006 survey of students (Hewitt & Forte, 2006) in two large courses at a 

mid-sized public research university (136 students surveyed) that examined how 

contact on Facebook was influencing student perceptions of faculty, two thirds 

of students reported they were comfortable with faculty on the site. Among the 

students comfortable with faculty usage, positive comments tended to focus on 

the alternate communication channels afforded by the site and on the potential 

for students to get to know professors better. However, the study also found one 

third of students surveyed did not believe faculty should be present on Facebook 

at all. Of the students not comfortable with faculty usage of Facebook, some 

had concerns about identity management and privacy issues and indicated 

the student-faculty relationship should remain professional and should not be 

familiar or sociable. That is, students expected social networking to be social, 

not educational (Carvin, n.d.). In assessing their findings, the authors of the 

study note: 

It appears that part of many users’ experience on social networking sites 

is a perceived loss of control over performance as they address broad, 

unknown audiences that may include peers, supervisors, subordinates, 

parents and—especially in the case of academic communities— 

professors and mentors. Social networking sites like Facebook offer 

tradeoffs to community members who must balance the potential 

social gain associated with new opportunities to establish ties and the 

social pain of relinquishing some control over the presentation of self. 

(Hewitt & Forte, 2006, p. 2) 



Like students, professors who use social networking sites like Facebook 

have to struggle with letting go of control, negotiating multiple identities, and 

staying vigilant as to proper personal and professional etiquette. Bryer and Chen 

(2010) found that among public administration faculty, student and faculty 

privacy issues were a major concern. As opposed to e-mails and other more 

traditional modes of communication, the “conversations” that take place through 

social networking sites are often more public (at least within the network) and 

so may more easily “be recorded indefinitely, can be searched, replicated, and 

altered, and may be accessed by others without the knowledge of those in the 

conversation” (Cain, 2008, p. 2). In addition, Beckenham (cited in Bryer & 

Chen, 2010) discusses her concern about “perceived preferential treatment or 

inappropriate or too informal relations between instructors and students due to 

familiarity on online social networks” (p. 245). 

Critics also worry about a breakdown in the traditional place of expertise, 

authority, and scholarly input in the real or virtual classroom. The fear by some, 

especially in transitioning from a traditional expert-driven model of education, 

is that professors may be seen “less as intellectual leaders who are to be respected 

and more as simply gatekeepers (even impediments) on the students’ path to 

educational completion and the desired better job” (Lippmann, Bulanda, & 

Wagenaar, 2009, p. 200). They also express concerns about trust, reliability, 

and believability in the online world. As Mason and Rennie (2008) note, the 

Web contains a plethora of unauthenticated, unfiltered information and many 

of us, students in particular, “lack the critical skills to penetrate this mass of 

undifferentiated material. In short, traditional notions of quality in higher 

education seem to be abandoned in the move to web 2.0 learning” (p. 6). This 

critique of social networking actually makes a very good case for integrating 

its use into the classroom. What better way for students to learn to critically 

assess these new media tools than through the public administration and 

affairs curriculum? 

Some may argue that these concerns have existed for some time with the 

growing use of course management systems (CMS) such as Blackboard—these 

too, to some degree, provide similar opportunities for increased student-tostudent 

and student-to-professor interaction in a more public forum. However, 

there are some major differences that do not necessarily raise the same issues 

regarding violation of professional boundaries, privacy, and so on. This is 

because “CMS is built on asynchronous, top-down, and one-to-many models 

of communication (and power)” (Hanley, 2011, p. 11). That is, the professor 

(or perhaps the CMS owner) has nearly complete power and control over the 

discourse, including being able to choose when to limit or open up options for 

interaction. On the other hand, 



the internet is rebuilding itself around different models of 

communication, meaning, and authority. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, 

Wikipedia, Flickr: these avatars of “Web 2.0” put the unlimited 

production and circulation of text—written and visual—at the center 

of the net. This new architecture of participation exploits several key 

principles: openness—membership in communities and access to 

tools is inclusive and egalitarian; “ad hoc” meritocracy—value and 

status are earned rather than designated; granularity—objects or 

totalities are built out of miscellany, always re-visable and re-iterated; 

the commons—cultural production is communally governed. 

(Hanley, 2011, p. 11) 

In other words, professors (and everyone else participating) have less control 

over what is shared and with whom, how conversations are structured, and so 

on. This means a great deal more openness but also a greater blurring of roles 

in the classroom and exposure to unforeseen difficulties and ethical dilemmas. 

With each post, professors and students (re)create their individual and shared 

identities (Goffman, 1959). Boyd (2007) describes social networking sites, 

such as Facebook, as mediated public sites in which persistence, searchability, 

replicability, and invisible audiences are unique properties. 

By using the class as a case (Feldman & Khademian, 1999), social networking 

in the classroom may provide an opportunity for professors to model democracy. 

If we hope students will practice democracy outside of the classroom, including 

encouraging more citizen participation, we need to model the processes of 

democracy—deliberative discourse, active participation, empowerment, and 

so on—in the classroom. A similar argument has been made for practicing 

workplace democracy (Bachrach & Botwinick, 1992; Haque, 2000; Pateman, 

1970). The model of democracy envisioned here is one that is participatory, 

deliberative, and extra-formal (Barber, 1984; Bogason, Kensen, & Miller, 2004; 

Pateman, 1970). It is a democracy that includes a high level of interaction among 

citizens and between citizens and government, not necessarily part of the formal 

electoral process; what Barber (1984) describes as “strong democracy.” 

As noted in the introduction, there are many who see social networking as 

having a great deal of potential for public administrators to engage citizens; but 

this potential has yet to be fully realized. Research suggests that participation on 

the Internet exerts a positive influence on political and civic participation (cf. 

Weber, Loumakis, & Berman, 2003, p. 39) and that, when used with public 

meetings, can lead to greater knowledge, commitment, and satisfaction levels for 

citizens (Conroy & Gordon, 2004). However, Conroy and Evans-Cowley (2006) 

point out that, in part, “the rate of utilization and willingness to accept new 

methods may be based on the demographics of a community” (Conroy & Evans- 

Cowley, 2006, p. 399). Certainly, the digital divide issues noted earlier call for 



public administrators to be cognizant of citizens’ access, capabilities, and demand 

in their own communities. Nonetheless, in many communities, “there is a 

growing expectation on the part of citizens that there will be online participation 

opportunities” (Conroy & Evans-Cowley, 2006, p. 399). 

Indeed, just as social networking might open up a whole new level of 

possibility for engaging students, it also offers this opportunity for engaging 

with citizens. As Noveck (2009) argues, with new information technologies, 

such as social networking, participation could be extended beyond deliberation 

or input to collaborative governance; public administrators could now consult 

with and take advantage of the expertise of many more people (Noveck, 2009). 

This does not eliminate more traditional modes of participation; Noveck (2009) 

argues that not everybody needs to participate in the same policy arena or in the 

same way. It is necessary to create many diverse spaces for public participation, 

in such a way that most people have opportunities to engage with government. 

Case study research by Evans-Cowley and Hollander (2010) indicates that online 

social networking works best as part of a broader participatory process; change is 

more likely by enabling civic participation in person and online. 

Conclusion 

The review of the literature discussed in this paper implies that the jury is 

still out on the value of social networking for enhancing learning; however, there 

seem to be several potential benefits to its use, including providing experience 

in collaborative work, promoting more complex and lasting retention of course 

ideas, and empowering students. Social networking may be most beneficial in 

indirectly helping professors build relationships with students (and students 

building relationships with one another), which in turn may help students to 

do better in school. Using social networking does raise the need to rethink our 

relationships with students. It will not work well in a “traditional” professor-asthe-expert, 

top-down classroom model. Students demand and need something 

different. Professors can embrace this technology and use it wisely. As Kapp (in 

Mason & Rennie, 2008) suggests: 

We can contemplate whether “real” learning happens with Web 2.0 

technologies, we can be philosophical about the value of informal 

learning versus formal learning, we can tout the virtues of “collective 

wisdom” but in the end…none of that matters. What matters is 

that kids are already using Web 2.0 technologies comfortably and 

effectively. If we old folks (over 30) don’t figure out how to effectively 

use these tools to help the younger generation learn what they need 

to be successful in our baby boomer-run companies, government 

agencies and other large organizations then we…will be irrelevant. 

(p. 7) 



Perhaps the more important point to consider is that citizens increasingly 

expect more transparency in government and a chance to be engaged in the 

governance process. While the digital divide clearly still exists, our students need 

to figure out ways to engage students online and offline. Social networking can 

help them to do this, but they need to learn how to use these tools effectively. 

Our students and alumni struggle today in their government and nonprofit 

agencies to figure out how to best (and legally) use social networking to 

communicate with constituents. By several indications, they are not doing it as 

well as they might and missing opportunities to engage citizens in governance. 

Will our students be irrelevant to citizens if they do not learn how to use these 

tools more effectively? What is our responsibility as public affairs educators 

to address the needs of students and prepare them for the current and future 

workplace? Is it incumbent on us to educate them regarding issues surrounding 

social networking? Based on the analysis presented herein, the best answer seems 

to be yes. 

Using social networking as a pedagogical tool in the classroom should be 

done thoughtfully and with clear learning outcomes and process models in 

mind. Just as public administrators should consider the value and limitations of 

social networking with citizens, the use of social networks as a pedagogical tool 

on their own in the classroom is likely inadequate. Engeström (2005) suggests 

they should be an adjunct to other tools. In addition, Ophus and Abbitt (2009) 

suggest, “it is likely that students will be more accepting of social networking 

systems for teaching and learning when they perceive that their privacy is not 

threatened” (p. 646). Including instructions for students on how to use Facebook 

(or other social networking tools) in such a way that students do not give up 

their privacy to a degree that is uncomfortable may serve to alleviate these 

concerns. Faculty can also educate themselves on ways to do this. The important 

thing, it seems, is that students learn to critically reflect on their use of social 

networking and how it fits with their own self-perceptions and career and life 

goals and interaction with citizens. Once out in the field, students will need to 

know the proper uses and limitations of social networking, as well as how to use 

it effectively to engage with citizens. 

Footnote 

1 “One respondent indicated that registering with LinkedIn is one of their program entry 

requirements for freshman students. All of her students use LinkedIn to connect with classmates 

and alumni. In classes, students are required to post questions for alumni and keep an active 

dialogue. Such activities help students to link their classroom study with real world practices, 

enrich their learning experience, and prepare them for better career opportunities” (Bryer & Chen, 

2010, pp. 248–249). 



References 

Bachrach, P., & Botwinick, A. (1992). Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory 

democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of 

California Press. 

Barnes, K., R. Marateo, & S. Ferris. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation. 

Innovate, 3(4). 

Bogason, P., Kensen, S., & Miller, H. T. (2004). Pragmatic, extra-formal democracy. Administrative 

Theory & Praxis, 24, 675–692. 

Boyd, D. (2007). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? The Knowledge Tree, 13. Retrieved from 

http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id528 

Brainard, L. A., & McNutt, J. G. (2011). Virtual government-citizen relations: Informational, 

transactional, or collaborative? Administration & Society, 42, 836–858. 

Bryer, T. A., & Chen, B. (2010). Social networking in teaching public administration. In Charles 

Wankel (Ed.), Cutting-edge social media approaches to business education: Teaching with LinkedIn, 

Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and Blogs (pp. 241–267). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 

Bryer, T. A., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2011). Social media and public administration: Theoretical 

dimensions and introduction to the symposium. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 325–340. 

Cain, J. (2008). Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American 

Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72, 1–7. 

Carvin, A. (n.d.). Social networking in education. Slideshow. Retrieved from http://www.andycarvin. 

com/?p=1665 

Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. 

Catlaw, T. J. (2006). Authority, Representation, and the contradictions of post-traditional governing. 

American Review of Public Administration, 36, 261–287. 

Conroy, M. M., & Evans-Cowley, J. S. (2006). E-participation in planning: An analysis of cities 

adopting on-line citizen participation. Environment and Planning C, 24, 371–384. 

Conroy, M. M., & Gordon, S. I. (2004). Utility of interactive computer-based materials for enhancing 

public participation. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 47, 19–33. 

Cox, B., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology from a 

residential college. Review of Higher Education, 30, 343–363. 

The Digital Divide. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.onlineitdegree.net/digital-divide/ 

Dowling, C., Godfrey, J. M., & Gyles, N. (2003). Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods 

improve accounting students’ learning outcomes? Accounting Education, 12, 373–391. 

Eikenberry, A. M., Blaszak, E. N., Buettner, S. L., Morrissette, B. A., & Redden, R. J. (2009). 

Improving quality and creating democracy in the classroom? Using student management teams. 

Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31, 119–126. 



Ellison, N., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2006, June 19–23). Spatially bounded online social networks 

and social capital: The role of Facebook. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the 

International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany. 

Engeström, J. (2005). Why some social network services work and others don’t—Or: the case for 

object-centered sociality. Retrieved from http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_ 

social-network-services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-centered-sociality.html 

Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based 

participation tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25, 397–408. 

Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. (1999). The class as case: “Reinventing” the classroom. Journal of 

Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 482–502. 

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. 

Giles, M. (2010, January 30). A world of connections. The Economist, 394(8667), 3. 

Glenn, J. M. (2000). Teaching the Net generation. Business Education Forum, 54(3), 6–14. 

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor. 

Halawah, I. (2006).The impact of student-faculty informal interpersonal relationships on intellectual 

and personal development. College Student Journal. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/ 

articles/mi_m0FCR/is_3_40/ai_n16726402/pg_6/?tag=content;col1 

Hand, L. C., & Ching, B. D. (2011). “You have one friend request”: An exploration of power and 

citizen engagement in local governments’ use of social media. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 

362–382. 

Hanley, L. (2011). Mashing up the institution: Teacher as bricoleur. Radical Teacher, 90(1), 9–14. 

Haque, M. S. (2000). Threats to public workplace democracy. Peace Review, 12, 237–241. 

Hay, L. E. (2000). Educating the Net generation. Social Administrator, 57(54), 6–10. 

Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006, November 4–8). Crossing boundaries: Identity management 

and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Paper presented at CSCW’06, Banff, 

Alberta, Canada. 

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities 

of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68. 

Kolowich, S. (2010, May 4). Professors and social media. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www. 

insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/04/socialmedia 

Kuh, G., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. Review of Higher 

Education, 24, 309–332. 

Lester, J., & Perini, M. (2010). Potential of social networking sites for distance education student 

engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 67–77. 

Li, L., & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-faculty 

interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 175–185. 



Lippmann, S., Bulanda, R. E., & Wagenaar, T. C. (2009). Student entitlement: Issues and strategies for 

confronting entitlement in the classroom and beyond. College Teaching, 57, 197–204. 

Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011, August 26). 65% of online adults use social networking sites. 

Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media// 

Files/Reports/2011/PIP-SNS-Update-2011.pdf 

Marshall, G. S. (2007). Commanded to enjoy: The waning of traditional authority and its implications 

for public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29, 102–114. 

Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher 

education. New York: Taylor & Francis. 

McSwite, O. C. (2009). The challenge of social networks. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31, 78–95. 

Mergel, I. (2012.). The public manager 2.0: Preparing the social media generation for a networked 

workplace. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3). 

Mergel, I. (2010, September 21). Social media: Digital divide, digital access and digital literacy. Social 

Media in the Public Sector blog. Retrieved from http://inesmergel.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/ 

social-media-digital-divide-digital-access-and-digital-literacy/ 

Motiwalla, L., & Tello, S. (2001). Distance learning on the Internet: An exploratory study. Internet and 

Higher Education, 2, 253–264. 

Mouffe, C. (1996). Democracy, power, and the political. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and 

difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 245–256). Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 

Myers, S., Martin, M., & Knapp , J. (2005). Perceived instructor in-class communicative behaviors as 

a predictor of student participation in out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 53, 

437–450. 

Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government. How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, 

and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L., Eds. (2005). Educating the Net generation. Washington, D.C.: 

EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/books/educatingthenetgen/5989 

O’Leary, R. (1997). The great man theory of teaching is dead. Journal of Public Administration 

Education, 3(2), 127–133. 

Ophus, J. D., & Abbitt, J. T. (2009). Exploring the potential perceptions of social networking systems 

in university courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5, 639–648. 

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press. 

Peters, G. (1996). The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. 

Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me Mom—I’m learning. Minneapolis, MN: Paragon House Publishers. 

Radovanovic, D. (2011). Digital divide and social media: Connectivity doesn’t end the digital divide, 

skills do. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/ 

12/14/digital-divide-and-social-media-connectivity-doesnt-end-the-digital-divide-skills-do/ 



Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In L. 

M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 1–47). Cambridge: 

Oxford University Press. 

Smith, J. (2009, February 2). Fasting growing demographic on Facebook: Women over 55. Inside 

Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.insidefacebook.com/2009/02/02/fastest-growingdemographic-on-facebook-women-over-55/ 

Strickland, S. (2009). The effectiveness of blended learning environments for the delivery of respiratory 

care education. Journal of Allied Health, 38, e11–e16. 

Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. 

Proceedings of the 2006 iDMAa and IMS Code Conference, Oxford, Ohio. 

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Thorne, K., & Kouzmin, A. (2008). Cyberpunk-Web 1.0 “egoism” greets group-Web 2.0 “narcissism”: 

Convergence, consumption, and surveillance in the digital divide. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 

30, 299–323. 

Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A. & Berman, J. (2003) Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on 

the Internet and the mass public, Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 26–42. 

Wilhusen, G. C. (2010). Challenges in federal agencies’ use of Web 2.0 technologies. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10872t.pdf 

Wilson, T., & Whitelock, D. (1998). What are the perceived benefits of participating in a computermediated 

communication (CMC) environment for distance learning computer science students? 

Computers and Education, 30, 259–269. 

Angela M. Eikenberry is an associate professor in the School of Public 

Administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, where she also serves 

as the advisor for the nonprofit concentration in the MPA program. Her main 

research interests include philanthropy and nonprofit organizations and their 

role in democratic governance. Her book, Giving Circles: Philanthropy, Voluntary 

Association, Democracy (Indiana University Press, 2009), won the CASE 2010 

John Grenzebach Research Award for Outstanding Research in Philanthropy. 


The Public Manager 2.0: Preparing 

the Social Media Generation 

for a Networked Workplace 

Ines Mergel 

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, 

Syracuse University 

Abstract 

This article provides the design of a new student-centered information management 

course to teach the effective use of social media technologies in the public sector 

as part of public affairs programs. The goal of this “Government 2.0” course 

is to provide students with analytical and technological skills to navigate the 

challenges future public managers are facing in a networked workplace. Social 

media technologies, such as wikis, blogs, microblogging services, or social 

networking sites, have evolved into innovative channels to collect and share 

information about government updates and breaking news as well as ongoing 

operations. Future public managers trained in public affairs programs expect to 

have access to and work with social media technologies at their future workplace. 

This course sets out to build competencies and skills to create an increased 

awareness and knowledge about the effective use of social media technologies 

for informal learning among government practitioners. Six course elements are 

identified that support student-centered learning and distributed responsibilities 

in a combination of online and offline learning experiences. Each course element 

is discussed, including its learning objectives, related student activities, outcomes, 

and evaluation elements The article concludes with recommendations for faculty 

who plan to teach with social media technologies in public affairs programs. 

The use of social networking services has become a widely accepted channel 

for government to reach out to its constituents. Public affairs programs have an 

opportunity to equip their graduates with strategies, techniques, and tactics for 

understanding and using these technologies effectively and responsibly for their 

future use in the public sector. 

This article describes and analyzes an innovative approach to teaching 

a new type of information management course using social media tools in a 

leading Master of Public Administration (MPA) program, titled “Government 

JPAE 18(3), 467–492 


I. Mergel 

2.0.” Social media applications are interactive platforms that allow bidirectional 

exchanges between government and its diverse audiences (Bretschneider & 

Mergel, 2010; Mergel, 2010, 2011). The course addresses the current challenges 

and opportunities posed by online social networking activities and applies 

student-centered learning experiences to increase awareness of how government 

administrators and managers can respond to these challenges. The elements of 

the course sections are derived from interviews with social media directors in 

the executive branch of the U.S. federal government and include the following 

modules: Open Government and the Government 2.0 ecosystem in the United 

States and worldwide; legal and regulatory bases for the use of social media in 

government; drivers and barriers for the adoption of social media; access; digital 

divide and digital literacy; inclusion requirements; transparency, collaboration, 

and participation; distributed democracy and crowdsourcing; Open Innovation; 

games, challenges, and prizes; and design elements of social media strategies and 

policies to fulfill an agency’s mission. 

The class concept includes pedagogical elements to apply social media applications 

on three different levels: (a) informal networking: social media tools directly 

connect students to practitioners and learn from firsthand accounts in real-life 

situations; (b) class participation elements include the use of social media tools to 

collaboratively co-create content; and (c) social media services are used to create 

a culture of constant engagement and social awareness between weekly face-toface 

meetings. These three elements are used to increase individual skills, but also 

to empower students to develop necessary skills in an innovative collaborative 

environment that mirrors the challenges of their future networked workplaces. In 

many ways this approach is leveling the playing field, and it helps students in all 

stages of their public service career to understand the usefulness of social media 

services. The article concludes with recommendations on how to transform 

knowledge acquired in the classroom into actionable knowledge for the 

implementation of social media concepts in government, and provides insights 

for faculty who plan to use social networking services in non-technology classes. 

In the following sections, the need for a social media course, the theoretical 

framework of the course, learning objectives, pedagogical activities, student 

artifacts, and learning outcomes are explained. Recommendations based on the 

lessons learned and insights from student evaluations are provided. 

Social Technology Usage in the Public Sector Drives the Need 

for Social Media Education in Public Affairs Programs 

On January 21, 2009—a day after his inauguration—President Obama 

issued the “Transparency and Open Government” memo addressed to the 

directors of the departments and agencies in the executive branch of the U.S. 

federal government (Obama, 2009). The memo was the foundation for the 

current administration’s Open Government Initiative (OGI), and it laid out 


The Public Manager 2.0 

three different areas of government innovation: Government has to become more 

participatory, more transparent, and more collaborative. It specifically emphasized 

that agencies had to “harness new technologies” to accomplish these goals. 

As the use of innovative social technology practices evolved, more and 

more obstacles emerged that hindered the initial enthusiasm and slowed down 

adoption of social media applications. Existing policies mainly regulated the use 

of standard information and communication technologies, such as e-mail usage, 

or the use of websites in a static manner—allowing mostly for broadcasting 

highly formalized and vetted information (McLean, 2005). Websites are 

infrequently updated and provide limited interaction possibilities for citizens to 

engage with government. 

Several directives and policies to encourage the responsible use of new 

technologies followed the initial memo and encouraged the use of social media 

technologies on all levels of government. The General Services Administration 

and the Office of Science and Technology at the White House defined, for 

example, social media records management; the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) called for directions for social media policies (GAO, 2011); and 

the General Services Administration (GSA) signed amended Terms of Service 

Agreements with many social media providers to comply with government 

standards (GSA, 2010). 

The recent use of the microblogging service Twitter during the East Coast 

snow storms in 2010 (Gregory, 2011), the use of Facebook to coordinate the 

uprisings of what is now called the Arab Spring in 2011 (Marks, 2011), and the 

call by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to use social media 

instead of phone lines to check in with friends and family during earthquakes 

and hurricanes in late 2011 (Fugate, 2011) all indicate that social media has 

become a trusted communication channel in the public sector. 

Nevertheless, social media applications are challenging and extending the 

current use of online services in the public sector (Bretschneider & Mergel, 

2010). Traditionally, technology innovations in the public sector were introduced 

through an executive decision and implemented top down. Social media adoption, 

however, has taken a different path: So-called intrapreneurs are experimenting 

with the use of third-party social media platforms and starting to engage 

with citizens on Facebook, Twitter, or through a weblog. Oftentimes, these 

experiments are highly informal and only slowly make their way into the formal 

communication strategy. This adoption behavior is clearly driven by the popular 

use of social media applications by citizens who are using the platforms to access 

information or news and connect to their friends and family members, but don’t 

purposefully navigate to government websites (Fretwell, 2010; Kennedy, 2010). 

While the initial purpose of social media applications is to help its users 

socialize by connecting to their off-line contacts in an online environment, social 

media services have evolved into social sharing environments that government 


I. Mergel 

can use to extend its existing communication, engagement, and networking 

mission. Many citizens rely on their trusted friendship network and are vetting 

official information they hear through their friendship ties. They are paying 

attention to news and information shared by their trusted online contacts. 

Social networking platforms have become news validation and social sharing 

tools that are increasing citizens’ awareness for topics they and their friends are 

interested in. While traditional news sources are valid channels for disseminating 

government information, social networking sites are additional channels for 

public engagement and participation as well as increased transparency, which 

might in turn lead to increased public trust in government operations. 

A New Skill Set for a New Generation of Public Managers: 

Embracing Public Sector Knowledge Incubation in Unlikely Places 

Social media adoption in the public sector is still in its early stages: Many 

agencies are experimenting with one or two online accounts and highly 

centralized decision making over the content that is shared. Others only set the 

context for the use of social media and leave decisions about the type of content 

to share and the selection of tools up to their subunits, which has resulted in 

large numbers of decentralized—and oftentimes duplicated—accounts (Mergel, 

2010). In this early adoption phase, experimentation happens initially outside 

the existing routines and regulations, and adoption is spreading slowly. 

Recently, Jeffrey Levy, Director of Web Communications at the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and cochair of the Federal Web 

Managers Council, publicly tweeted (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. 

Jeffrey Levy Twitter update on October 19, 2011 



This act by Levy implies that whether or not to use social media in 

government is no longer a question; instead, it is a widely accepted practice. 

However, the tactics and strategies on how to use these new forms of interaction 

effectively are still unclear to many government professionals. 

Therefore, public managers need to be equipped with an understanding 

of how their diverse set of stakeholders view the usefulness of interactions with 

government and use engagement channels that support the agency’s mission 

to accomplish these goals. The existing methods and instruments out of the 

e-government era no longer support the use of social media and tasks, and 

resources have to be changed to address these challenges. 

Given the apparent lack of know-how and formal guidance, social media 

professionals in government turn to their informal network of peers to 

understand best practices and make sense of their own actions. The current 

budget crunch leaves government organizations with little room to acquire 

innovative tools, consulting practices, or unlimited time for experimentation. 

Despite the dire budget situation, innovation happens; and social media 

applications allow public managers to tap into knowledge outside their 

own organization. Take, for example, the work by Marie Davie, Assistant 

Commissioner for the Office of Assisted Acquisition Services (AAS) in GSA’s 

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), who uses social media to improve the federal 

acquisition process (Goodnoe, 2005). Davie turned to her peers represented 

on the social networking site GovLoop.com for a crowdsourcing experiment. 

Together with knowledge specialists in government, journalists, academics, and 

industry representatives, she started the discussion in an online group called 

“Acquisition 2.0.” The result of this open ideation process was the BetterBuy 

Wiki—a collaborative content creation platform that helps government to 

improve the specifications of requests for proposal (RFPs) before they are opened 

for submissions (Veen, 2009). 

Davie was able to tap into the informal knowledge her peers were willing 

to provide to her on third-party platforms, thus crowdsourcing innovative ideas 

outside the official government context. She used her informal networking 

skills to create an experiment that bridged the different user groups that are not 

directly connected to each other and so crossed structural holes in her network 

(Burt, 1992). Moreover, she activated knowledge of those actors in her network 

that are not part of the formal federal acquisition process. 

Similarly, government professionals are using informal networking on other 

social media channels: On the microblogging site Twitter.com, government 

professionals are using the hashtag # localgovchat (Twitter users meet every 

Wednesday at 9 p.m. EST online to talk about local government topics) or 

#CMGR for community managers to discuss social media challenges. They are 

participating in LinkedIn discussions groups, such as “Gov 2.0—Technology, 

Initiatives and Innovations.” These examples highlight how government 


I. Mergel 

professionals use social media to incubate knowledge that is not readily 

available within the bureaucratic hierarchical knowledge base of their own 

organizations. Instead, they have developed new forms of collaborative capacity 

to access information beyond organizational boundaries and accept innovative 

information from outside of government (Bughin, Hung Byers, & Chui, 2011). 

This form of informal learning among practitioners using social media poses 

risks but also opportunities for government to access innovative insights. 

The skill set of future public managers therefore needs to include innovative 

forms for informal learning and networking among government professionals 

outside of their own organization and rather formalized information sharing 

procedures. To achieve this goal, public affairs programs need to provide skills 

that include 

• new forms of digital competencies, 

• new forms of collaborative capacities, and 

• new forms of social and digital awareness to mitigate the risks for each 

participant not just individually but also for the organization as a whole. 

Challenges for Public Affairs Programs to Prepare Students for 

the Connected Workplace 

Future graduates are facing challenges in their preparation to become the 

next generation of public managers. While most of them will most likely start 

as analysts, researchers, or in support staff functions, they will later on become 

leaders and managers with the ability to allocate and distribute resources. Most 

information management syllabi in the top 50 public affairs schools provide 

programming skills for database management, website programming skills, or 

applied exercises of geographic information systems (GIS) applications, leaving 

little room for the current trend of social media usage in the public sector. 

When students transition from their mostly personal use of social media 

applications to a professional environment in which social media, or for that 

matter Internet access in general, is highly restricted, future employers will face 

a brain drain from government to other sectors. Take for example government 

DNA labs that have only one web-enabled computer that is in the hallway and 

restricts all private access to the Internet, and thereby pushes their employees 

to communicate with their peers in their free time on their private computers 

(Mergel, Lazer, & Binz-Scharf, 2008). 

The fast pace of change in technology usage in the public sector has also 

taken public affairs programs by surprise. Faculty members are rethinking class 

design and practices as well as analytical skill sets that future public managers 

have to acquire in order to be competitive on the job market. A recent survey 

among college students conducted by Cisco found that approximately 56% 

of current graduates are not willing to accept a job from an organization that 

bans social media, or they will circumvent existing policies (Kamentz, 2010). 



Two thirds of college students will ask about social media policies during their 

job interviews. The expectations of future employees show a trend toward 

absolute freedom to use social media at the workplace and even the liberty of 

unrestricted access to their personal social media accounts. These prospects are 

met with employers’ concerns to mitigate the risk that social media poses for the 

workplace, keep authority over content, and comply with existing information 

sharing and creation processes. 

The question therefore is, how can public administration as a teaching 

discipline embrace the challenges of an ever-changing social media landscape 

and at the same time balance the expectations of students and employers? Unless 

both public affairs programs and government continue to make the shift toward 

an integrative approach of social media, they might lose valuable parts of the 

future workforce to other sectors. 

Course Design: A Student-Centered Learning Environment to 

Develop Informal Practitioner Learning Experiences 

Learning processes are as diverse as they are individual. Generally, research 

has shown that students learn about 10% of the relevant and actionable 

knowledge through facts that come to them in form of formally assigned 

readings or lectures that are delivered to them. Both elements are passive forms 

of learning; the students have to make sense of the content by themselves and 

combine it with their existing experiences and knowledge base. 

The course’s pedagogical framework focuses on student-centered learning 

(C. Estes, 2004; Motschnig-Pitrik & Holzinger, 2002; O’Leary, 1997, 2002). 

All in-class activities, as well as the assignments between face-to-face classroom 

meetings leading up to the final implementation plan, concentrate on the 

students’ learning experiences. 

The course applies a combination of traditional classroom elements and 

online learning experiments to accomplish the objectives. First, the assigned 

readings include foundational articles on the use of technology in the public 

sector (for a list of all required readings per class, see the full syllabus in the 

appendix). The topics were chosen based on problem-driven themes that bridge 

multiple disciplines, and the students are asked to apply known information 

management concepts to the new and innovative use of social media in the 

public sector. The traditional readings are complemented by contemporary 

readings from social media–related blogs, government technology press coverage, 

and other related news coverage. Table 1 shows the course outline. The topics 

are divided into three main application areas: (a) underlying mechanisms for 

the use of social media; (b) making social media work in government; and 

(c) student projects. 


I. Mergel 

Table 1. 

Course Outline 

Week 

1 

Topics 

Course overview, syllabus review, course requirements 

Introduction to Government 2.0 

2 The social media ecosystem 

3 Barriers and drivers for the adoption of social media 

4 Organizational institutions 

5 America 2.0: “It’s no longer the campaign” 

6 Social media policies and strategies in the public sector 

Underlying Mechanisms 

7 Social media records management and risk mitigation 

8 Reuse of public sector information and mobile applications 

9 Democracy 2.0: Distributed democracy online 

10 Open Innovation in the public sector 

11 Collaboration 2.0 across boundaries 

12 Measuring social media impact 

13 The future of social media in government 

14 Final class project presentations (Part I) 

15 

Final class project presentations (Part II) 

Wrap up 

Making Social Media Work 

in Government 

Student Projects 

In addition to the readings, the students are asked to participate in 

ongoing peer-to-peer dialogues. This is accomplished with the help of different 

collaborative online environments (Orlando, 2011). In the four years of 

teaching the class, several different types of wikis were used. One year, a wiki for 

educational purposes was used by the students to work collaboratively on weekly 

class assignments, and it provided an online space to collect ideas and material 

for their final projects. In another year, students used Google Wave to share 

articles, comment on each other’s posts, or prepare questions for future guest 

speakers. The speakers were then invited to browse through the questions ahead 

of time as a way to prepare for the class meeting. This approach has helped both 

guest speakers and students get to know each other ahead of time, start informal 



conversations, and open a communications channel for future professional 

networking (Neubauer, Hug, Hamon, & Stewart, 2011). The platforms were 

used throughout the semester and beyond the duration of the program for 

the students to expand their conversations and carry out learning experiences 

without being bound to the classroom setting. 

Guest speakers are scattered around the country and even abroad. They 

are connected live with the class via the voice-over-IP (VoIP) telephony service 

Skype or Google Video Chat (depending on their local computer access). For 

the classroom setup, a computer with the ability to use third-party services 

is required. Note: Not all university computers allow Skype, due to potential 

bandwidth risk and other security concerns. In addition, an external web camera 

is necessary for bidirectional video sharing and to gain the flexibility of moving 

the camera around in the room to allow students to interact with the guest 

speakers. An external microphone and speaker set for pristine voice quality is 

necessary for the interactive Q&A sessions. Figure 2 shows Noel Dickover, who 

is responsible for building the in-house wiki platform DODTechipedia and is 

cofounder of CrisisCommons.org and consultant to the eDiplomacy group at 

the U.S. State Department. At the time of his virtual guest lecture, he was on 

assignment in Latvia organizing the TechCampGlobal meeting as part of the 

State Department’s Civil Society 2.0 project. 

Figure 2. 

Guest Speaker Joining Government 2.0 Class via Skype Video and Screen Sharing 

The following subsections describe the teaching strategy, the online learning 

experiences, student outcomes, and their evaluation for the six main themes of 

the course. 


I. Mergel 

Increasing Digital Literacy and Online Competency 

Students need to learn how to use social technologies to fulfill the mission 

of their organization. Professionally they need to learn how to balance their 

professional, personal, and institutional loyalties and how they represent 

themselves and their organization in digital environments. At the same time, 

the course aims to raise an awareness of how the use of social technologies can 

help increase a government’s organization transparency and accountability 

among all of its audiences. 

The technological features of most social technologies allow for a reflexive 

feedback cycle. This means that as soon as government starts to engage on social 

media sites, citizens have increased expectations of reciprocity. Commenting 

might occur in the form of a constant back-and-forth between government and 

citizens, thus increasing the expectation of near real-time feedback. This 

feature results in publicly observable, direct interactions between government 

and citizens. 

In this class, the students are therefore required to immerse themselves in 

a variety of tools to be able to experience not only the design features but also 

cultural aspects and emerging online memes. All students have to select a social 

technology and prepare a hands-on workshop for their peers in the classroom. 

The presenting students are instructed to point out the shortcomings and risks 

the tools might pose for government operations. The exercise helps to start 

discussions about potential conflicts between audience expectations and the 

government’s standard operating procedures. The learning outcome 

gives students the opportunity to take the standpoint of a government 

professional and therefore look beyond their personal use patterns. The class 

then evaluates the learning experience and actively provides peer-to-peer 

feedback to the “teacher.” 

The procedural learning component is accompanied by an individual 

writing task: To accomplish full immersion, students are required to start 

writing for digital environments. The online engagement component includes 

a minimum of five 350-word blog posts per semester. The challenge for this task 

is very real: The experience of this 4-year-old course shows that students jump to 

the conclusion that they will never get their future (or past) top management 

to start blogging or tweeting. While there is usually a lot of initial resistance, 

especially from more experienced Executive MPA (EMPA) students, each 

week students have to follow a specific task to learn how to be part of ongoing 

online conversations. 

Online writing experiments are scaffolded: Students start with a relatively 

small workload by sharing links to interesting online content that is relevant to 

the course topics. In a next step, they are asked to comment on other students’ 



links or provide insights from their own professional experiences to postings by 

other students. This “Link—quote—comment” process allows distributing the 

workload across many shoulders, and the students still experience all elements 

of social technologies: They are writing for the web, receive comments, and 

immerse themselves in online conversations, and as a result gradually become 

more comfortable with making their own contributions. Students are encouraged 

to change their writing style to comply with the new Plain Language Act of 

2010 (P.L. 111–274, 2010), which directs government agencies “to improve the 

effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies to the public by promoting 

clear Government communication that the public can understand and use.” The 

writing exercises increase the students’ comfort level, so that they are then willing 

to post questions on the class blog for the practitioners joining the classroom 

(http://gov20class.blogspot.com/). 

In summary, the online writing components include teaching a social 

media tool to the class, creating and sharing content online, engaging in online 

conversations, and direct peer feedback. Ten percent of the grade is based on 

online engagement (blogging and tweeting), and 20% of the grade constitutes 

the tool presentations and active classroom participation, including commenting 

and providing feedback to other students. 

Creating Social Awareness: Inclusiveness and Accessibility 

Online interactions pose important challenges on the notion of inclusiveness 

versus exclusiveness. Students need to be able to evaluate which social media 

technologies allow for the maximum level of compliance with Section 508 of 

the Rehabilitation Act. The act directs federal agencies to acquire electronic and 

information technology that is accessible for persons with disabilities (for more 

information, see Section508.gov). The goal of the digital literacy experiment is 

to make students aware of the traditional viewpoint of the dichotomous value of 

the digital divide (either you have access or you don’t) and demonstrate to them 

the difference that continuous digital access makes (Mergel, 2011). Access in the 

U.S. context has mostly been defined as convenience, such as the time, location, 

and speed of access to digital information: Instead of working on their own 

laptop, people might have to go to a community center or library to get access; 

they have a dial-up connection instead of a convenient broadband connection; or 

access is limited based on a government agency’s rules of access to private social 

networking accounts (Mergel, forthcoming 2012). 

To help students understand the limitations of social technologies in terms 

of inclusiveness, but also to increase their awareness of their own degree of digital 

literacy, I designed an interactive classroom experiment (Box 1). 


I. Mergel 

Box 1. 

Experiment: Digital Literacy for GenY and GenX Students 

The experiment starts out with children’s birthday sunglasses: Each student receives a 

pair of plastic glasses that can be found in the birthday aisle of department stores. In 

addition, they receive cotton swabs and a tinted skin cream (preferably Vaseline) to 

smear on the front of their glasses. After this is done, students are asked to read what 

was recently posted on their class Facebook group page. While this feels like a kid’s 

birthday party at the beginning, the students are usually stunned when I ask them 

what they are able to read. Answer: “Nothing.” Then the students are asked where 

the button is located on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube to help them read or hear the 

content. Answer: “Don’t know? Is there one?” In a third round, the students are asked 

to use earplugs in addition to their Vaseline-smeared sunglasses and attend one of the 

online Town Hall meetings that are streamed live on YouTube or Facebook video. 

Again, they are asked what they hear, and if there are any alternative ways to access 

the information they just missed. 

The point of this experiment is to help students understand that none of the 

popular social networking sites seems to be intuitively compliant with Section 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act to give citizens with disabilities equal and instant access to 

digital information that government is posting online. One of the points my students 

made was that governments usually operate with limited resources and do whatever 

they can to cater to the majority of citizens and that unfortunately there might not 

be enough resources to find solutions for minorities. This activity is a great conversation 

starter to help students think through alternative display functions and ways to 

deliver government information to all audience members. 

Here are the main takeaways from the experiment: (a) Most of the popular 

social networking sites that are promoted in government are not compliant with 

Figure 3. 

Digital Literacy Training 



Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and it is extremely difficult for screen 

readers and other aids to navigate sites like Facebook (Twitter is an exception 

because it is solely text based); (b) Social networking sites might increase the 

digital divide, leaving people behind who could hugely benefit from tapping 

into networks that can help them connect to government, help each other and 

share information within like-minded communities; (c) What seems to be highly 

convenient for students on university campuses (24-7 free wireless access) is not 

the reality for most citizens. A discussion that includes international students 

from developing countries will help American students to understand this point. 

As one of the EMPA students from Nepal recently pointed out: “14 hours of the 

day we don’t have electricity! High-speed Internet connectivity is nothing we can 

experience.” Figure 3 shows the students in the classroom wearing tinted glasses. 

Understanding and Mitigating Online Risks 

Using social technologies for professional purposes will involve many risks 

and challenges for future government officials. As an example, for an unexpected 

use of social technologies, public employees tweeted bank closing decisions from 

their personal Twitter accounts before the official decision was announced by 

the regulating agency. This event mostly highlights the low awareness of how 

the social graph (all friends-of-friends’ connections) helps to snowball messages 

through wider parts than just the network of direct contacts. Increasing digital 

literacy skills therefore serves a second purpose: It helps mitigate and potentially 

reduce the risks associated with the use of social media in the public sector 

(Bart, 2011a; Oxley, 2011). As a result, Macon Phillips, current Social Media 

Director in the Executive Office of the President, maintains two different Twitter 

accounts. On the left in Figure 4 is his official professional and public Twitter 

presence (@macon44), and on the right is his private—and locked—Twitter 

account (@macon). 

Figure 4. 

Private Versus Professional Digital Profile 


I. Mergel 

As a teaching element, the students receive the assignment to analyze existing 

social media policies in the public sector to understand the risks and expectations 

of public employers. The exercise creates an increased awareness of existing rules 

and regulations that government agencies have already adopted to mitigate social 

media pitfalls (Bart, 2011a, 2011b). For example, the U.S. Army has recently 

extended the rules for social media use and is now also aiming to raise awareness 

about responsible and safe use of social media beyond servicemen to family 

members (A. C. Estes, 2011). A list of social media policies is available on my 

blog at http://inesmergel.wordpress.com/social-media-policies/. 

Part of a risk mitigation strategy is also to understand what constitutes a 

government record and how these records have to be managed (Franks, 2010). 

Future government employees have to be able to distinguish between records that 

are subject to archiving regulations and those records that are not scheduled for 

archiving. While many social media records so far are not immediately scheduled 

for archiving, the students learn in this section to think about alternative means 

of saving or replicating online content, so that records are easily accessible after 

online services might shut down or not make records available anymore. 

The in-class activities are accompanied by two written assignments: 

First, students are required to submit a memo outlining the elements of an 

organizational social media strategy. In a second memo, they have to write a 

personal statement that interprets their individual social media strategy for their 

transition from mostly personal interactions to professional online interactions. 

The assignments account for 20% of their grade and are discussed in class, and 

the students receive written feedback from both the instructor and their peers. 

Analytical Competencies 

Measuring the impact of social media practices is a crucial element of 

the course and has also evolved in daily government practice as an important 

indicator of success for social media actions. The students are asked to evaluate the 

executive departments in the U.S. federal government in form of a web content 

analysis exercise: Each department is listed with all its members’ social media 

accounts, and the students analyze each department’s social media activities. The 

task is broad enough to leave room for each student to first individually extract 

meaningful insights. In class, a moderator is chosen who guides the whole group 

through a brainstorming exercise to build measures for social media impact. 

Students contribute their results and then discuss the impact of measures and 

their individual evaluations. The result is a social media measurement matrix that 

shows both quantitative measures (e.g., followers, contacts, number of updates, 

etc.) and qualitative measures, such as type of information shared, type of audience 



members, and number of retweets and reach. This interactive exercise helps the 

students to reach the insights in a collaborative dialogue. 

The course readings, analysis of available online measurement tools and 

dashboards, and classroom discussions build the basis for the third written 

assignment. The students are asked to create a “business case” for the use of social 

media in a government agency of their choice. They use available quantitative 

data such as followers, likes, and number of comments, in combination with 

insights from a qualitative analysis of the content of online messages. The 

business case shows the impact of government social media interactions. The 

written management memo then provides instructions for top management on 

how to interpret the results and makes recommendations for future directions. 

Designing an Implementation Plan With Integrated Self- and 

Peer-to-Peer Evaluation 

All course elements have the goal of empowering the students to make 

informed decisions about the adoption, implementation, and ongoing 

management of social media tools for a government organization of their 

choice. They learn about the needs of government audiences, the barriers and 

difficulties involved in adopting social media tools, and their potential impact. 

The assignments throughout the course are building students’ expertise and 

empowering them to design a detailed social media implementation plan for a 

government organization. 

First, students learn and teach each other about acceptable social media 

tools and their potential use for government. Second, they discover appropriate 

content online and start to share and reuse it. Then they critically assess elements 

of social media policies and how an organizational strategy differs from their 

personal social media activities. Lastly, they design an implementation and 

management plan for a government organization that has clearly not adopted a 

social media strategy. This exercise reflects practices of social media directors in 

the U.S. federal government: Each of them experiments with tools and practices 

they observe online and then builds a business case over time to present to top 

management in order to access additional resources and get leadership buy-in. 

The students finally present their plan in class, where they receive feedback and 

the opportunity to integrate improvements and suggestions into their plan before 

they send it to the agency. The final implementation plan accounts for 60% 

of the overall grade. Students are evaluated by the instructor and receive peer 

feedback that they can use to improve their final plan. 

The teaching plan (Table 2) summarizes the course elements, teaching 

objectives, content, student activities, artifacts, and assessment tools. 


I. Mergel 

Table 2. 

Teaching Plan 

Content Goals Activities Technology Student Artifacts 

Digital 

literacy and 

competency 

• Teaching as facilitated 

learning 

• Shifting responsibilities 

to learner 

• Learning objectives: 

– Mitigate online risks 

– Increase social and 

technological awareness 

– Online privacy 

• Using technology to 

enable complimentary 

learning experiences 

inside and outside the 

classroom 

• Online homework 

• Social networking 

sites, weblogs, wikis, 

content creation and 

sharing services 

• Classroom 

presentation using 

PowerPoint, Web 

• Students prepare a 

step-by-step guide 

and present the use 

of a self-selected 

social media tool to 

expose the whole 

class to a wide variety 

of social technologies 

• Personal social media 

strategy 

Inclusiveness 

and accessibility 

Ability to select 

technology that provides 

equal access or acceptable 

alternatives 

• Interactive online 

assignments 

• Give students an 

opportunity to practice 

mastery of the material at 

their own pace 

Contrasting existing 

social technology 

practices with 

alternative forms of 

content delivery to 

provide information 

(e.g., transcripts, 

podcasts) 

Assessment of existing 

social media tools and 

alternative forms to 

online content sharing 

Plain writing • Provide government 

audiences with information 

that is clear, understandable, 

and useful 

• Improve effectiveness 

in government to 

citizen communication 

Using the class weblog, wiki, 

or Facebook class page 

for mandatory writing 

assignments (max. 350 

words, at least 5 posts per 

semester) 

• Co-authored class 

weblog 

• Co-authored Wikis 

• Facebook class page 

Highly structured 

online writing 

assignments 

Evaluation to 

Foster Learning 

Peer evaluation 

and written 

instructor 

feedback 

In-class activity 

—no grade 

“Low-stake” 

grading 

opportunities 



Table 2. 

Teaching Plan (continued) 

Content Goals Activities Technology Student Artifacts 

Records 

management 

• Understand what 

constitutes a government 

record 

• Social media updates as 

government records 

• Using free and 

open source tools to 

archive and store social 

media records 

• Assessments of limits 

of integrated features 

to manage and archive 

records 

• Library of Congress 

Twitter archive 

• Download Facebook 

page and contact pages 

Collaborative 

capacity 

building 

• Change in government 

information paradigm: 

From need to know to 

need to share 

• Cross-boundary 

collaboration 

• Responsibility to prepare 

meaningful interaction 

with 

guest speakers 

• Connect to guest speaker 

via Twitter, LinkedIn, 

follow their blogs and 

other online profiles 

• Class wiki for joint 

content creation 

• Virtual world: 

– Second Life 

– Google Plus 

Structured questions 

in preparation for 

presentation on 

class blog 

Evaluation to 

Foster Learning 

Self-assessment 


I. Mergel 

Critical Assessment of Teaching Elements for Student Empowerment 

This newly developed Government 2.0 course is an ongoing experiment to 

empower students to tackle future challenges of a networked workplace in the 

public sector. The course combines online and offline learning experiences to 

create a student- and learner-centered environment in which the participants 

feel comfortable using social media and interacting with their peers online. 

The students are empowered to improve their digital competencies and online 

conversation skills in order to understand the pitfalls of online engagement in the 

public sector. They immerse themselves in informal practitioner networking—a 

concept that was recently called for in an article by Schweik et al., who advocate 

much higher and timely integration of academic and practitioner experiences 

and insights in the classroom (Schweik, Mergel, Sanford, & Zhao, 2011). 

Students start the class with a diverse set of their personal professional 

experiences and backgrounds. More experienced EMPA students will find it 

especially challenging to match the existing press-release government communication 

style with alternative forms of digital government interaction. For less 

experienced MPA students, this serves as a learning experience for the flow of 

strategic conversations they might be participating in at their future workplace. 

This class is therefore designed to go beyond the traditional form of teaching 

topics related to e-government by creating experiences among the students 

as well as with the involved practitioners. Social technologies are constantly 

changing, and so are the social behavior and culture of each digital environment. 

This environment leads to evolving innovative insights, so the class cannot be 

taught as a repetitive, static topic. For colleagues starting to teach about and with 

social media, it is important to recognize that there are still very little research 

and cases available, even though the topic has become a new reality 

in government. 

Students who participated in the class during the last 4 years commented 

on the structure, the interactive course elements, and their personal learning 

experiences as follows: “It opened our eyes to a new medium…very important 

given the events in the Mideast”; “she exposed us to the top people in the 

field and gave us insight”; “helped me appreciate…citizen participation and 

collaboration”; “opened our eyes to something we were not aware of”; “course 

was fantastic and very useful for my future career… she went out of her way to 

connect me with practitioners in the field and establish myself professionally”; 

and “[she was] open to discussion of our ideas.” 

Recommendations for Public Affairs Programs 

Faculty who are tackling the challenge of teaching about emerging issues take 

risks that go beyond standards set for existing and long-established core classes 

in public affairs programs. Topics are evolving, and behavior is observable in real 

time and develops throughout each semester—this can be both a challenge and 

an opportunity. The opportunity of an evolving topic such as Government 2.0 



is that cases are emerging on a weekly basis and can lead to fruitful insights and 

discussion in the classroom. Examples include the social media revolutions in 

Northern Africa in 2011 or the use of social media during presidential campaigns 

and discussions about their projected impacts on governing operations. 

Many of the course features can be applied to non-technology classes in 

public affairs programs: As an example, faculty can tap into the wisdom of alumni 

and connect them to their current students by inviting them directly into the 

classroom via Skype, Google video chat, Google Plus hangouts, or regular 

videoconferences. To increase the online experience, faculty can use class blogs 

to increase online writing opportunities, or ask their students to follow Twitter 

hashtags for ongoing or emerging issues related to the class content. While many 

faculty use class e-mails—sometimes channeled via digital environments such 

as Blackboard—to connect and keep students engaged between face-to-face 

class meetings, social media offers additional opportunities to engage students 

throughout the whole semester—and even beyond the time-bound duration of 

a course. 

Even though social media applications are offering innovative forms to 

interact with peers and with the technology itself, online writing as well as 

informal interactions among students and with faculty members can lead to 

misunderstandings. Clear boundaries, social media policies, and an online 

netiquette are necessary to lay the ground rules for responsible and acceptable 

online practices. This approach will help mitigate the risks for both students and 

faculty members. 

Combining offline teaching activities with interactive social media activities 

means that faculty members have to spend significant time in setting up a 

student-centered learning environment. It means that faculty constantly have to 

immerse themselves in ongoing technology changes and need to recognize their 

own need for training. It also means that it takes more time to situate and teach 

students the course objectives and get them up to speed on using the technology 

in a professional environment. As a result, the students will be engaged 

throughout the whole semester and not only during the face-to-face classroom 

meetings. Using social media technologies in public affairs programs empowers 

students to take on responsibilities in their networked class environment and will 

prepare them for future challenges in the workplace. 

References 

Bart, M. (2011a). Understanding the potential pitfalls of social media. Faculty Focus: Focused on Today’s 

Higher Education Professional. Retrieved from www.facultyfocus.com/articles/trends-in-highereducation/understanding-the-potential-pitfalls-of-social-media/ 

———. (2011b). Web 2.0 tools in the classroom: Embracing the benefits while understanding 

the risks. Faculty Focus: Focused on Today’s Higher Education Professional. Retrieved from www. 

facultyfocus.com/articles/trends-in-higher-education/web-2-0-tools-in-the-classroom-embracingthe-benefits-while-understanding-the-risks/ 


I. Mergel 

Bretschneider, S. I., & Mergel, I. (2010). Technology and public management information systems: 

Where have we been and where are we going? In D. C. Menzel & H. J. White (Eds.), The state of 

public administration: Issues, problems and challenges (pp. 187–203). New York: M.E. Sharpe. 

Bughin, J., Hung Byers, A., & Chui, M. (2011). How social technologies are extending the 

organization. McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Company. Retrieved 

from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_social_technologies_are_extending_the_ 

organization_2888 

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 


Estes, A. C. (2011). Highlights from the Army’s social media handbook. The Atlantic. Retrieved from 

www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/highlights-armys-social-media-handbook/41687/ 

Estes, C. (2004). Promoting student-centered learning in experiential education. Journal of Experiential 

Education, 27(2), 141–161. 

Franks, P. C. (2010). How federal agencies can effectively manage records created using new social 

media tools. In Using Technology Series (pp. 54). Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business 

of Government. 

Fretwell, L. (2010). 10 Entrepreneurs changing the way government works. GovFresh.com. Retrieved 

from http://govfresh.com/2010/04/10-entrepreneurs-changing-the-way-government-works/ 

Fugate, C. (2011). Written statement of Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs: Understanding the power of 

social media as a communication tool in the aftermath of disasters. Retrieved from www.dhs.gov/ 

ynews/testimony/testimony_1304533264361.shtm 

Goodnoe, E. (2005). Wikis make collaboration easier. InformationWeek. Retrieved from www. 

informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ZBHP4HNEXGTV5QE1GHPS 

KHWATMY32JVN?articleID=170100392 

Gregory, S. (2010). Cory Booker: The mayor of Twitter and Blizzard superhero. Time.com. Retrieved 

from www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039945,00.html 

Kamentz, A. (2010). How an army of techies is taking on City Hall. FastCompany, December/January. 

Retrieved from www.fastcompany.com/magazine/151/icitizen-bonus.html?page=0%2C2 

Kennedy, D. (2010). The wisdom of crowdsourcing: Far from the nasty comments found on many 

sites, projects such as SeeClickFix channel participation in constructive, useful ways. The Guardian. 

Retrieved from www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/01/crowdsourcing-internet 

Marks, J. (2011). Social media’s role in Arab Spring still unclear. Retrieved from www.nextgov.com/ 

nextgov/ng_20110916_4696.php 

McLean, K. (2005). Research questions of informal learning practitioners: A seriously informal 

survey. The National Academies Center for Education Board on Science Education, the Status of 

Research on Learning Science within Informal Education Settings—Think Pieces. Retrieved from 

www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Informal_Science_Kathy_McLean_Think_Piece.pdf 

Mergel, I. (2010). Informal networks in the public sector using social media applications. Syracuse, NY: 

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. 

———. (2011). The use of social media to dissolve knowledge silos in government. In R. O’Leary, S. 

Kim, & D. VanSlyke (Eds.), The future of public administration, public management, and public 

service around the world (pp. 177–187). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 



———. (forthcoming 2012). Social media in the public sector: Participation, collaboration, and 

transparency in the networked world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Mergel, I., Lazer, D., & Binz-Scharf, M. (2008). Lending a helping hand: Voluntary engagement in a 

network of professionals. International Journal of Learning & Change, 3(1), 5–22. 

Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Holzinger, A. (2002). Student-centered teaching meets new media: Concept 

and case study. Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 160–172. 

Neubauer, B. J., Hug, R. W., Hamon, K. W., & Stewart, S. K. (2011). Using personal learning 

networks to leverage communities of practice in public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, 17(1), 9–25. 

Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and open government: Memorandum for the heads of executive 

departments and agencies. Whitehouse Blog. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ 

TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ 

O’Leary, R. (1997). The great man theory of teaching is dead. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 3(2), 

127–133. 

———. (2002). Advice to new teachers: Turn it inside out. PSOnline, March, 91–92. 

Orlando, J. (2011). Wikis in the classroom: Three ways to increase student collaboration. Faculty Focus: 

Focused on Today’s Higher Education Professional. Retrieved from www.facultyfocus.com/articles/ 

teaching-with-technology-articles/wikis-in-the-classroom-three-ways-to-increase-student-collaboration/ 

Oxley, A. (2011). A best practices guide for mitigating risk in the use of social media. Strengthening 

Cybersecurity Series. Retrieved from www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-guidemitigating-risk-use-social-media 

Public Law 111–274. (2010). Plain Language Act, 124 STAT. 2861, 124 STAT. 2863. 

Schweik, C., Mergel, I., Sanford, J., & Zhao, J. (2011). Toward open public administration 

scholarship. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(Supplement 1—Minnowbrook 

III: A Special Issue), i175–i198. 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). (2010). Landmark agreements clear path for government 

new media (GSA 10572). Retrieved from www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103496 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2011). Social media: Federal agencies need policies and 

procedures for managing and protecting information they access and disseminate. Washington, DC. 

Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-605 

Veen, V. (2009). San Jose, Calif.’s Wikiplanning project on course. GovTech. Retrieved from www. 

govtech.com/gt/719878?topic=290174 

Dr. Ines Mergel is assistant professor of Public Administration and International 

Affairs and a senior research associate at the Center for Technology and Information 

Policy (CTIP) at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse 

University. She teaches classes on social media management and public 

organizations and management in the Master of Public Administration Program. 

Her research focuses on the adoption and diffusion of social media applications 

in the public sector. Her thoughts on the use of social media can be found on her 

blog: http://inesmergel.wordpress.com and on Twitter @inesmergel. 


I. Mergel 

Appendix 

Full Course Syllabus for “Government 2.0” Class 

For frequent updates, please visit: 

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/iamergel/government2-0.htm 

Week: 1 

Subject: 

Introduction: 

Government 2.0: A new mandate in the public sector 

Course schedule, readings, expectations 

• Bretschneider, S. I., & Mergel, I. (2010). Technology and Public 

Management Information Systems: Where have we been and where 

are we going? In D. C. Menzel & H. J. White (Eds.), The state of 

public administration: Issues, problems and challenges (pp. 187– 

203). New York: M.E. Sharpe. 

• O’Reilly, T. (2009). Gov 2.0: A Promise of Innovation. In J. Goetze 

& C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), State of the eUnion: Government 2.0 and 

onwards (pp. 29–32). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. 

• Ressler, S. (2009). The Emergence of Gov 2.0: From GovLoop to 

the White House. In J. Goetze & C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), State of the 

eUnion: Government 2.0 and onwards (pp. 43–48). Bloomington, 

IN: AuthorHouse. 

• Thomson, C. (2008, Sept. 7). Brave New World of digital intimacy. 

New York Times. 

Week: 2 

Subject: Social media ecosystem 

Introduction to social media applications (Part I) 

Tools & student presentations: 

• Blogging & RSS feeds 

• Microblogging 

• Netherland, W., & McCroskey, C. (2010). Case Study: Tweet 

Congress. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government— 

collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice (pp. 

177–182). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. 

• Twitter.com: Science for a Changing World, USGS Twitter business case. 

• Wyld, D. (2007). The blogging revolution: Government in the age 

of Web 2.0. IBM Center for the Business of Government report. 



Week: 3 

Subject: 

Barriers and drivers for the adoption of social media in the public sector 

Introduction to social media applications (Part II) 


• Online social networks: Facebook, LinkedIn, GovLoop 

• Content sharing: Photo sharing sites, YouTube 

• Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: 

Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated 

Communication, 13(1); available online. 

• Mergel, I. & Schweik, C. (2012). Web 2.0 in the public sector. In E. 

Downey & M. Jones (Eds.), Public service, governance and Web 2.0 

technologies (pp. 269–293). IGI-Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-46660- 

071-3. 

• Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Smith, A. (2011). The social side of the 

Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project. 

• Samuel, A. (2009). Waiting for Government 2.0: Why do public 

agencies take so long to embrace social media? In J. Goetze & C. B. 

Pedersen (Eds.), State of the eUnion: Government 2.0 and onwards 

(pp. 111–124). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. 

Week: 4 

Subject: Organizational institutions for the use of social media in government 

Guest speaker: Rachel Flagg, GSA, Center for Excellence in Digital Government, 

HowTo.gov 

• Aitoro, J. R. (2009, March 25). GSA signs deals for agencies to use 

social networking sites. NextGov; available online. 

• Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2011). Challenges in 

federal agencies’ use of Web 2.0 technologies. 

• Oxley, A. (2011). A best practices guide for mitigating risk in the use 

of social media. IBM Center for the Business of Government; report 

available online. 

• Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: 

Electronic mail in organizations. Management Science, 32(11), 

1492–1512. 


I. Mergel 

Week: 5 

Subject: 

America 2.0: Transforming lessons learned from the campaign to government 

operations 

• Barr, A. (2008). 2008 turnout shatters all records. Politico, 

November 5, 2008. 

• Senior, J. (2009, August 2). The message is the message: Barack 

Obama’s ubiquitous appearances as professor-in-chief, preacher-inchief, 

father-in-chief, may turn out to be the most salient feature of 

his presidency. New York Magazine. 

• Sifry, M. (2010). “You can be the eyes and ears”: Barack Obama and 

the wisdom of the crowds. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open 

government—Collaboration, transparency, and participation in 

practice (pp. 115–122). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. 

• Wallsten, P. (2009, Jan. 14). Retooling Obama’s campaign machine 

for the long haul. LA Times. 

Week: 6 

Subject: Social media policies and strategies in the public sector 

(organizational & personal approaches) 

Guest speaker: Bill Greeves, Director of Communication, Roanoke County (VA) 

• Dunn, Brian J. (2010). How I did it: Best Buy’s CEO on learning to 

love social media. Harvard Business Review. 

• Harvard Business Review Analytic Service Report. (2010). The 

new conversation: Taking social media from talk to action. Harvard 

Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/product/the-newconversation-taking-social-media-from-talk/an/10815-PDF-ENG 

• Mergel, I. (2010). Government 2.0 revisited: Social media strategies 

in the public sector. American Society for Public Administration, 

33(3), 7 & 10. 

Week: 7 

Subject: Social media records: Archiving, scheduling, management 

• Franks, P. C. (2011). How federal agencies can effectively manage 

records created using new social media tools. IBM Center for the 

Business of Government. 

• NARA Bulletin 2011–02: Guidance on managing records in Web 

2.0/social media platforms. 



Week: 8 

Subject: 

Reuse of public sector information 

Data.gov, mobile applications, civic hackers 

Guest speaker: Mark Headd, Senior Developer Evangelist, Voxeo Labs & Founder 

Civic Innovations 

• Lakhani, K., Austin, R. D., & Yi, Y. (2010). Data.gov, Harvard 

Business School, Case study. Available online only—no paper 

or digital print possible. 

• USA: http://www.data.gov 

• UK: http://data.gov.uk/ 

• Australia: http://data.gov.au/ 

• The Guardian. (2011, Dec. 12). Government computing: EU gets 

open data strategy. 

Week: 9 

Subject: Distributed Democracy 2.0: SeeClickFix.com 

Guest speaker Ben Berkowitz, CEO SeeClickFix.com 

• Bovaird, T., Loeffler, E., & Downe, J. (2009): Co-production of 

public services and policies: The role of emerging technologies. In J. 

Goetze & C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), State of the eUnion: Government 

2.0 and onwards (pp. 263–280). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. 

• Caddy, J. (2009). Focusing on citizens. In J. Goetze & C. B. 

Pedersen (Eds.), State of the eUnion: Government 2.0 and onwards 

(pp. 213–222). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. 

• King, S. F., & Brown, P. (2007, Dec. 10–13). Fix my street or 

else: Using the Internet to voice local public service concerns. 

CEGOV2007, Macao. 

• Smith, A. (2011). Neighbors Online, Pew Internet and American 

Life Project; available online. 

Week: 10 

Subject: Open Innovation in the Public Sector 

Guest speaker: Dustin Haisler, Director, Spigit.com 

• Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan 

Management Review, 44(3), 35–41. 

• McKinsey & Company. (2009). And the winner is… Capturing the 

promise of philanthropic prizes; available online. 

• Mergel, I. (2011, October). Crowdsourced ideas make participating 

in government cool again. American Society for Public 

Administration, 34(4), 4 & 6. Special Issue: From Bureaucratic to 

Cool: A Call for Public Service. 


I. Mergel 

Week: 11 

Subject: 

Collaboration across organizational boundaries with the use of social media 

Wikis in government, knowledge and project management, sharing 


• Carafano, J. J. (2011, 1st quarter). Mastering the art of wiki: 

Understanding networking and national security. Joint Force 

Quarterly, Issue 60, 73–78. 

• McAffee, A. (2005). Will web services really transform collaboration? 

MIT Sloan Management Review, 78–84. 

• Mergel, I. (2011, May). Using wikis in government: A guide for 

using and maintaining wikis in the public sector. IBM Center for the 

Business of Government, Report “Using Technology” Series. 

Week: 12 

Subject: Measuring social media impact in the public sector 

• Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the 

ROI of your social media marketing? MIT Sloan Management 

Review, 52(1), 41–49. 

• Mergel, I. (2012). Measuring the effectiveness of social media tools 

in the public sector. In E. Downey & M. Jones (Eds.), Public service, 

governance and Web 2.0 technologies (pp. 48–64). IGI-Global, 

doi:10.4018/978-1-46660-071-3. 

Week: 13 

Subject: The future of social media in government 

Week: 14 

Subject: Final project presentations 

Wrap up 


Using a Wiki-Based Course Design to 

Create a Student-Centered Learning 

Environment: Strategies and Lessons 

Qian Hu 


Erik Johnston 

Arizona State University 

Abstract 

As public administration programs increase their proportion of online and 

hybrid course offerings, online course offerings must provide a unique 

value to maintain a high-quality education instead of simply repackaging 

content designed for traditional face-to-face environments. Well-designed 

online courses can provide unique advantages for student-centered learning. 

Furthermore, the role of technology and information management in 

government practice will consistently increase. For pedagogical purposes and 

for better preparing students to work in collaborative networked environments, 

public administration programs need to train students to be comfortable 

with emerging technologies and ideally lead innovation in their applications. 

Emerging technologies have demonstrated great potential for crowdsourcing a 

wide variety of socially beneficial activities and for empowering and engaging 

students in collaboration. This study reflects on 4 years of continuous efforts 

to design, create, teach, and improve a wiki-based online course, called ePublic 

Affairs, intended for MPA, MPP, and PhD students. This case study of a 

wiki-based course in fall semester 2010 discusses in depth how a wiki-based 

course can use a wide range of emerging information technology tools to 

create engaging online learning modules and to empower students through 

various innovative class activities. This wiki-based course shows that a welldesigned 

online course can encourage equitable and quality participation as 

well as provide flexibility for students’ learning, addressing many concerns 

with online courses. This paper also highlights the unique challenges that 

were unanticipated in the earlier iterations of the wiki-based course. 

JPAE 18(3), 493–512 


Q. Hu & E. Johnston 

Online teaching systems and tools are no longer a novelty in most public 

affairs and public administration programs (Brower & Klay, 2000). Since the 

1990s, online education has gained popularity in public administration programs 

due to its easy access and great flexibility for students to learn at their own 

pace and time (Stowers, 1999). A decade later, various emerging social media 

technology tools have been introduced to both traditional classrooms and online 

teaching (Wankel, Marovich, & Stanaityte, 2010). 

One particular category of technology that is permeating all walks of life, 

including public administration, is social media. Social media is “a group of 

Internet-based applications” that “allow creation and exchange of User Generated 

Content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Broadly speaking, social media 

refers to technologies that can facilitate social interaction, collaboration, and 

deliberation (Bryer & Zavattaro, 2011). Examples of social media include wikis, 

blogs, and social networking sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and 

virtual worlds like Second Life. Social media tools, due to their great potential 

for student engagement and empowerment (Wankel et al., 2010), deserve more 

scholarly research and innovative application in teaching. 

This study focuses on how wikis can be used to create a student-centered 

collaborative learning environment. Wikis are software-based hypertextual 

web pages that support content creation, revision, and redistribution by 

Internet users (Buffa & Gandon, 2006; Mergel, 2010). The increasing use of 

information technology in government practice makes it imperative for public 

administration programs to become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses 

of emerging information technologies so as to better prepare students to work 

in a networked society. There has been an increasing use of wikis and other types 

of social media in industry (Farrell, 2006) and government for information 

sharing and collaboration (Mergel, 2010; Noveck, 2009). More studies are needed 

to better understand the potential role and impact of social media for public 

administration education. Although there are a few studies on the technical 

aspects of wikis in other disciplines (Ruth & Houghton, 2009), pedagogical 

requirements (Wang & Turner, 2004), and use of various social media tools in 

classrooms in general (Bryer & Chen, 2010), relatively few studies in public 

administration education have systematically investigated the pedagogical 

implications of wikis as the platform for creating a student-centered 

learning environment. 

Although online teaching systems start to support the most current social 

media tools, the actual use of social media is far from guaranteed. To incorporate 

these new tools constructively into course designs, lessons from the case of 

a wiki-based learning environment can help transform traditional online 

interactions between instructors and students, empower students, and encourage 

students’ deliberation. This study reflects on 4 years of continuous efforts to 

design, create, teach, and improve the wiki-based course titled ePublic Affairs: 


Using a Wiki-Based Course Design 

The Use of Information for Public Administration Professionals, offered to 

Masters of Public Administration (MPA), Masters of Public Policy (MPP), and 

PhD students in Public Administration. Using a detailed analysis of this course 

in fall semester 2010 as a case, this study discusses in depth how a wiki-based 

course can use a wide range of emerging information technology tools to create 

engaging online learning modules and to empower students through various 

innovative class activities. This wiki-based course shows that a well-designed 

online course can encourage quality participation, provide flexibility for students’ 

learning, create experiential learning in a wide variety of technologies, transform 

the roles students conventionally play in classrooms, and allow for instant and 

multidimensional feedback. This wiki-based course has also presented unique 

challenges that were unanticipated in its earlier iterations. Specifically, this paper 

explores the challenges of providing additional training, tracking students’ 

progress, and promoting collaborative group work. Overall, there is great 

potential for using wikis to encourage instructors and students to co-create and 

develop the uniquely valuable collaborative learning environment. 

Literature Review 

This section begins by reviewing challenges existing in traditional online 

education and then discusses what wikis are and how wiki-based learning 

environments differ from the traditional online learning environment. 

As early as the 1990s, scholars systematically examined the issues, 

advantages, and disadvantages of online public administration education (Ebdon, 

1999; Leip, 1999; Mingus, 1999; Rahm, Reed, & Rydl, 1999; Stowers, 1999). 

The rapid development of web technologies provides students with easy access 

to online courses and great flexibility (Brower & Klay, 2000; Stowers, 1999). 

Online courses can overcome the constraints of time and geographic distance 

and allow students to learn at their own pace and schedule (Brower & Klay, 

2000; deLeon, 2000). In addition, the Internet-mediated learning environment 

can provide students with multiple sources of information (websites, discussion 

boards, online modules, etc.), compared with the traditional lecture-dominant 

classroom (Rahm et al., 1999). 

However, scholars have raised concerns about online education (Brower & 

Klay, 2000; Campbell, 2006; Rahm et al., 1999; Stowers, 1999). One common 

concern is whether quality interactions can be successfully pursued between 

students and the instructor, among students, and between students and the 

course content (Garrison, 2005; Moore, 1989). On the one hand, web-based 

courses can reduce the impacts of status cues on students’ participation in online 

discussions and other learning activities (Stowers, 1999). On the other hand, 

due to the lack of face-to-face communication, online education does not afford 

a sufficient level of social dimensions that can “encourage attitudinal changes, 

or affirmation of existing values, to provide a normative compass to guide 



subsequent behavior” (Brower & Klay, 2000, p. 218). In other words, the lack 

of social cues may hinder online education from providing the social context 

for students’ development of value-based competencies (Brower & Klay, 2000). 

The traditional online learning environment facilitates content delivery and 

has not focused much on empowering students and encouraging participatory 

engagement (Ruth, 2002). Can emerging interactive technologies provide 

solutions to address these existing challenges in online education? 

Emerging forms of interactive technologies seem to have demonstrated 

great potential for engaging and empowering students in innovative ways 

(Bryer & Chen, 2010). Recent years have witnessed the rapid advances and 

great potential of Web 2.0 and social media technology, characterized by “peer 

production,” “open source and open context,” “user-centered innovation,” 

“crowdsourcing,” and “task granularity” (Mergel, Schweik, & Fountain, 2009, 

pp. 9–16). The potential transformative power of Web 2.0 and social media 

technology lie in “the ease in which interactive collaboration can occur between 

organizations or between individuals with very limited technical know-how” 

(Mergel et al., 2009, p. 30). This new generation of information technology 

allows the users more freedom to create the content and collaborate with each 

other in a variety of forms and media. With the rapid advancement of emerging 

interactive technologies, it is possible to go beyond using online environment 

as the facilitative content delivery mechanisms to create a student-centered 

participatory learning platform (Ruth, 2002; Ruth & Houghton, 2009). 

Two external forces drive the efforts to explore innovative ways of using 

interactive technologies for public administration education. First, given the 

ubiquity of information technology in government management practice, it is 

important to provide structured experiences with emerging technologies and 

to build information strategy and management into public administration 

curriculum (Dawes, 2004; Kim & Layne, 2001). Second, endeavors to explore 

new platforms for engaging students in learning are also driven by the demand of 

the millennial generation of students. According to the study conducted by the 

Pew Research Center in 2010, approximately 53% of American Internet users 

search information on Wikipedia as of May 2010 (Zickuhr & Rainie, 2011, p. 

2). There are currently over 800 million active Facebook users (Vitak, Lampe, 

Ellison, & Gray, 2012), among which the young adults aged 18 to 25 total 

50 million and account for 35% of the total Facebook users (Burbary, 2011). 

The millennial generation of students are using these emerging technologies in 

their daily life and study (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Hence, public 

administration educators need to explore innovative platforms to engage students 

with in-class activities and out-of-class communication (Ellison et al., 2007; 

Ruben, 1999). 



What Is a Wiki? Definitions and Applications in Public Services 

Among the wide range of interactive technologies, wikis are websites on 

which content can be created, edited, and shared by users (Mergel, 2010; O’ 

Neill, 2005). First created by Ward Cunningham in 1995 as a user-friendly 

editing tool that allows publishing the output on the Internet (Leuf & 

Cunningham, 2001), wikis are collaborative platforms designed to encourage 

content and information sharing (O’Neil, 2005). Users can create an account, 

write on topics of interest, edit their own or others’ work, and review the history 

of edits. A well-known example of wikis is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia 

in which millions of individuals across the globe volunteer to create, edit, and 

update descriptions of various topics (Elgort, Smith, & Toland, 2008). After 

the wiki page is created, the page is open to the world for edits, updates, and 

deletion (Mergel, 2010). 

Wikis have found wider applications in government. The federal government 

has increasingly used social networking initiatives to engage the public in solving 

complex social problems (Noveck, 2009). Federal, state, and local governments 

have used wikis as collaborative platforms to share information and encourage 

collaboration internally within the organization, across the organizations, and 

with the general public (Mergel, 2010). For instance, the General Services 

Administration (GSA) of the federal government launched the BetterBuy 

Wiki to engage general government employees, contracting managers, project 

managers, private business stakeholders, and citizens in the collaborative efforts 

to improve the federal acquisition process (Mergel, 2010). The purpose of this 

wiki space is to transform the government procurement process into one that is 

efficient, effective, and transparent (Mergel, 2010). In short, the increasing use 

of wikis in government practice has made it necessary for public administration 

programs to expose students to the potential of wikis for educational purposes 

and afford them experience in the creation and use of wikis. 

Wiki: A Participatory and Collaborative Learning Platform 

In the field of instructional technology, studies have shown the uniqueness 

of using wikis as the platform for knowledge co-creation and development 

(Ruth & Houghton, 2009), for group work (Chao, 2007), for fostering group 

interactions, and for “collaborative, egalitarian learning” (Elgort et al., 2008). 

With features that include simplicity, flexibility (Reinhold, 2006), and open 

editing (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001), wikis distinguish themselves from the 

traditional course delivery system that does not support newest social media 

tools (Elgort et al., 2008). On the wiki platform, users can visit a wiki, create a 

wiki, edit, or even delete a wiki easily and as frequently as they like (Thomas, 

King, & Minocha, 2009). All users can have the same right to access and make 

changes to the wiki anytime using the web browser (Thomas et al., 2009). The 

structure of the wiki and links to the wiki can be decided on and changed by 



users (Thomas et al., 2009). When these features of wikis are incorporated into 

the online course design, students can assume a more active role in the course 

content by creating and editing the wiki course page, and they can use the wiki 

to collaborate with other classmates on course projects. In other words, these 

wiki features can encourage students’ contribution to course development, 

knowledge sharing, and group project facilitation (Thomas et al., 2009; Ruth & 

Houghton, 2009). 

The following section details the attributes of the wiki-based learning 

environment by comparing the wiki-based learning environment with 

the traditional online learning environments that do not support the wiki 

component. Moore (1989) assumed that three types of interactions are needed 

to be encouraged in online learning: (a) learner-to-instructor interactions, (b) 

learner-to-learner interactions, and (c) learner-to-content interactions. As seen 

in Figure 1, learners in a traditional online learning environment interact with 

the instructor mainly through e-mails, raising questions on the discussion board 

and providing class feedback. Instructors interact with students by sending class 

e-mails, making announcements, posting online modules, giving assignment 

feedback, and asking for feedback at a fixed time such as at mid-semester or the 

end of the semester. Learners interact with each other through group activities or 

peer-review processes. The relationship between learners and content is shown 

by one solid line and one dotted line to indicate that although learners read and 

reflect on the online course content provided by the instructor, learners seldom 

make changes or updates to the online course content. 

Figure 1. 

Traditional Online Learning Environment 



By comparison, the wiki-supported course can transform the interaction 

patterns that exist in the traditional online learning environment. As Figure 2 

shows, students have a variety of ways of interacting with the instructor, other 

students, and course materials. Wikis can be used to create a participatory 

and collaborative learning platform for students (Ruth & Houghton, 2009). 

Compared to traditional online courses that do not have a wiki component or 

other similar online collaborative platform, the wiki-based course design has its 

strengths in creating a collaborative learning environment for knowledge cocreation 

and for encouraging communication and collaboration. 

Figure 2. 

Wiki-Based Collaborative Learning Environment 

Knowledge 

Co -Creation 

Wiki Pages 

Learners 

Blogs, Twitter, LindedIn 

Facebook, Second Life, 

Yahoo Messenger, Videos 

Instant feedback on Wiki 

Instructor 

Collaboration 

Enabling co-design and co-creation of the course. With regard to student-tocontent 

interactions in the wiki-supported learning environment, students can 

participate in creating and revising the course content rather than being receivers 

of passive knowledge (Ruth & Houghton, 2009). In a traditional online course, 

instructors post the course syllabus, provide supplemental course materials, and 

set up the structure and outlook of the course (Elgort et al., 2008). By contrast, 

wikis are well suited to engage students in creating course content and providing 

instant feedback to the instructor. Students and instructors can work together to 



design the course. Therefore, students can be given a certain level of control over 

the structure and content of the course. The course wiki grows with students’ 

collaborative contribution (Thomas et al., 2009). In addition, the ease-of-use 

attributes of wikis can make the editing experience appealing to the digital 

generation (Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler, 2008). 

Evolving the student-to-instructor interactions. “Sharing of authority” encourage 

students to take active roles and become part of collaborative efforts in 

building course content (Ruth & Houghton, 2009). The development of the 

course becomes an ongoing collaborative project between the instructor and 

students. Compared with many traditional online learning environments, the 

wiki-based learning environment can reduce the feedback loop by creating 

a wiki page and asking students to provide feedback at any time throughout 

the entire course, rather than seeking feedback at the end of the module or at 

the end of class. Besides, students were given multiple communication tools 

to contact the instructor when needed. Going beyond sending e-mails and 

posting questions on the discussion board, students can choose to post a message 

on their Facebook page, send instant messages, post their reflections on 

their blogs, or send a tweet to the instructor, depending on their communication 

needs. Hence, dynamic interactions between the instructor and students 

can occur both within the wiki space as well as outside the wiki space. 

Building a collaborative learning community. Scholars expressed concern that 

online education lacks the social context and cues inherent in face-to-face 

education that is imperative to facilitate quality participation and collaboration 

(Brower & Klay, 2000). The wiki-based learning environment can help overcome 

this problem by building social relationships between students as well as between 

students and instructors (Coutinho & Bottentuit Jr., 2007; Schroeder, Minocha, 

& Schneider, 2010), strengthening social ties (Wheeler et al., 2008), and developing 

a “community of practice” by constant sharing and reflection (Wheeler et 

al., 2008). Students’ individual contributions on the wiki page can trigger feedback 

and critiques from other fellow students, invite others’ contributions, and 

further inspire critical thinking; these activities are crucial to the development of 

a collaborative learning environment (Schroeder, Minocha, & Schneider, 2010). 

When the wiki is used for student coursework, students understand that their 

work is visible to everyone in the class. A shared norm of quality is quickly created. 

Social accountabilities tend to encourage higher-quality work. Additionally, 

by reviewing the exemplars in course performance each week, students are quickly 

able to gauge the quality of their performance with stellar students and have 

another feedback loop highlighting the differences between their work and what 

can be accomplished (Schroeder et al., 2010). This social learning environment 

reduces the times students ask for their assignments to be reevaluated and socially 

motivates students to regularly produce high-quality work. The wiki is also a 

permanent community space that exists as a centralized knowledge repository for 

sharing coursework and examples and can exist well after the semester concludes. 



Challenges. The development of the course wiki has its unique challenges 

(Thomas et al., 2009). Building the wiki platform can be time-consuming 

(Wheeler et al., 2008). Although the wiki space is free and easy to use, the instructor 

still needs to train students at the beginning of the class and answer 

additional wiki-related concerns throughout the class. Furthermore, the open 

and transparent participation of the course wiki cannot guarantee the success of 

group projects and an equal level of contribution (Elgort et al., 2008). Without 

thoughtful course design, the pattern of students’ participation may again fall into 

group dynamics pitfalls such as free riding and groupthink. Hence, the instructor 

needs to explore and develop the proper assessment tools in the wiki course so 

that not only the final collaborative product but also the individual contribution 

can be rigorously evaluated (Ben-Zvi, 2007; Trentin, 2009). The well-designed 

evaluation component can promote academic integrity and reduce plagiarizing. 

Case: ePublic Administration Course 

The course titled ePublic Affairs: The Use of Information for Public Administration 

Professionals has been offered as an elective for MPA, MPP, and PhD students in 

the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University for four fall semesters from 

2008 to 2011. This course is designed for students to collaboratively explore and 

understand how information technology tools influence the way people interact, 

work, and serve—and more important, how IT can serve as the platform to make 

government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative. This course purports 

to familiarize students with current information management issues (privacy, 

equal access, transparency, governance, etc.) and contextualizes these information 

management issues in local government management and public service delivery. 

This course has been offered exclusively on Wikispaces, a free and advertisementfree 

wiki platform that provides education-specific pages that are private to 

members and easily edited (Jakes, 2006). This course incorporated a number of 

additional social media tools including blogs, Facebook, Google+, Twitter, virtual 

worlds (Second Life), check-in technologies (Foursquare), and instant messengers 

(Yahoo) in addition to traditional online teaching and communication tools such 

as videos and class e-mails. With a strong belief in learning by doing, students 

were expected not only to learn information management and relevant policy 

issues, but also to learn how to use new information technology tools and how to 

overcome the barriers that prevent people from learning these technologies. The 

course was composed of eight 2-week modules. The first module was dedicated 

to getting oriented and served as a process check that the students knew how 

to use the technologies essential for the course. The other modules centered on 

topics including Theory, eCommunities, Open Government, eParticipation, 

Ethics, Challenge Platforms, and Policy Informatics. Like many online courses, 

each module provided guided readings, specific activities to complete, and the 

responsibility to react to and interact with other students. Each week students 

read the online modules and required readings, explored technologies, applied 

ePublic Administration technologies and concepts to current challenges in public 

administration, built course content, and provided feedback to other students. 



This wiki-based course differs from most online courses in several aspects. 

First, it asked students to engage in creating course content together. On the 

home page of this course, it emphasized that contributing to and modifying the 

course wiki pages is a central part of the course. To reinforce this focus, a sizable 

portion of the class grade was designated to community-building activities. These 

activities included commenting on other students’ content, adding examples to 

the wiki, providing relevant stories on a shared Google+ circle, and offering any 

other type of contribution that improved the educational community. For each 

module, students wrote reflections on the readings and videos, posting them to 

their blogs and wiki pages so that other students could review and comment on 

their posts. Students’ writings automatically became part of the course content 

that supplemented the existing online modules. For instance, all students were 

asked to sign up and read separate chapters of the book, Code 2.0 and Other 

Laws of Cyberspace. Then, in teams of 2–3 students, they wrote a chapter review 

and critique on the wiki page; these writings became part of the course content. 

Over one week, this crowdsourced and coordinated effort of the student teams 

provided a full review of the book that was accessible to the entire class. 

Second, this class used the wiki platform to assign another crowdsourcing 

activity requiring the creation of a single wiki paper whose topic and content 

were devised and developed through the collective means of the students and 

for which they all earned the same grade. In fall 2010, all 17 students wrote 

one paper together that created a plan for governments to apply ePublic administration 

concepts to building relationships with the general public to cultivate 

sustainable citizen participation in public affairs. In the module following the 

wiki paper assignment, students reflected on this process of crowdsourcing. 

Lastly, the course offered a shared place for students to provide anonymous 

feedback throughout the semester rather than requesting feedback at certain 

times or at the end of the semester. Feedback from the same course from previous 

years as well as constructive responses to the feedback were also shared with students. 

Research Questions and Methods 

In analyzing this wiki course in depth, the ensuing section of this paper 

addresses whether the wiki-based learning environment can encourage student 

participation, enhance student learning, and foster collaboration among 

students—and if so, to what extent? This section also discusses the challenges 

encountered in designing and teaching this wiki-based course. 

There were three main sources of data collection. The first data source is the 

course wiki itself and all the activities that occurred during the class in fall 2010, 

including the blog posts and class project. The second source of information was 

students’ reflections on the course content throughout the semester. Students 

were asked to write feedback and comments to the class on a wiki page. The 

third data source came from the formal class evaluation conducted by the School 

of Public Affairs at Arizona State University at the end of the fall semester. 



Data on using various wiki features was also collected through wiki history 

that documented students’ views and edits. Analysis of both qualitative and 

quantitative data is provided in the following section. 

Results and Discussion 

The class size for the course ranged from 17 to 25 students in the fall 

semesters of 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Most of the following descriptive 

analysis focuses on the course offered in fall semester 2010. The ensuing analysis 

starts with the descriptive statistics on wiki course visits and edits, and reports on 

the learning outcomes of the wiki course. This end of this section also includes 

some general reflections on teaching this course over the past 4 years. 

Content Editing and Visits 

The frequency of visits is analyzed as a preliminary measure of the students’ 

interests in the course content (Augar, Raitman, & Zhou, 2004). This wiki course 

visit history showed that students frequently visited the wiki course. There were 17 

students in this wiki-based course in fall semester 2010. As seen in Figure 3, each 

module of the course received more than 350 visits from the 17 students, except 

for the policy informatics module. On average, each of the five modules that do 

not have face-to-face components receives 463 visits from the 17 students. Hence, 

each student visited the module 27 times on average over the 2-week active period 

of the module. The policy informatics module received fewer visits because a 

face-to-face meeting was arranged in the same module, and the meeting provided 

much information. In general, students regularly checked the wiki course for 

information seeking, knowledge sharing, and course content development. 

Figure 3. 

Students’ Visits to Individual Modules 



The second indicator we looked at was the frequency of wiki edits. This 

cowriting and coediting process matters because it transformed students’ 

individual, solitary work into “a collective process” and encouraged “knowledge 

sharing and critical thinking” (Trentin, 2009, p. 44). In total, these 17 students 

edited the wiki spaces 432 times for various purposes, including co-creating 

course content in the book chapter review section, developing their personal 

wiki page, working together on the class project, and providing feedback on 

improving the students’ work. Figure 4 shows how frequently each student 

edited the wiki pages. Letters represent students, and the numbers are the total 

edits students made throughout the course. On average, each student edited the 

wiki pages about 25 times. Three students edited the wiki pages over 40 times. 

Except for one student who edited the wiki page only three times, most of the 

students actively edited wiki pages to co-create course content. 

Figure 4. 

Students’ Edits on Wiki 

Collaborative Learning Outcomes 

By the end of the class, students had developed an understanding of how 

information technology can be used to advance public services and transform 

the interactions between citizens and government. The class taught students 

about the rapidly advancing information technology available for public 

administration, and it also provoked students’ deep thinking about the potential 

and caveats of applying information technology to government management 

practices. Following are some anonymous comments made by students in the 

formal class evaluations. One student noted: 



I learned how technology can be used to change the relationship 

citizens have with government in a meaningful way. This was an 

incredibly dynamic class that pushed me to a new level of study 

and understanding. 

Another student wrote: 

This class takes time to show the benefits of innovation that electronic 

tools provide to public institutions. … I had no feelings of frustration 

of the “swamp” of public administration, as discussed in the core 

courses. Instead, I felt that I can do something to make things better 

in a tangible way. It was incredible to learn about the current tools 

available to government, see ideas for what can be developed, and 

predict how the relationship of government with citizens will change 

if the ePA tools are developed. 

On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = very satisfied; 5 = very unsatisfied), students gave 

a 1.13 for the overall effectiveness of the course in a formal class evaluation 

conducted by the school. Students enjoyed the course content on the wiki cocreated 

by the instructor and themselves. One student commented: 

I have taken several online classes in the MPA program and have 

found them all to be severely lacking in many aspects until I took this 

course. This is the first ever online course I have taken that [I] actually 

benefited from being online rather than having the online aspect an 

obstacle to overcome. 

Another student commented: 

This was the best online course I have ever taken and one of the best 

courses in either the MPA or MPP Program. The course material 

was perfectly related to an online medium. The readings and online 

lectures were really engaging and thought provoking. 

As explained at the beginning of the course, students were expected to 

learn by doing. Hence, to learn ways of using information technology for 

public administration, students were asked to explore various social media tools. 

An important learning outcome was students’ capability of using the various 

information technologies. It turned out that all students successfully created 

their own wiki pages and completed tasks that required Twitter, Facebook, 

Google+, Yahoo, and Second Life experiences. After experiencing diverse tools, 

some students expressed their satisfaction and enthusiasm about familiarizing 

themselves with new IT tools for learning and collaboration as follows: 



I thought that the use of different communication platforms were 

helpful. Learning how to blog, how to look at the ePA wiki space, and 

other sources used during the semester made me familiar with new 

technology tool… I feel that this class has two levels of instruction; 

the content discussed in class and the actual practice of using new 

areas. This was one of the best online classes I have ever taken, and 

surely one that relayed a great deal of new information and skills. 

Students indicated that class activities enhanced their knowledge about the 

IT tools. They also expressed their confidence in using emerging interactive 

technologies tools for their future work. By experiencing different types of 

interactive technologies, students can actually develop a direct understanding 

of the potential benefits and challenges in applying these emerging information 

technology tools. In other words, asking students to apply IT tools in class can 

be an early step to address the challenge of improving information technology 

literacy in the public administration field, which has been a big concern for more 

than a decade (Dawes, 2004). 

Building a Collaborative Learning Community: Responsibility 

and Collaboration 

This wiki course found that an open process of participation in co-creating 

wiki pages and the integration of multiple social media communication tools can 

strengthen students’ feeling of responsibility, foster students’ sense of community, 

and develop students’ collaborative orientation toward group work. Having 

students post their assignments on the blogs and share their work with others 

in an open space can increase students’ level of accountability of individual 

participation and higher-quality products because students realized that the 

instructor as well as their fellow classmates will read their assignments carefully 

(Wheeler et al., 2008). This effect is reflected by the following student’s comment: 

I really enjoy having us put all of our assignments on the blog. It 

makes us more accountable in my opinion. 

By working collaboratively on the class wiki paper, students realized the 

importance of teamwork for the class project. One student commented: 

It showed us that we couldn’t just depend on others to start the 

process. We all should have taken the time to collaborate together to 

get the paper started. 

Another student expressed appreciation of the class project: 



I have learned a great deal in the class and been forced to explore 

beyond my comfort zone some new technologies. I found the class 

paper assignment to be one of the best assignments of this class (or 

any other for that matter). I felt it pushed us all to truly experience 

what we are attempting to learn about: online collaboration. 

There were other activities designed to encourage students to get to know 

each other and to create a sense of a learning community. Students were asked 

to create personal wiki pages to introduce themselves to others, to use instant 

messenger (Yahoo), Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ for information exchange, 

and to use blogs to share their assignments. By reading each other’s wiki pages, 

all students successfully found commonality with more than one student in class. 

Students were asked not only to create the Facebook account but also to become 

friends with others on Facebook and start to follow people and their fellow classmates. 

After students started Twitter, they were asked to pick the most interesting tweets 

and add them to “our interesting things to follow” on their Twitter page. As 

part of each assignment, reminders were sent to participate in these alternative 

communication channels as part of the community-building activity. 

In addition, the instructor tried to engage the students by sharing the 

previous class feedback, showing the evolution of the courses based on students’ 

comments, and asking for feedback throughout the course. In traditional online 

courses, instructors often seek feedback at the end of each online module, or at 

the middle or end of the course. By contrast, students in this wiki-based course 

were asked to voluntarily create a wiki page to provide continuous feedback 

on improving the course. Students could also witness how the feedback was 

incorporated into restructuring the course, revising the existing modules, and 

developing the new modules. At the end of the course, students provided 2,299 

words of comments and feedback. There were 183 views on this feedback 

wiki page. Ten students contributed their thoughts and provided detailed 

suggestions for helping the instructor to improve the course. In short, students 

collaboratively reflected on ways to improve the course. Overall, these findings 

speak to the previous study that highlighted the importance of using wiki to 

build a sense of collaborative learning community (Coutinho & Bottentuit 

Jr., 2007; Schroeder et al., 2010; Wheeler et al., 2008). As Coutinho and 

Bottentuit Jr. (2007) suggested in their study, the wiki activity can help students 

learn strategies of online communication, demand a higher level of student 

engagement, and develop the collaborative spirit (pp. 1789–1790). 

Further Questions to Be Explored 

This wiki course also posed challenges and questions to be further explored, 

including encouraging and assessing individual contribution to the group project 

and overcoming the frustration with technology at the beginning of the class. 

Even with emphasis on group work and a transparent mode of collaboration, 

some students still expressed their frustration with group work. After 4 years 

of continued efforts to design and revise this assignment, the instructor found 



that the emergent process of collaborating and the quality of outcomes varied 

significantly: 3 years produced a high-quality result, and 1 year produced a 

very weak paper. Although students were told that this is group work and every 

student should contribute to the collaborative project, some students did not 

contribute, even though there was a transparent participation process with 

wiki history tracking of contributions from each student. This demonstrated 

the challenges of group work and tracking students’ progress in the wiki-based 

learning environment. Although grading can be structured to motivate students 

to contribute to group work, to post comments and ideas, and to provide course 

feedback throughout the course, a more detailed instruction and structured 

grading rubric are necessary to better facilitate students’ participation in the 

course projects. Hence, well-designed evaluation tools need to be in place 

to encourage quality participation from students and promote collaborative 

learning (Trintin, 2009). For collaborative projects, instructors need to specify 

the goals of the wiki project and how evaluation is linked with their contribution 

(Ben-Zvi, 2004). Students need to develop the general structure first and 

understand the links between each section to the main theme (Trintin, 2009). In 

other words, the wiki course needs to be designed to make it feasible to evaluate 

both individual and collaborative efforts. 

Instructors should be prepared for critiques and answer questions about 

using the wiki as the class platform (Wheeler et al., 2008). Not all students 

were happy upon realizing that a variety of interactive tools were built into this 

wiki-based class. Some students felt somewhat overwhelmed and confused by 

the multiple platforms for communication. In response to the initial frustration 

from students, the instructor needs to introduce the rationale of having students 

learn various social media tools. In addition to the getting oriented module at 

the beginning of the cour se (designed to better introduce the emerging 

interactive tools such as the wiki to traditional online classes or face-to-face 

classes), instructors need to develop tutorial modules and a frequently asked 

questions section that is improved and built upon across class cohorts. 

Conclusions 

The purpose of this study is to examine how the wiki, as one example of a 

new interactive tool, can be used in public affairs education to better empower 

students and actively engage them in learning. This paper reviews the design and 

educational outcomes of a wiki-based course. Compared with previous online 

teaching systems that do not support current interactive applications or course 

designs that choose not to incorporate inactive techniques, this wiki-based course 

makes use of the user-centered attributes of interactive technology and involves 

students in co-producing course contents, collaborating on class projects, and 

providing comments and feedback to other peers and the instructor. Over the 

past four years, through the wiki platform, students have taken part of the 

responsibility from the instructor and become the course designer and developer 

under many circumstances. Students frequently added new information, edited 

existing course wiki pages, and provided comments and suggestions regarding 

course content. This course has developed and evolved with students’ contributions 



and participation. The flexibility and simplicity of wikis as a learning platform 

contribute to enhancing student learning and increasing the diversity of 

perspectives while maintaining quality. At the end of the class, students grasped 

concepts and theories in using information technology for public services. 

Furthermore, in working on the wiki class projects, students developed a 

sense of responsibility, participated in collaborative work, and recognized the 

unique value of collaborations. This wiki-based course used a wide range of 

IT tools to create ongoing interactions and communications among students 

and between students and the instructor. In addition, by allowing multiple 

pathways to interact, learn and participate, each student’s experience was 

customized to the learning goals he or she articulated. The public and material 

nature of the participation, through posting blogs and other shared content in 

the wiki environment, led to a high general level of accountability of individual 

participation and higher-quality products. 

The use of a wiki platform is not limited to classes that have a focus on 

informatics management; the wiki component can be used in any type of course. 

Collaboration through wikis may also be used in civic engagement, nonprofit 

management, and community development courses to encourage students to 

learn about the collaborative process and foster a sense of community. The wiki 

platform can be used in face-to-face classes to supplement in-class discussions 

and provide students an easy-to-use collaborative platform. In fact, the inclusion 

of a wiki has been so useful for engaging students in class participation that 

the instructor has started using a wiki as a key component in a face-to-face 

undergraduate course called Public Management and Administration. 

Lessons were learned from designing and improving this wiki-based 

course. Despite the great flexibility it afforded students to create their own wiki 

pages and to collaborate with other students, not all of the students actively 

participated in content creation and knowledge sharing. In other words, 

including the interactive tool in the class design does not guarantee collaboration 

and empowerment. Some students even expressed resistance to exploring various 

social media tools. In the first version of the course, students did not see why 

they had to join Facebook. Resistance to joining Facebook diminished each year, 

but similar resistance reemerged when students focused on the most current 

technology. To avoid or minimize confusion and frustration, goals and rationale 

of having the wiki-based collaborative projects need to be communicated with 

students in depth so that students understand why the technologies are used 

from the beginning of the class. Furthermore, clear instruction on group projects 

is needed to ensure that students understand their role and responsibility in 

the collaborative efforts. A structured grading rubric may serve well as the 

monitoring mechanism to give students further incentive to participate and 

collaborate. More sophisticated evaluation tools and feedback mechanisms need 

to be built into the wiki system to help assess both the quantity and quality of 

students’ individual contributions and collective efforts. To better address these 

issues, more research is needed to study the role and impact of emerging social 

media tools in the field of public administration. 



References 

Augar, N., Raitman, R, & Zhou, W. (2004, December 5–8). Teaching and learning online with wikis. 

Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference: Beyond the comfort zone, 95-104. Perth, Australia. 

Ben-Zvi, D. (2007). Using wiki to promote collaborative learning in statistics education. Technology 

Innovations in Statistics Education, 1(1). Retrieved from http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclastat/cts/ 

tise/vol1/iss1/art4 

Brower, R. S., & Klay, W. E. (2000). Distance learning: Some fundamental questions for public 

administration education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 6(4), 215–231. 

Bryer, T., & Chen, B. (2010). The use of social media and networks in teaching public administration: 

Perceptions, practices, and concerns. In C. Wankel, M. Marovich, & J. Stanaittyte (Eds.), Cuttingedge 

social media approaches to business education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second 

Life, and blogs (pp. 241–267). Scottsdale, AZ: IAP–Information Age Publishing, Inc. 

Bryer, T., & Zavattaro, S. (2011). Social media and public administration: Theoretical dimensions and 

introduction to the symposium. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 33(3), 325–340. 

Buffa, M., & Gandon, F. (2006). SweetWiki: Semantic web enabled technologies in Wiki. Proceedings 

from the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis. Denmark. Retrieved from http://www.wikisym. 

org/ws2006/proceedings/p135.pdf 

Burbary, K. (2011). Facebook demographics revisited—2011 statistics. Retrieved from Social Media 

Today website at http://socialmediatoday.com/kenburbary/276356/facebook-demographicsrevisited-2011-statistics 

Campbell, H. (2006). Cheating, public administration education, and online courses: An essay and call 

to arms. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(1), 33–47. 

Chao, J. (2007). Student project collaboration using wikis. 20th conference on software engineering 

education and training (pp. 255–261). Washington, DC: IEEE Press. 

Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Jr., J. B. (2007). Collaborative learning using wiki: A pilot study with master 

students in educational technology in Portugal. Proceedings from the World Conference on Educational 

Multimedia, Hypermedia eTelecommunications (ED-MEDIA), 1786–1791. Vancouver, Canada. 

Dawes, S. S. (2004). Training the IT-savvy public manager: Priorities and strategies for public 

management education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(1), 5–17. 

deLeon, L. (2000). Comparing modes of delivery: Classroom and on-line (and other) learning. Journal 

of Public Affairs Education, 6(1), 5–18. 

Ebdon, C. (1999). Teaching public finance administration online: A case study. Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, 5(3), 237–246. 

Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? 

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195–210. 

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital 

and college students’ use of online social network websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated 

Communication, 12, 1143–1168. 

Farrel, J. (2006). Wikis, blogs and other community tools in the enterprise. Retrieved from http://www. 

ibm.com/developerworks/library/wa-wikiapps/index.html 

Garrison, D. R. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. 

American Journal of Distinctive Education, 19(3), 133–148. 



Jakes, D. (2006). Wild about wikis. Tech learning. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/story/ 

showArticle.jhtml?articleID=191801354 

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world unite: The challenges and opportunities of 

social media. Business Horizon, 53, 59–68. 

Kim, S., & Layne, K. (2001). Making the connection: E-government and public administration 

education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4), 229–240. 

Leip, L. A. (1999). An Internet integration plan for the MPA curriculum: A case study of Florida 

Atlantic University. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(3), 247–261. 

Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. London: 

Addison-Wesley. 

Mergel, I. A. (2010). Using wikis in government: A guide for public managers. IBM Center for the 

Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/ 

Using%20Wikis%20in%20Government.pdf 

Mergel, I. A., Schweik, C. M., & Fountain, J. E. (2009). The transformational effect of Web 2.0 

technologies on government. Retrieved from http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/research/pdfs/ 

Mergel_Web20.pdf 

Mingus, M. S. (1999). Toward understanding the culture of internet-mediated learning. Journal of 

Public Affairs Education, 5(3), 225–235. 

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. 

Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, 

and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 

O’Neil, M. (2005). Automated use of a wiki for collaborative lecture notes. ACM SIGSCE Bulletin, 

37(1), 267–271. 

Rahm, D., Reed, B. J., & Rydl, T. L. (1999). Internet-mediated learning in public affairs programs: 

Issues and implications. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(3), 213–223. 

Reinhold, S. (2006). WikiTrails: Augmenting wiki structure for collaborative, interdisciplinary learning. 

2006 International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym ’06), pp. 47–58. 

Ruben, B. D. (1999). Simulations, games, and experience-based learning: The quest for a new 

paradigm for teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498–505. 

Ruth, A. (2002, August 27–29). Paradigms and models of online learning: A review of the literature. 

Proceedings from the IT in Regional Areas Conferences (p. 238). ITiRA 2002 Conference 

Committee, Rockhampton, Queensland Australia. 

Ruth, A., & Houghton, L. (2009). The wiki way of learning. Australasian Journal of Educational 

Technology, 25(2), 135–152. 

Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneidert, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and 

threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of 

Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 159–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x 

Stowers, G. N. L. (1999). Symposium on Internet-mediated learning in public affairs: Introduction. 

Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(3), 205–212. 



Thomas, P., King, D., & Minocha, S. (2009). The effective use of a simple wiki to support 

collaborative learning activities. Computer Science Education, 19(4), 293–313. 

Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. 

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 43–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00276.x 

Vitak, J., Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Gray, R. (2012). “Why won’t you be my Facebook friend?”: 

Strategies for dealing with context collapse in the workplace. Poster to appear in proceedings from 

the 7th Annual iConference. New York: ACM. 

Wang, C., & Turner, D. (2004). Extending the wiki paradigm for use in the classroom. Proceedings from 

the International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (ITCC ’04) Vol. 1, 

pp. 255–259. 

Wankel, C., Marovich, M., & Stanaittyte, J. (Eds.) (2010). Cutting-edge social media approaches to 

business education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and blogs. Scottsdale, AZ: 

IAP–Information Age Publishing, Inc. 

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating studentgenerated 

content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 

987–995. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x 

Zickuhr, K. & Rainie, L. (2011). Wikipedia, past and present. Retrieved from the Pew Research Center 

website at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Wikipedia.aspx 

Qian Hu is an assistant professor in School of Public Administration at 

University of Central Florida. Qian received her PhD from Arizona State 

University in 2011. Her research interests include collaborative public 

management, e-governance, policy informatics, and strategic and performance 

management. Qian’s work has been published in academic journals such as 

American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Public Affairs Education, and Journal of 

Nanoparticle Research. 

Erik W. Johnston is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at 

Arizona State University and the director of the Center for Policy Informatics. 

His research looks at how technology enables more sophisticated policy analysis 

and governance infrastructures, and promotes collective decision making. Dr. 

Johnston earned a PhD in Information and a Certificate in Complex Systems 

from the University of Michigan. He is a two-time NSF IGERT fellow, in 

the Socio-Technical Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions (STIET) and 

Institutions, Diversity, Emergence, Adaptation, and Structures (IDEAS) programs. 


Exploring the Role of Interactive 

Computer Simulations in Public 

Administration Education 

Qian Hu 


Erik Johnston 


Libby Hemphill 

Illinois Institute of Technology 

Rashmi Krishnamurthy 


Ajay Vinze 


Abstract 

Preparing public administration students for complex challenges that involve 

high uncertainty, stakeholder interdependencies, policy resistance, and slow 

feedback cycles presents unique challenges for educators. Those in the field 

of public administration and public policy can broaden their educational 

toolbox by embracing new technologies for educating future public 

administration practitioners. This research demonstrates that interactive 

computer simulations provide dynamic contexts and creative learning 

environments for students to individually and collectively apply systems 

JPAE 18(3), 513–530 


Q. Hu, et al. 

thinking in information-rich environments with instant feedback channels. 

Across a series of exploratory studies using an interactive simulation focused 

on water uncertainty and policy options, this research has consistently found 

strong learning outcomes. The findings showed that students were able to 

quickly grasp the complexity associated with interdependent stakeholders 

with divergent interests, uncertain future conditions, and policy options 

that reflect competing values. However, this research also discovered some 

unintended consequences. Using interaction simulations may limit the scope 

of deliberation topics to only those that were highlighted by the simulation. 

Thus the research concludes with a discussion of some ethical concerns related 

to the use of computer simulations as part of an educational exercise. 1 

Public administration is both theoretically grounded and practice 

oriented (Lynn, 1996; Shafritz, Hyde, & Parkes, 2003). Contemporary public 

administration faces a myriad of new challenges presented by globalization, rapid 

urbanization, scarcity of natural resources, and the accelerating information 

deluge. Most management challenges and policy problems involve intertwined 

interests and high complexity. Addressing these challenges requires collaborative 

efforts from multiple non-state stakeholders (Ansell & Gash, 2007). This everchanging 

environment calls for effective teaching tools and pedagogy that 

constantly promotes quality teaching and learning approaches that prepare 

public administration practitioners to successfully navigate these existing and 

other unforeseen challenges. 

The environment for education institutions has similarly changed. Rapid 

advances in information technology have transformed the way students retrieve 

and exchange information, communicate with one another and their instructors, 

and, more important, learn skills and build knowledge (Davidson & Coldberg, 

2009). Thus, to adapt to the new ways of student learning, public administration 

educators should regularly explore innovative tools and approaches to fully 

exploit the potential of IT tools for public administration education. 

One such tool and approach for public administration education is the 

use of interactive computer simulations. Interactive computer simulations can 

dynamically represent social structure and systems (Kriz, 2003). Computer 

simulations have shown promise in social science education and research 

(Axelrod, 1997; Garson, 1994, 2009; Gilbert, 1999; Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 

2005; Page & Miller, 2007; Schelling, 1981) and have demonstrated the 

potential to empower students and encourage their deliberation. For educational 

purposes, interactive computer simulations provide an “interactive learning 

environment” in which students can apply what they have just learned into 

dynamic simulated scenarios, receive instant feedback, reflect on what can be 


Role of Interactive Computer Simulations in PA Education 

improved upon through trial and error, and explore the outcome of alternative 

“what-if” management practices and policy options (Kriz, 2003, p. 505). When 

the real-world management or policy context does not allow students to directly 

experience the situational richness, simulation environments allow students to 

interact with the key factors and to explore the impacts in a simulated policy 

context. In short, interactive computer simulation provides a promising platform 

for both education and knowledge building in public administration. 

Within public administration practices, computer simulations are gaining 

traction. For instance, computer simulations have been used in helping to understand 

and improve traffic management (Kane, 1999), emergency management (Barrett 

et al., 2011; Desouza & Lin, 2011), environmental management (Learmonth Sr., 

et al., 2011), urban planning (Borning, Waddell, & Forster, 2007), interagency 

collaboration (Bardach, 2001), and public service delivery (Johnston, Hicks, Nan, 

& Auer, 2010). Computer simulations can help prepare public administrators 

to address these complex challenges that involve high uncertainty, stakeholder 

interdependencies, policy resistance, and slow feedback cycles. Yet there remain 

few systematic discussions in mainstream policy or management journals on 

using computer simulations for public administration practice and education. 

With the regular improvements to the technology and design of interactive 

computer simulations, regular research is needed to explore the current potential 

of computer simulations for public administration. 

This paper examines how computer simulations can serve as teaching tools 

that engage students in collaborative learning and deliberation activities. First, 

this paper argues that the field of public administration should continually 

promote creative learning environments and develop new lenses that can help 

address old management problems and explore new research territory. Next, this 

paper explains the way in which interactive computer simulations can serve as 

creative learning platforms that engage students in an interactive and intuitive 

way of learning. Then, data from two exploratory case studies are analyzed, in 

which an interactive computer simulation of water supply and demand is used 

to demonstrate how such simulations can allow students to interact directly with 

the simulated policy scenarios, receive instant feedback, and jointly explore what-if 

management situations with other students. Evidence has been found for the 

simulation’s effectiveness in facilitating learning and encouraging participants to 

use computer-simulated scenarios to enrich their deliberative experience on 

complex issues and to cultivate their collaborative capacity for solving common 

challenges. In addition, findings from these two studies suggested unanticipated 

ethical concerns regarding the ability of simulations to steer conversations and limit 

discussions of alternatives. This paper concludes by discussing the implications of 

the case study results and outlining future research on using interactive computer 

simulations for educational purposes in public administration. 


Q. Hu, et al. 

Reexamining Old Problems and Exploring New Research Territory 

A big question in public administration and public policy programs has been 

identifying and implementing effective teaching approaches, strategies, modules, 

and delivery mechanisms so as to bridge the gap between theory and practice, 

attract talented individuals to commit to public service, and provide needed job 

skills and knowledge (Denhardt, 2001). Facing complex challenges that involve 

high uncertainty and interdependency with slow or absent feedback, public 

administrators need to build new knowledge and develop new management skills 

in the digital era. The current developments toward collaborative governance 

have intensified and expanded this debate (Posner, 2009). Public administration 

and public policy education programs need to cover the traditional management 

topics and skills such as leadership, human resources management, and 

budgeting and finance; they also need to address new topics such as collaborative 

governance and network management and to enable students to develop new 

management skills such as negotiation, bargaining, and contract management 

(Posner, 2009). 

New Assumptions and Perspectives 

Interactive computer simulations can provide new perspectives on a large 

number of ongoing and emerging debates in both public administration and 

public policy (Ryan, 2000). For instance, despite the harsh critiques of the 

“rationality” assumption of human behavior (Simon, 1978), quantitative 

methods, with origins in traditional economics and belief in rationality, remain 

the predominant methods taught in American public policy and administration 

programs (Morçöl & Ivanova, 2010). The dominant economic analysis in 

public administration and public policy fails to capture the dynamics of human 

behavior and the complexity of social systems because the economic models 

still heavily rely on “tractable mathematical forms” (Kane, 1999, p. 523). It is 

difficult, if not impossible, to use fixed mathematical functions to explain or 

predict human behavior since “people learn and adapt and change” (Kane, 1999, 

p. 523). 

Computer simulations, unlike conventional statistical analysis, often build 

on complexity theory (Axelrod, 1997) and take the perspectives of complex 

adaptive systems toward social systems. Computer simulations are “smaller, 

less detailed, less complex” representations of real-world structures and systems 

(Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 2005, p. 2). Assuming that individuals, groups, and 

organizations are adaptive agents, computer simulations allow us to study how 

complex behaviors, social processes, and interactions emerge from the activities 

that follow the simple rules observed in reality (Gilbert, 1999) . The focus of 

the simulation is not on the static status or outcomes, but on the emergence of 

dynamics and interactions at the micro and macro levels of the systems (Axelrod, 

1997; Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 2005). Computer simulations allow researchers 



to change the conditions by setting the parameters at different values and 

execute the simulation many times to test the effects of different settings and 

assumptions (Gilbert, 2005). 

Additionally, conventional economic approaches and statistical models 

usually assume that the relationships between variables take on fixed and mostly 

linear patterns (Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 2005, pp. 16–17). In reality, the relationship 

between variables is dynamic and mostly nonlinear. Computer simulation 

approaches challenge the traditional assumptions that individuals are rational 

actors and that there are static, linear relationships among diverse agents within 

social systems (Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 2005). The dynamic simulation modeling 

of complex social phenomena enables researchers and educators to apply new 

frameworks to explore a wide array of social problems (Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 2005). 

New Analysis Tools 

Computer simulations, such as agent-based modeling and system dynamics 

modeling (Gilbert, 2005), are tools for examining conventional public administration 

problems and exploring new questions and territories (Garson, 2009). For 

instance, Kim, Johnston, and Kang proposed “a computational approach to 

managing performance dynamics in networked governance systems” (2011, 

p. 580). They criticized the conventional positivist-reductionist approach to 

performance management, saying that it conducts ex post performance evaluation 

and focuses on finding the best solution through managing resources, exploiting 

technical innovation, and improving internal management. Instead, they argued 

for a “complex adaptive systems” view of performance in “networked governance 

systems.” They suggested that computer simulation modeling of performance 

focuses on “ex ante conditions and dynamic tensions among multiple 

stakeholders” (Kim et al., 2011, p. 580). To understand how management 

decisions affect the performance of collaborative governance, they proposed that 

a simulation model can be built to represent a dynamic performance system 

to test the performance outcomes of different conditions (Kim et al., 2011). 

Researchers therefore can observe the individual agent’s behavior, aggregate 

performance outcomes, and understand the processes that led to those outcomes 

(Kim et al., 2011). Using agent-based modeling, each stakeholder can be 

modeled as an agent with diverse attributes and interaction rules that interacts 

with other agents and the environment and adapts their behavior accordingly 

(Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 2005). Additionally, computer simulations make it feasible 

to explore the problems that are difficult to observe and analyze in real-world 

scenarios (Gilbert & Tioitzsch, 2005; Kim et al., 2011). Gilbert (2005) noted 

that one advantage of simulation lies in its ability to include spatial location in 

the analysis of many social problems. In short, the use of computer simulations 

has developed enough to explore many questions that are not particularly well 

suited to other methods. 


Q. Hu, et al. 

Simulations as Creative Learning Platforms 

Advances in information technology have spurred transformative changes 

in how students interact and communicate with each other as well as search and 

exchange information. The past few decades have seen dramatic changes in the 

way students learn. Students use the Internet to search for information, social 

networking sites to connect with classmates, and social media to collaborate on 

class projects (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Hence, public administration 

educators need to go beyond innovating conventional pedagogy; they also need 

to actively explore more interactive and engaging pedagogy to connect with 

students, inspiring them to conduct research and engage in public services. 

Among the innovative teaching modes, computer simulations demonstrate 

great potential for providing creative learning environments. Since the 1990s, a 

number of successful computer simulations have been used for training in the 

field of public policy and management practices (Sawyer, 2002): SimCity (a 

city-building simulation game), SimHealthcare (a simulation of the U.S. health 

care system), and Virtual U (a simulation for the operation higher education). 

Syracuse University holds an annual simulation competition for public 

administration education at the Program for the Advancement of Research on 

Conflict and Collaboration (E-PRACC). These simulations encourage students 

to develop team skills, hold stakeholder meetings (Alexander, 2009; Brazil & 

Teram, 2009), practice their negotiation skills, reach policy consensus (George, 

2010), conduct conflict analysis (Ebner & Efron, 2010), and understand 

network structure (Bryer & Stewart, 2008; Davis & Varda, 2010; Varda, 2008). 

Yet, most of the simulations do not use computers, but instead use traditional 

methods, such as detailed case descriptions and role playing, to mimic the realworld 

scenarios and encourage student interactions. 

A large number of studies discuss the designs and applications of computer 

simulation in other disciplines, especially in game design and instructional 

information technology (e.g., Aldrich, 2009; Reeves & Read, 2009; Schank, 

2002). Aldrich (2009) assumed that, compared with “traditional linear media” 

such as “books, movies, and lectures,” which focus on the accumulation of facts 

and teaching learning-to-know, computer simulation focuses on “practiceable” 

and “active content of learning-to-do” (p. xxxi). He noted that linear contents 

fail to help people develop skills such as leadership and “create an accurate 

representation of time and space” (p. xxxi). Policy games help participants to 

jointly explore the possibility space, build up a shared understanding of key 

concepts, and search creatively for solutions (Haug, Hutema, & Wenzler, 

2011). In a study of water sustainability, Dray, Perez, Le Page, and Aquino 

(2007) used simulation games as a tool to provide relevant information and 

facilitate dialogues among the local stakeholders. They found that with the 

help of simulations, participants distanced themselves from extreme views 



and adopted a more flexible approach toward future negotiations. Similarly, 

Dionnet, Kuper, Hammani, and Garin (2008) used role-playing games as a 

form of simulation tool to raise awareness among farmers about the scope 

and contents of a joint irrigation project. They suggested that simulations can 

encourage collective decision making because farmers were deeply involved in 

discussing each issue and reached agreements on joint irrigation at the end of the 

process (Dionnet et al., 2008). Jarmon, Keating, and Toprac (2008) described 

a “university-sponsored, experiential-based simulation” as a medium to increase 

public awareness and influence diverse stakeholder’s perspectives in participatory 

learning environments (p. 168). Jarmon, Keating, and Toprac (2008) found that 

simulation generated intensive communication among participants and helped 

them develop a better understanding of others’ roles. Reeves and Read (2009) 

argued that sophisticated, well-designed simulation games can offer great ideas 

and lessons on how to motivate workers with tedious jobs and get them more 

engaged in work. They also anticipated that game environments would become 

one of the regular work environments and an important business platform 

(Reeves & Read, 2009). These disparate examples of computer simulations have 

demonstrated great potential as a creative learning platform to engage students 

in a more interactive and intuitive way of learning. As the problem contexts 

are more systematically understood, computer simulations have an increasing 

relevance to standard public administration pedagogy. 

Case Studies: A Policy Deliberation Exercise Using 

Computer Simulations 

The following section uses computer simulations of water supply and 

demand as a case study. This case study illustrates how a computer simulation in 

general and certain features in particular can be used to teach the complexity of 

management challenges, policy scenarios, and social systems and processes as well 

as to engage students in collaborative learning and deliberation activities. 

WaterSim: A Computer Simulation of Water Supply and Demand in Phoenix 

Two exploratory studies were conducted in the spring of 2010 and 2011 

in the Decision Theater at Arizona State University (ASU). The ASU Decision 

Theater has a unique site known as the “Drum,” which is a room that can seat 

up to 25 participants and contains a 260-degree, seven-screen display. The 

facility is equipped with a real-time human-computer interface, interactive 

group support systems, networked laptops, and high-fidelity video-recording 

equipment capable of producing a shared dynamic display of scenarios. During 

the study, students directly interacted with dynamic computer-simulated 

scenarios, received instant feedback, and evaluated alternative policy options. 

This study used a simulation called WaterSim, developed by the Decision 

Center for a Desert City at Arizona State University. WaterSim is a computer 


Q. Hu, et al. 

simulation of water supply and demand for the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan 

area (see Figure 1). WaterSim is an interactive simulation model designed to 

help a wide variety of stakeholders deliberate on and anticipate water challenges 

in the Phoenix metropolitan area under conditions of uncertainty. WaterSim 

allows stakeholders to adjust parameters to explore different scenarios of climate 

change, population increase, and agricultural water use to see their impacts 

on water sustainability at various times. It also includes a policy interface that 

enables users to explore alternative policy choices on indoor and outdoor water 

use and receive instant feedback on the environmental impacts of their choices. 

Figure 1. 

WaterSim’s Seven-Screen Display Compressed Into One Image 

Source. Decision Theater for a Desert City, Arizona State University. 

Case One: Learning Through Interactive Simulations 

We invited students to interact with WaterSim and each other, and to 

deliberate on water issues in Phoenix. Before interacting with WaterSim, 

students were tested on their knowledge of regional water sources, water 

availability, and factors influencing water sustainability. Then they were asked 

to interact with WaterSim and deliberate on water problems, goals, and plans 

to address these problems. 



Every group received these instructions after being introduced 

to WaterSim: 

Water issues are a problem in Phoenix. How would you deal with 

those water problems? This is a setting where you can play out and 

test your decisions. Discuss among yourselves and then let me know 

what adjustments you would like me to make to the settings in the 

simulation. Information about WaterSim is also available in your 

information packet—if you have questions, please start there. If you 

don’t find an answer, feel free to ask me. We’ll work on this task for 

20–25 minutes. 

At the end of that time, please write down your goals for addressing 

the water problems in Phoenix and your plan for achieving those 

goals. When you make changes to the settings, please think about 

how those changes affect other aspects of the simulation. Here is the 

paper on which you should write your goals and plans. 

While discussing the goals and plans for addressing water problems in 

Phoenix, participants were asked to adjust the various inputs to WaterSim and to 

gauge the effects of those adjustments on water sustainability. 

This exploratory study was conducted during the spring semester of 2010. 

A total of 126 students, mostly undergraduates, participated in the study at the 

ASU Decision Theater. We used a mixed sampling method to recruit students, 

including sending out e-mails, handing out flyers at the campus cafeteria, and 

making multiple in-class announcements in large-size undergraduate classes. 

These students are from various disciplines and diverse ethnicities. 

Case Two: Learning About Limited Resource Allocation Through 

Interactive Simulations. 

Thirty-six graduate students studying public management, public policy, 

and business management participated in the second study. Students were first 

given 100 collective attention units and asked how to allocate them to different 

categories of challenges in society (crime, economy, health care, sustainability, 

and education) and how to split a separate 100 collective attention points into 

subcategories related to sustainability (population growth, intergovernmental 

cooperation, technology, urban planning, and personal responsibility). These 

collective units were introduced as the hypothetical investment resources that 

each participant can allocate in society as if they were policy makers needing 

to set policy priorities. Next, students were introduced to WaterSim. While 

interacting with WaterSim, they were asked to discuss with each other the 

challenges associated with water facing the region, factors that should be 

considered related to the water issues, policy strategies, and ways to evaluate if 

their proposal could be seen as successful. After the WaterSim activity, students 

were again asked to allocate collective attention units using the same categories. 


Q. Hu, et al. 

The second case study was conducted during the spring semester of 2011 at 

the ASU Decision Theater. This study was built into the class curriculum, and 

students participated in the study as part of a regular class session. Through these 

studies, results were found related to learning, collective behavior, and relative 

perceptions about community priorities. 

Results 

The following section reports the findings from the two exploratory studies 

on students’ learning outcomes and perception change after interacting with the 

computer simulations of water supply and demand for the Phoenix metropolitan 

area. This section also discusses ethical concerns identified by the study in 

applying computer simulations. 

Learning Outcomes 

Water sustainability is a complex management issue that requires public administrators 

to grapple with the multifaceted aspects of water management. Public 

administrators need to understand existing water sources and status of water 

reservoirs, impacts of uncertain climate changes, population growth, economic 

development, agricultural development, indoor and outdoor water use, urban 

management, and so on. Hence, teaching complicated management topics 

such as water sustainability is challenging because the concept is profound and 

many intertwined factors must be considered. With a computer simulation, public 

admini-stration students can observe the impacts of multiple factors by exploring the 

simulated vivid scenarios and testing the dynamic relationships between these factors. 

Results from the first exploratory study suggest that WaterSim is an 

effective tool for teaching students about the diverse, intertwined aspects of 

water sustainability. Compared with students’ knowledge about water issues in 

Phoenix before their interaction with WaterSim, students’ knowledge increase 

was statistically significant. Due to violation of normality and equal variances, 

we conducted Friedman’s test to compare students’ knowledge about water issues 

in Phoenix before and after students interacted with the simulation. Students’ 

aggregate knowledge score on average increased from 3.35 to 4.64 on a scale of 

1 to 5. Friedman’s test shows that the difference was significant (χ2 (1) = 52.1, 

p < 0.001). Students achieved a quick comprehension of the complexity of 

water problems in Phoenix. The Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was 0.41, 

indicating strong differences in students’ knowledge scores. 

Perception Change 

Perception precedes action. Therefore, it is important to examine the 

potential influence of the application of computer simulations on people’s 

perception about water sustainability. Due to the vivid and dynamic way of 

displaying information, interactive computer simulations can influence the 

formation of perception in a pervasive manner. With thoughtful designs and 

applications, this attribute can be strength of using computer simulations for 

public administration education. In the meantime, it raises ethical concerns 

about the unintended outcomes of using computer simulations. 



Results from the second study show that students’ interactions with WaterSim 

influence their perception about sustainability in a quick and persuasive manner. 

In the before and after test, separated by less than 30 minutes of interactions 

with the simulation and other students, students were asked to assign a total of 

100 collective attention units to five categories of priority problems of society 

(i.e., crime, economy, health care, sustainability, and education). This is a general 

approximation to spending political capital or setting a policy agenda. Under 

the category of sustainability, students were also asked to assign 100 collective 

attention units to five aspects of sustainability (population, intergovernmental 

cooperation, technology, urban planning, and personal responsibility). 

After the interactions, students on average increased the attention budgeted 

to the sustainability category by 33% (from 12.5 to 16.67; see Figure 2). This 

difference is statistically significant (p = 0.003). This is an interesting, yet 

expected, finding because among the five priority problems, only sustainability 

was reflected in the model. Because this study is designed to have a finite 

attention budget, an increased focus on sustainability required a decreased 

focused on another social problem. Surprisingly, under the current backdrop of a 

slowly recovering economy, students reduced the collective attention from 25.56 

to 23.47, a reduction of 8.14%, which is also statistically significant (p = 0.034). 

Another interesting finding is that crime, an enduring social problem, received 

even less attention, decreasing from 16.39 to 14.03. The relative reduction of 

14.40% is statistically significant (p = 0.015). 

Figure 2. 

A Comparison of Attention Units to Social Problems Before and After the 

Interaction With WaterSim 


Q. Hu, et al. 

In regard to the subcategories of sustainability, urban planning also received 

higher collective attention: an increase of 21.33% more attention (from 18.47 

to 22.42, p = 0.022) (see Figure 3). This result is consistent with one focus 

emphasized in the model that noted different urban density could greatly affect 

water sustainability. In addition, technology, an option not available to explore 

in the model, received less attention, resulting in a decrease of 16.14% (from 

25.83 to 21.67, p = 0.022). In short, peoples’ perception about how to allocate 

collective attention to social challenges significantly changed right after the 

interaction with the model and in a manner that is suggested by the model. 

Figure 3. 

A Comparison of Attention Units to Five Categories of Sustainability Issues 

Before and After the Interaction With WaterSim 

Our findings suggest that the availability of an outcome measure influenced 

the scope of deliberations. For instance, the simulation in this case focused on the 

long-term use of a scarce resource, and the outcome measure showed how a set of 

policies and environmental conditions create either a resource surplus or deficit. 

Before using the simulation, people were asked to brainstorm and write down 

challenges and solutions related to that scarce resource; they created solutions 

that included environmental, economic, and community indicators. After 

using the resource model, they were again asked to brainstorm and write down 

challenges and solutions related to scare resources. In the brainstorming session 

held before participants interacted with the model, the problem was framed 

broadly to include values such as quality of life and economic viability of the 

region. Solutions also included market strategies and technological innovation as 

well as emphasizing personal responsibility. The problems and recommendations 

in the post-session questionnaire became solely focused on avoiding a resource 



deficit, the articulation of success was dominated by the metrics of the model, 

and solutions were primarily ones that were supported by options in the model. 

Students narrowed their scope of deliberations. This response showed that 

the presence of available or understandable evidence within the model shaped 

the conversation to the exclusion of legitimate issues raised before students 

had interacted with the model. Narrowing the scope unintentionally reduced 

the multiple dimensionalities of the management challenge and decreased the 

possibility of proposing alternative approaches. On one hand, this finding 

demonstrates both the potential of using computer-simulated scenarios to 

influence the way students think in a very efficient manner; on the other hand, it 

calls for more consideration when we apply simulation models in classrooms. 

Ethical Considerations in Applying Simulations 

Another caveat in developing and using simulation models is incorporating 

ethical considerations. Ethics is a crucial topic in public administration research 

and praxis (Svara, 2007); however, ethics in simulation modeling has received 

little attention. Simulation is a useful tool for social science research as well as 

a novel medium for education and communicating with policy makers. Recent 

decades have seen an increasing use of simulation in many classrooms, libraries, 

and museums (Binstadt, et al., 2007). Various computer simulations have been 

used to inspire students’ interests, encourage participation, and enhance learning due 

to the real-time interactions and intuitive manner of information presentation 

in simulations. Compared with the large number of studies examining the 

effectiveness of simulation in improving learning outcomes, the study on the 

unintentional outcomes of using simulation has received little attention. 

In this study, the simulation demonstrated its power in shaping peoples’ 

conversational directions as well as their perceptions and stated preferences. 

Simulation models may influence peoples’ perceptions in ways that were 

unintended and unnoticed by the model builders. In other words, simulations 

may be used to promote certain ways of thinking without the users being 

conscious of its biases. Hence, it is necessary for model builders to not only 

think about the opportunities of using simulations but also consider what 

potential biases and unintentional outcomes the simulation may bring about. 

This study showed that simulations change peoples’ perceptions in a quick and 

consistent manner by shifting their attention to measures and mechanisms that 

are of interest to the modelers. Hence, the modelers need to make sure that 

the perspectives and interests of the stakeholders, especially those of the less 

advantaged stakeholder, can be considered. We recommend that the simulation 

model needs to stand on well-tested assumptions and incorporate diverse aspects 

of the real-world scenarios. The simulation model should be vetted by the 

stakeholders who are affected by the potential application of the model. Ethics, 

currently an afterthought in modeling, should be a pervasive consideration in 

developing and using simulations. 


Q. Hu, et al. 

Limitations 

These findings come from two exploratory studies of using computer 

simulations for engaging students in learning and deliberating on complex 

management scenarios in an interactive manner. This study does not claim that 

computer simulations are superior to other teaching tools, and the study design 

is not intended to make such a claim. Instead, these two exploratory case studies 

are early attempts to use computer simulations in educating students about the 

complexity of management scenarios and providing students with an interactive 

learning environment in which they can directly interact with diverse what-if 

scenarios, receive instant feedback, and develop a quick understanding of the 

management issue. 

There are other limitations of this study. These two exploratory studies involve a 

relatively small number of student participants. Our next study will include more 

students with more diverse backgrounds. A comparable simulation design will be 

incorporated into the study to investigate what configurations of simulations are 

more effective in facilitating students’ collaborative learning and deliberation. 

Conclusion 

Computer simulations have received increasing attention in a wide range of 

management and policy domains, although the traditional approaches and tools 

that adopt the rationality assumptions and focus on static, linear relationships 

remain predominant. Most mainstream public administration journals present 

relatively few discussions on interactive computer simulations. Hence, this 

study calls for more attention to be directed at the great potential of computer 

simulations as tools for public administration education. 

This study first identifies a set of complex challenges facing public 

administration research and education, such as the high level of environmental 

uncertainty and intertwined relationships among diverse actors in public service 

delivery. Current public administration approaches may struggle to address these 

challenges. Then, this study indicates that computer simulations can provide 

dynamic contexts for public administration research and education and serve 

as new tools for reexamining the conventional public administration problems. 

Furthermore, interactive computer simulations can act as platforms for engaging 

students in deliberating on real-world policy problems and exploring whatif 

scenarios in a group setting with quick feedback channels, hence helping 

students understand the complexity of collective decision making. 

This study presents a specific interactive computer simulation that we have 

used in our courses as a platform for students to explore a complex management 

topic—water sustainability—and develop an understanding of the intertwined 

relationships among various factors in water management. Through two 

exploratory case studies, this study suggests that, after interacting with computer 

simulations (WaterSim in this study), students quickly were able to grasp the 

complex challenges associated with interdependent stakeholders, uncertain 

figures, and policy options that reflect competing values. Students’ perception 

about sustainability and resource allocation also changed greatly. Participants’ 



perception change mirrored the desired outcome of the simulation. In addition, 

this study found an unintended narrowing of the deliberation options. Hence, 

this study calls for attention to the ethical considerations in using simulations, 

which have received less attention in previous studies. 

While this study was conducted using WaterSim in the Decision Theater 

at Arizona State University, diverse types of computer simulations can run on 

personal laptops and be accessed easily through the Internet. With the decreasing 

cost of developing computer simulations, we anticipate that this type of simulation 

will be more commonly used in public administration research and education. 

These simulations can be used in public administration classes to engage students 

in exploring complex management scenarios, facilitating students’ deliberation 

activities, and encouraging student interactions. This study strengthens the 

justification for using simulation-based scenarios to address new educational 

challenges while providing evidence of its effectiveness. The study is also an early 

step toward systematically understanding the potential and consequences of 

using such simulation-based scenarios in public administration education. 

Footnote 

1 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under award 

numbers SES-0951366 and SES-0345945, Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC). Any 

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

References 

Alexander, R. (2009). Addressing ELCA: An exercise in designing and facilitating stakeholder processes Retrieved 

from http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/eparcc/simulations/ALEXANDER-Case.pdf 

Aldrich, C. (2009). The complete guide to simulations and serious games: How the most valuable content 

will be created in the age beyond Gutenberg to Google. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. 

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public 

Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032 

Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity, 3(2), 16–22. 

Bardach, E. (2001). Developmental dynamics: Interagency collaboration as an emergent phenomenon. 

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(2), 149–164. 

Barrett, C. L., Eubank, S., Marathe, A., Marathe, M. V., Pan, Z., et al. (2011). Information integration 

to support model-based policy informatics. Innovation Journal, 16(1), Article 2 (a special issue on 

policy informatics). 

Binstadt, E., Walls, R. M., White, B. A., Nadel, E. S., Takayesu, et al. (2007). A comprehensive 

medical simulation education curriculum for emergency medicine residents. Annals of Emergency 

Medicine, 49(4), 495–504. 

Borning, A., Waddell, P., & Forster, R. (2007). UrbanSim: Using simulation to inform public deliberation 

and decision-making. In H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg, R. Traunmüller, S. S. Dawes, et al. (Eds.), 

Digital government: E-government research, case studies, and implementation (pp. 439–466). 

New York: Springer. 


Q. Hu, et al. 

Brazil, M., & Teram, E. (2009). Collaboration gone awry: A struggle for power and control over 

service delivery in the non-profit sector. A simulation—Exploring perspectives of individual 

collaborating organizations. Retrieved from http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/ 

eparcc/simulations/Ketcham%20edit%20BRAZIL-TERAM-Simulation.pdf 

Bryer, T., & Stewart, K. (2008). Developing a young professions network for the Arts: Teaching notes. 

Retrieved from http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/eparcc/simulations/Bryer- 

Stewart%20Introduction.pdf 

Davidson, C. N., & Coldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. 

Cambridge, MA: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. 

Davis, M., & Varda, D. (2010). Mapping network structure in complex community collaborators: 

A teaching simulation. Retrieved from http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/eparcc/ 

simulations/Davis-Varda-Mapping%20Network%20Simulation%202011.pdf 

Denhardt, R. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public Administration 

Review, 61(5), 526–534. 

Desouza, K. C., & Lin, Y. (2011). Towards evidence-driven policy design: Complex adaptive systems 

and computational modeling. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 16(1), 

Article 7. 

Dionnet, M, Kuper, M., Hammani, A., & Garin, P. (2008). Combining role-playing games and policy 

simulation exercises: An experience with Moroccan smallholder farmers. Simulation and Gaming, 

39(4), 498–514. 

Dray, A., Perez, P., Le Page, C., D’Aquino, P., & White, I. (2007). What wants to terminate the game? 

The role of vested interests and metaplayers in the ATOLLGAME experience. Simulation and 

Gaming, 38(4), 494–511. 

Ebner, N., & Efron, Y. (2010). Little Golano: A simulation. Retrieved from http://www.maxwell.syr. 

edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/eparcc/simulations/Ebner%20Simulation%202011.pdf 

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Cliff, L. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and 

college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 

12(4), 1143–1168. 

Garson, G. D. (1994). Social science computer simulation: Its history, design, and future. Social Science 

Computer Review, 12(1), 55–82. 

———. (2009). Computerized simulation in the social sciences. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 

267–279. 

George, M. (2010). An exercise in environmental collaborative planning. Retrieved from http://www. 

maxwell.syr.edu/parcc/eparcc/simulations/2011_2_Simulation/ 

Gilbert, N. (1999). Simulation: A new way of doing science. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(10), 

1485–1487. 

Gilbert, N., & Tioitzsch, K. G. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: 

McGraw-Hill Education. 

Haug, C., Huitema, D., & Wenzler, I. (2011). Learning through games? Evaluating the learning effect 

of a policy exercise on European climate policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 

968–981. 



Jarmon, L., Keating, E., & Toprac, P. (2008). Examining the societal impacts of nanotechnology 

through simulation: NANO SCENARIO. Simulation and Gaming, 39(2), 168–181. 

Johnston, E. W., Hicks, D., Nan, N., & Auer, J. C. (2011). Managing the inclusion process in 

collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 699–721. 

doi: 10.1093/jopart/muq045 

Kane, D. (1999). Computer simulations. In G. Miller & M. L. Whicker. (Eds.), Handbook of research 

methods in public administration. New York: Marcel Dekker. 

Kim, Y., Johnston, E., & Kang, H. S. (2011). A computational approach to managing performance 

dynamics of networked governance systems. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(4), 

580–597. 

Kriz, W. C. (2003). Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through 

gaming simulation design. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 495–511. 

Learmonth Sr., G. P., Smith, D. E., Sherman, W., White, M. A., & Plank, J. (2011). A practical 

approach to the complex problem of environmental sustainability: The UVa Bay Game. 

Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 16(1), Article 4. 

Lynn, L. E. (1996). Public management as art, science, and profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House 

Publishers. 

Morçöl, G., & Ivanova, N. P. (2010). Methods taught in public policy programs: Are quantitative 

methods still prevalent? Journal of Public Administration Education, 16(2), 255–277. 

Page, S. E., & Miller, J. H. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of 

social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Posner, P. (2009). A public administration education for the third-party governance era: Reclaiming 

leadership of the field. In R. O’Leary & L. B. Bingham (Eds.), The collaborative public manager: 

New ideas for the twenty-first century (pp. 233–254). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 

Reeves, B., & Read, J. L. (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way 

people work and businesses compete. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 

Ryan, T. (2000). The role of simulation gaming in policy-making. Systems Research and Behavioral 

Science, 17(4), 359–364. 

Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world class e-learning: How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and 

Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Schelling, T. C. (1981). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Shafritz, J. M., Hyde, A. C., & Parkes, S. J. (2003). Classics of public administration. Florence, KY: 

Wadsworth Publishing. 

Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and product of thought. American Economic Review, 68(2), 

1–16. 

Svara, J. H. (Ed.). (2007). The ethics primer for public administrators in government and nonprofit 

organizations. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 

Varda, D. (2008). Strategic network management in a community collaborative: A simulation. 

Retrieved from http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/parcc/eparcc/simulations/2008_1_Simulation/ 


Q. Hu, et al. 

Qian Hu is an assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at 

University of Central Florida. Qian received her PhD from Arizona State University 

in 2011. Her research interests include collaborative public management, 

e-governance, policy informatics, and strategic and performance management. 

Qian’s work has been published in academic journals such as American Behavioral 

Scientist, Journal of Public Affairs Education, and Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 

Erik W. Johnston is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at 

Arizona State University and the director of the Center for Policy Informatics. 

His research looks at how technology enables more sophisticated policy analysis 

and governance infrastructures, and promotes collective decision making. Dr. 

Johnston earned a PhD in Information and a Certificate in Complex Systems 

from the University of Michigan. He is a two-time NSF IGERT fellow, in 

the Socio-Technical Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions (STIET) and 

Institutions, Diversity, Emergence, Adaptation, and Structures (IDEAS) programs. 

Libby Hemphill is an assistant professor of Communication and Information 

Studies at the Illinois Institute of Technology. She studies social media and 

collaboration and is especially interested in the role of social media in public 

discourse, particularly among elected officials. She earned her PhD at the 

University of Michigan and was a visiting scholar in the Arizona State University 

College of Public Programs before returning to Chicago in 2010. 

Rashmi Krishnamurthy is a doctoral student in the School of Public Affairs 

at Arizona State University. Her research is focused on the role of information 

technology in collaborative decision making. Her current project includes 

application of virtual reality technology in understanding the determinants of 

collaborative decision making under conditions of uncertainty as they relate to 

water scarcity issues. 

Ajay Vinze is the Davis Distinguished Professor of Business at the W. P. Carey 

School of Business, Arizona State University (ASU). Professor Vinze’s research 

focuses on technology enablement for emergency preparedness and response, 

information supply chain, collaborative computing, and security/privacy issues 

for e-health. His publications have appeared in many of the leading information 

systems journals including Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, Decision 

Sciences, Decision Support Systems, and various IEEE Transactions. Before joining 

the academic environment, he was an IT consultant based out of Southeast Asia. 


Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) 

in Higher Education: 

How to Use SET More Effectively and 

Efficiently in Public Affairs Education 

Koichiro Otani, B. Joon Kim, and Jeong-IL Cho 

Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne 

Abstract 

The present study examined the impact of 13 aspects involved in student 

evaluation of teaching (SET). The study used student course evaluations of 

1,410 university students in the Division of Public and Environmental Affairs, 

Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne. These evaluations were 

collected in Fall 2009, Spring 2010, and Summer 2010. The goal was to identify 

and prioritize influential variables in the SETs. The four items rated as most 

influential in the overall effectiveness of instructors’ teaching are ranked as 

follows: (1) clear explanation, (2) effective use of class time, (3) positive learning 

environment, and (4) stimulating course materials. The results showed that 

evaluation items in SETs are not equally influential in their effects on students’ 

overall rating of teaching effectiveness. Thus this study revealed that a prioritized 

list of aspects needs to be developed, and efforts should be concentrated on 

improving these aspects to increase effectiveness and efficiency in rating of 

teaching. Improvement strategies for instructors as well as future implications 

of the effective use of SET at the department or college level are discussed. 

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education has a long 

history, originating in the 1920s. Much research has suggested that educators 

should make better use of the routinely collected SET data (Campbell & 

Bozeman, 2008; Griffin & Cook, 2009; Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker, & Grøgaard, 

2002; Wolfer & Johnson, 2003). Data from SETs can be more effectively and 

efficiently used in improving the quality of teaching at program, department, 

and college levels, when institutions identify influential aspects on the overall 

teaching performance of their instructors, disseminate the outcomes, and 

make a timely response as recommended at the United Kingdom (UK) 2007 

National Conference on Student Evaluation (Griffin & Cook, 2009). Such 

JPAE 18(3), 531–544 


K. Otani, B. Joon Kim, & J. Cho 

shared information would provide groundwork to initiate practical and proactive 

conversation among college and university instructors to meet the unique needs 

of their diverse student body and ultimately to improve the overall quality of 

teaching in their courses and learning environments for their students. 

The reason for lack of effective responsiveness to SET is a result of the 

traditional focus on the utilization of SET data: privately owned data and personal 

improvement efforts. The outcome from SET informs individual instructors about 

aspects of their teaching that need to be improved. Data from SET can assist the 

instructors to be conscious of their strengths and weaknesses in teaching, and it 

can eventually contribute to improving their teaching effectiveness and enhance the 

quality of student learning (McKeachie, 1997; Pike, 1998). The instructors are 

personally aware of areas to be improved upon in their own teaching based on the 

results of SET from their own classes. They may share such evaluation information 

with their mentor, if any, and seek their advice on improving their teaching 

effectiveness. However, it is commonly found that individual instructors do not 

have a collective knowledge and understanding of their teaching effectiveness in 

the classroom as a group (e.g., department and college). 

In most institutions, data from SETs remains as an instructor’s private 

material, exclusively shared with administrators. It is not mentioned or 

discussed in a collective manner such as during department-wide training or 

discussion. Such utilization of SET data is in some way due to the sensitive 

nature of the SET. The SET has been used as a primary indicator of teaching 

effectiveness of college and university instructors in the process of promotion 

and tenure decisions, annual reviews, and reappointment determinations 

(d’Apollonia & Abrami, 1997; McKeachie, 1997; Pike, 1998). Both individual 

and administrative uses of the SETs have been well accepted in an academic 

community and justify the collection of SETs. 

College and university students routinely complete a summative course 

evaluation toward the end of each semester throughout their degree or nondegree 

programs. Questionnaires are generally the most frequently used format of SETs 

using rating scales. It is reasonable for students to assume that their feedback 

has an impact on the modification, transformation, and improvement in future 

lecture formats and materials, course requirements, assessment methods, and 

classroom management and interactions. College and university students, 

however, seldom see the changes they expect in their future courses that would 

probably be taught by either the same or a different instructor (Campbell & 

Bozeman, 2008; Griffin & Cook, 2009). Such nonresponsiveness toward their 

feedback could cause frustration among students and discourage them from 

providing genuine and considered feedback on their classes. 

By using the SET data, instructors can easily identify weak aspects of 

teaching, since these aspects are often rated lower relative to other aspects. 

However, this simple prioritizing approach fails to provide which aspect(s) need 


Student Evaluation of Teaching 

to be improved first and urgently. A study conducted by Wolfer and Johnson 

(2003) emphasized an importance of effective uses of SET data for individual 

teaching improvement and reported a challenge of identifying patterns of 

areas needed to be improved. Those areas can be used in a departmental level 

of training for teaching improvement of instructors. Without a systematically 

combined, prioritized set of information, instructors could arbitrarily choose 

some aspects over others based on their individual evaluation data with a 

hope that their future students’ overall satisfaction with their teaching and 

improvement efforts would be positive. 

Extensive studies have investigated a range of variables on teaching 

effectiveness and documented inconsistent and inconclusive results of their 

effects on SETs (Campbell, Steiner, & Gerdes, 2005; McKeachie, 1997; 

Whittington, 2001; Wolfer & Johnson, 2003). Most of these variables (e.g., 

class size, curricular area, prior interest in the course topic, expected grades, 

workload/difficulty, whether a course is required or elective, challenging level of 

course, instructor characteristics, course format—whether online or traditional) 

are not in an instructor’s control and are not usually collected in routine SETs. 

Moreover, many studies disagreed on specific variables identified as more 

influential on SET scores than others. According to a study of Campbell and her 

colleagues (2005), SET scores are influenced by accumulated effects of a wide 

variety of variables that are both uncontrollable (e.g., gender, age, and race of 

instructors; class size; starting time; class with primarily quantitative content) 

and controllable (e.g., instruction delivery mode, time allocation for different 

activities) by instructors. 

At the UK 2007 National Conference on Student Evaluation: Dissemination 

and Debate, higher education professionals proposed strategies to effectively 

use data from SET that are routinely collected from students (Griffin & 

Cook, 2009). This conference was a collaborative attempt to respond to 

the underutilization issue of the SET data and to redirect attention to what 

instructors actually can do to improve teaching effectiveness using the 

outcomes of the routinely collected SET data. Prioritizing actions by ranking 

the problematic aspects of teaching reported in SETs is one of the practical 

recommendations in using SETs more effectively and efficiently. These actions 

focus on variables, mostly under the instructors’ control, to improve the quality 

of teaching and students’ overall satisfaction with teaching. Instead of distracting 

educators’ attention with a wide range of variables that may accumulatively 

affect the SET data, there is a need to redirect our focus on variables under the 

instructors’ control. Indeed, in a comprehensive review of related literature, 

Campbell and her colleagues (2005) reported the need to pay more attention 

to variables under the control of instructors to improve teaching effectiveness. 

Then, the next question would be “Which controllable aspects are more 

influential?” The present study specifically addresses this question. 



The SET measure that is employed by the Public Affairs program at Indiana 

University–Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) contains one global rating 

item—“Overall, I would rate the instructor of this course as outstanding”— 

that refers to the overall satisfaction of an instructor’s teaching effectiveness 

as recommended by Cashin and Downey (1992). This study examined the 

impact of the 13 aspects (independent variables) on the overall satisfaction of 

the instructor’s teaching effectiveness (dependent variable) with the intention 

of distinguishing and prioritizing influential variables on the SET. Influential 

variables within SETs in public affairs education deserve more attention, and 

identifying variables that are within instructors’ control would be potentially 

crucial in improving teaching and, ultimately, in enhancing student learning. 

Methodology 

Students combine each of their experiences (aspects) to arrive at their overall 

evaluation of the instructor. Some aspects may be good and pleasant, while 

others may not. Some aspects are more influential than others to the students in 

forming their overall satisfaction level of an instructor’s teaching effectiveness. 

Thus, when they have a positive experience with those salient aspects, their 

overall satisfaction is likely to be positive. On the other hand, if they have a 

negative experience with salient aspects, they are likely to be unsatisfied even 

when other less salient aspects were positive. In the field of marketing and 

other studies in related areas, a number of researchers use the Fishbein model 

to predict which product with multiple aspects would be selected by customers 

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This model has been used by many studies in 

customer satisfaction research including, but not limited to, patient satisfaction 

(Otani, Kurz, & Harris, 2005). Thus this well-established model is also relevant 

to Student Evaluation of Teaching studies. This model would suggest that to 

improve student overall evaluation, it is critical to improve more influential 

aspects than less influential aspects. 

Data Sources 

This study used student course evaluations from the Division of Public and 

Environmental Affairs (DPEA) at Indiana University–Purdue University Fort 

Wayne (IPFW). Thirteen aspects (elements) were used to assess the course, and 

these items were considered as independent variables for the purpose of the 

study. The dependent variable was “Overall, I would rate the instructor of this 

course as outstanding.” The current set of items, including the overall evaluation 

item, has been used for SET since Fall 2008 at DPEA-IPFW. All items came 

from a pool of suggested items at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs 

(SPEA) program in the Indiana University System, and the pool of suggested 

items has been used for more than three decades. 

The data were collected in Fall 2009, Spring 2010, and Summer 2010 at 

DPEA-IPFW. The SET survey uses a Likert-type scale, and the operationalization 

of the survey for each item is as follows: 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = 

Neither Agree nor Disagree, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly Disagree. 



Instructors distributed the SET survey at the end of each semester in class, 

but the instructor was not allowed to stay in the classroom when students were 

responding to the survey. One designated student collected the completed 

surveys and took them directly to the secretary of the division. 

Data Analysis 

The study analyzed the combining process of the 13 aspects in arriving at an 

overall rating of the course and the instructor. In other words, it evaluated the 

13 aspects and attempted to find which aspects have more influence on students’ 

overall rating. To analyze the relative importance of the 13 aspects, a general 

regression model was used. The general model for the i th case is 

n 

Y = a + 

S 

b i 

x i 

+e 

i = 1 

where Y is overall students evaluations of teaching, a is the intercept, b i 

is a 

coefficient, x i 

is an experience of the i th aspect, and e is an error term. The 

significance of b i 

and the value of R 2 are examined to test the model fit. 

Results 

There were 1,410 student responses. Among them, 545 cases (38.7%) 

were taught by limited-term lecturers, and 859 cases (60.9%) were taught by 

full-time faculty members. Six cases are missing values. The data set includes 

three university terms, and the distribution is as follows: 677 cases, 48.0% (Fall 

2009); 680 cases, 48.2% (Spring 2010); and 53 cases, 3.8% (Summer 2010). To 

prevent possible identification of students and to lead to more honest and candid 

responses, the SET survey did not ask for students’ demographic backgrounds 

(age, gender, race, etc.). Instead of the sample statistics, we offer our division 

information. In the fall semester, 2009, there were 498 students enrolled in the 

Division of Public and Environmental Affairs (DPEA) at IPFW. Among them, 

229 were male and 269 were female. The average age for male students was 23.8, 

and that for female students was 26.9. There were 453 undergraduate students, 

and 45 graduate students. Among undergraduate students, 76.2% were full-time 

students, and 23.8% were part-time students. Among graduate students, 35.6% 

were full-time students, and 64.4% were part-time students. Among all 498 

students, white students accounted for 403—followed by black students (57), 

Hispanic students (11), Asian students (7), American Indian students (2), and 

others (12). There were 6 international students. The Division offers five majors: 

Criminal Justice, Environmental Policy, Health Services Administration, Legal 

Studies, and Public Management. The numbers of students in classes range from 

6 to 45, and a typical class size is 30. There were nine faculty members in the 

division. Among them, three were female faculty members, and five were senior 

faculty members (associate or full professors). There were also 15 limited-term 

lecturers, although each of them typically teaches only one course. 



In the data, average students’ responses for independent variables (evaluation 

items) are generally high; they range from 4.10 to 4.57. The average overall evaluation 

(dependent variable) is 4.23, and its standard deviation is 1.127. The descriptive 

statistics and the description of all aspects (items) are shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. 

Descriptive Statistics of Question Items 

Question Items Mean SD N 

Independent Variables 

Q1: My instructor is well prepared for class meetings. 4.57 0.829 1405 

Q2: My instructor explains the subject clearly. 4.21 1.121 1408 

Q3: My instructor is enthusiastic about teaching 4.48 0.906 1406 

this course. 

Q4: Course materials were thought-provoking 4.10 1.101 1405 

and stimulating. 

Q5: My instructor is available for consultation. 4.37 0.929 1407 

Q6: I know what is expected of me in this course. 4.34 1.013 1407 

Q7: The exams cover the most important aspects 4.24 1.060 1405 

of the course. 

Q8: My instructor evaluated student work in fair 4.35 1.001 1405 

and appropriate ways. 

Q9: This course fulfilled the objectives described 4.43 0.904 1407 

in the syllabus. 

Q10: My instructor created an environment in 4.44 1.006 1405 

which students felt comfortable asking questions 

and expressing their views. 

Q11: My instructor encouraged students to 

4.44 0.908 1403 

participate in their learning. 

Q12: My instructor made effective use of class time. 4.33 1.050 1407 

Q13: I acquired new knowledge in this course. 4.37 1.001 1403 

Dependent Variable 

Q14: Overall, I would rate the instructor of this 

course as outstanding. 

4.23 1.127 1389 

The multiple linear regression analysis was conducted, and the result is 

shown in Table 2. The R 2 is 0.828, and thus the model explains 82.8% of the 

variance in Y. The analysis revealed that certain variables are more influential 

than others when students rate their overall evaluation. The magnitude of 

influence is determined by the value of the coefficient. The larger the value 

of the coefficient, the more influence. The most influential variable is Q2 



(The coefficient is 0.364) followed by Q10, Q12, Q4, Q13, Q7, Q8, and Q5 

(coefficients ranging from 0.134 to 0.052) in this order. All of them are statistically 

significant at the level of α = 0.05, and they are positively related. Other variables 

(Q1, Q3, Q6, Q9, and Q11) are not statistically significant at the level ofα= 0.05. 

Compared to full-time faculty members, limited-term lecturers have more positive 

overall rating, and this relationship is statistically significant. 

Table 2. 

Parameter Estimates of All Question Items and Rank Order of Significant Items 

Independent 

Variables 

Parameter 

Estimates 

Standard 

Error 

P Value 

Intercept –0.491 0.088 0.000 

Q1. Class preparation 0.029 0.026 0.276 

Q2. Clear explanation 0.364 0.023 0.000 1 

Q3. Enthusiasm 0.030 0.025 0.229 

Q4. Stimulating course materials 0.105 0.019 0.000 4 

Q5. Instructor availability 0.052 0.020 0.010 8 

Q6. Student understanding of expectation 0.034 0.024 0.168 

Q7. Comprehensive exam 0.087 0.021 0.000 6 

Q8. Fair assessment 0.072 0.024 0.003 7 

Q9. Course objectives –0.009 0.027 0.734 

Q10. Positive learning environment 0.134 0.023 0.000 2 

Q11. Encouragement in participation 0.004 0.024 0.882 

Q12. Effective use of class time 0.117 0.023 0.000 3 

Q13. Gaining new knowledge 0.091 0.024 0.000 5 

Full-time –0.066 0.028 0.019 

Note. N = 1368; R 2 = 0.828. Limited-term lecturers are a reference group. 

Rank 

Order 

Discussion 

As recommended in the UK 2007 National Conference in Student Evaluation, 

the present research attempted to prioritize aspects (variables) of teaching embedded 

in SETs that are more influential on students’ overall satisfaction of instructors’ 

teaching (“Overall, I would rate the instructor of this course as outstanding”) 

in SETs. The results of the study showed that evaluation items on the SET are 

not equally influential in their effects on students’ overall rating of teaching 

effectiveness. Among 13 evaluation items, eight items were statistically significant 

and positively influential, and five items were not statistically significant on the 

rating of the overall item addressing instructors’ teaching effectiveness. 



Consistent with previous findings (Cashin & Downey, 1992), certain 

evaluation items are critically more influential to students’ overall rating of 

teaching than other items (see Table 2 and Figure 1). It was revealed that the most 

influential evaluation item is the clarity of instructor’s explanations of the course 

subject (Q2: My instructor explains the subject clearly). It was noteworthy that this 

clarity item is far more influential than the second most influential item, positive 

and risk-free learning environment (Q10: My instructor created an environment in 

which students felt comfortable asking questions and expressing their views). 

The following items, in the order shown, are less influential on students’ 

overall rating of teaching, but gradually less influential. The rank order of these 

aspects would help readers to clearly understand their relative importance. 

• Third most influential item—an effective use of class time 

(Q12: My instructor made effective use of class time) 

• Fourth most influential item—stimulating course materials 

(Q4: Course materials were thought-provoking and stimulating) 

• Fifth most influential item—gaining new knowledge 

(Q13: I acquired new knowledge in this course) 

• Sixth most influential item—comprehensive exams 

(Q7: The exams cover the most important aspects of the course) 

• Seventh most influential item—fair assessment 

(Q8: My instructor evaluated student work in fair and appropriate ways) 

• Eighth most influential item—availability for consultation 

(Q5: My instructor is available for consultation) 

Figure 1. 

Relative Importance of Each Salient Aspect in Student Evaluations of Teaching 

Parameter estimate 

Salient aspects 



The top four ranked items (i.e., clear explanations, positive learning 

environment, effective use of class time, and stimulating course materials; 

Questions 2, 10, 12, and 4 respectively) are, to some extent, related to class 

preparation and are generally what instructors can attempt to control in their 

teaching. This result supports the previous finding that student ratings of 

teaching effectiveness are closely associated with identifiable skills of instructors, 

such as organization and grading skills (Jirovec, Ramanathan, & Alvarez, 1998). 

This finding provides a concrete pattern of areas needing to be improved that 

can be used in a departmental training for teaching improvement of instructors 

(Wolfer & Johnson, 2003). Such collective utilization of SETs can not only 

improve teaching quality among instructors in a department but also enhance 

student learning experience in a Public Affairs program. 

However, an item directly related to class preparation (Q1: My instructor 

is well prepared for class meetings) was not shown to be statistically significant 

on the students’ overall rating of teaching. This direct measure of instructor 

preparedness was not identified as the top-ranking influential item. This result 

may indicate that instructor preparation is a prerequisite and that students may judge 

the outcomes of instructor preparation more than just the state of preparation. 

To improve the overall quality of class preparation, an instructor can devote 

his or her time and effort to comprehending the topic and being prepared 

to explain the subjects clearly; contribute to creating a positive learning 

environment where students feel comfortable in sharing their opinions and 

posing questions; and plan the use of class time carefully. Moreover, these three 

items are also found in the Purdue University’s Course and Instructor Appraisal 

System that has been developed prudentially to create a comprehensive pool of 

SET questions. According to the system, these items can be categorized under 

(a) clarity and effectiveness of presentation, (b) student interest/involvement 

learning, and (c) respect and rapport. 

The fourth-ranked item (Q4: Course materials were thought-provoking and 

stimulating), however, may or may not be under a direct control of an instructor, 

but an instructor may be able to stimulate student interest by exposing them to 

real-world examples such as conducting a research project of local sources and 

having a guest speaker with extensive experience and knowledge in a certain 

topic. The fifth-ranked item (Q13: I acquired new knowledge in this course) 

addresses students’ learning and has long been debated by extensive research 

(Denhardt, 2001) due to its measurement complication using the SET data 

alone. The sixth- and seventh-ranked items (Q7: The exams cover the most 

important aspects of the course; Q8: My instructor evaluated student work 

in fair and appropriate ways) among the eight influential items are about 

assessment-related skills and are rather objective evaluations of the course. 

This finding is consistent with previous studies (Jirovec et al., 1998). Based on 

the results of the present study, it is clear that when students think they have 



gained a new skill, they give credit to their instructors. There are many things 

instructors can do to respond to this finding. An instructor may be able to 

positively influence assessment and student learning by carefully developing 

exam questions, using fair grading systems, and proactively assuring students 

learning through constant review of key points, particularly during exam 

review sessions (Campbell et al., 2005). However, having close interactions 

with students, which is partially addressed in the eighth-ranked item (Q5: My 

instructor is available for consultation) indicates being available for consultation. 

To improve the quality of teaching among instructors at departmental and 

college levels, they can work collaboratively and provide input on development 

and implementation of comprehensive examinations, fair grading systems, and 

effective teaching and student learning strategies. 

Among all the evaluation items, five did not show statistical significance. 

Thus these aspects are not likely to be associated with students’ overall rating of 

instructors’ teaching effectiveness (Instructors’ preparedness: Q1: My instructor 

is well prepared for class meetings; enthusiasm in teaching: Q3: My instructor 

is enthusiastic about teaching this course; students’ understanding of the course 

expectation: Q6: I know what is expected of me in this course; accomplishment 

of course objectives: Q9: This course fulfilled the objectives described in the 

syllabus; and instructor’s encouragement in course participation: Q11: My 

instructor encouraged students to participate in their learning). It is noted that 

two items address student learning behaviors (i.e., student understanding of the 

course expectation and course participation) and are used to solicit students’ 

evaluation of their own learning behaviors exclusively and partially. As noted 

earlier, students’ perceived learning of new knowledge is ranked as the fifth most 

influential item. These findings show that students gave credit to instructors for 

their perceived final outcome of the course (Q13: I acquired new knowledge 

in this course), but did not give credit to instructors regarding their process of 

learning. The students might have obtained new knowledge that was possibly 

influenced and encouraged by instructors, but they were not able to perceive the 

instructor’s influence. It can be partially explained by the previous finding that 

teaching behaviors of instructors that help students learn new knowledge might 

be evaluated differently from those that help students participate more in class 

activities and understand the course expectations (Cashin & Downey, 1992). 

Instructors’ enthusiasm and the fulfillment of course objectives (Q3 and 

Q9) were not influential in the students’ overall satisfaction with instructors, 

when enthusiasm is typically considered as a positive asset of an individual, and 

the fulfillment of course objectives is another part of positively identifiable and 

observable skills. These findings imply that instructors’ enthusiasm in teaching 

the subject and a diligent delivery of planned course contents may not be highly 

valued by students as an important quality of instructors. 



Limitations and Suggestions 

This study was carefully conducted with solid methodology; however, there 

are some limitations. First, the data were collected at only one school in the 

university. Even though there are 1,410 cases and this number is quite large, it 

is not a random sample of all students. Thus it is not possible to generalize our 

results to all departments and all universities in the United States. Future studies 

are encouraged to conduct this type of study in different schools and universities. 

Second, because this is a cross-sectional study and not an experimental study, 

this type of design cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Nevertheless, 

this study used a well-established model (Fishbein model) to support the causeand-effect 

relationship where independent variables influence the dependent 

variable of overall evaluation of the instructor. If a future study employs an 

intervention design where influential aspects of teaching are improved, the 

cause-and-effect relationship can be more clearly established. Third, this SET 

survey used a Likert-type scale. The variables are, thus, ordinal. Some researchers 

argue the appropriateness of using a general regression model on ordinal data. 

However, research studies show that the use of regression models on ordinal data 

is appropriate and useful, and the results are generally robust (Labovits, 1970; 

O’Sullivan & Rassel, 1989). Many research studies have used regression models 

on ordinal data. Fourth, this study used the SET survey that had been carefully 

developed and used for more than three decades at Indiana University–Purdue 

University Fort Wayne. However, it is possible that the survey may not contain 

all salient aspects in teaching, and that limitation may bias the estimates. Further 

refinement and examination of the survey items are warranted. 

As recommended in the UK 2007 National Conference on Student 

Evaluation (Griffin & Cook, 2009), proactive, ongoing discussions among 

university instructors need to take place on how to use the evaluation results and 

how to improve teaching effectiveness. To improve overall quality of the program 

and to provide recommendations and directions for their instructors, university 

administrators need to focus not only on numerical means or medians of SETs 

of individual instructors, but on areas that need improvement. The SET data 

of instructors in a department or college need to be combined and analyzed 

to prioritize actions, disseminate the outcomes, and make timely responses to 

students (Griffin & Cook, 2009). Both experienced and new instructors would 

benefit from this shared knowledge about teaching, and they could have an 

opportunity to reflect on and reevaluate their teaching. 

In an effort to enhance the quality of teaching in the Public Affairs program 

at IPFW and other universities when appropriate, instructors need to follow 

up on these prioritized items in a timely, unified, and collaborative manner, 

disseminate relevant results to other instructors and students using multiple 

delivery means, including department or college websites and online learning 

tools (e.g., Blackboard), identify necessary improvement goals, prepare a clear 



and detailed timeline, promote a positive use of the evaluation results, and 

solicit active student involvement in achieving goals (Griffin & Cook, 2009). 

Furthermore, the Public Affairs program needs to obtain multiple perspectives 

and data sources in identifying issues by using multiple measures (e.g., 

interviews, observations, focus group discussion, and curriculum review; Griffin 

& Cook, 2009). All of these improvement efforts can yield a meaningful result 

when all involved parties including instructors, students, and administrators in 

the program understand the value of a unified effort in improving the quality of 

teaching and are open to receiving constructive feedback from each other. 

Conclusion 

This study advances the existing knowledge of SETs that all salient aspects 

of teaching do not equally influence students’ overall evaluation of the instructor 

in Public Affairs education. Results from this study suggest that the clarity of 

instructors’ explanation of the subject is far more influential than other aspects in 

the SET, and it should be emphasized as a critical quality of university instructions 

to improve the overall evaluation of teaching. This finding is logical because 

students take a course to understand the material, learn the skills necessary to 

pass the course, and ultimately compete in the real world. An instructor’s clear 

explanation of the subject is the first key step of student learning. For clear 

explanation, it is necessary for the instructor to take time to be well prepared for 

the class. An instructor should know the subject well; but as the saying goes, a 

good player is not always a good coach. Accordingly, even though the instructor 

may know the subject very well, it cannot be assumed that the instructor is 

able to explain the subject clearly to students. In addition to the explanation 

side of teaching, other aspects, especially positive learning environment, the 

effective use of class time, and stimulating course materials should be pursued to 

improve teaching and accommodate better learning opportunities for students. 

These findings clearly show that an instructor needs to take time to prepare 

for the class and develop a solid and achievable plan of teaching before going 

to class. By prioritizing actions based on the scientific evidence and having a 

systematic improvement plan, instructors as a group can collaboratively and 

constructively assist each other on these issues related to teaching and learning in 

higher education. This approach would enhance the instructors’ overall teaching 

effectiveness and ultimately improve overall program quality. 

Acknowledgment 

The authors thank Tamara G. Davich for help with preparation of the data, and 

we are grateful to Dawn Adams and Shelley Hart for their comments. 



References 

Campbell, H. E., Steiner, S., & Gerdes, K. (2005). Student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public 

Affairs Education, 11(3), 211–231. 

Campbell, J., & Bozeman, W. C. (2008). The value of student ratings: Perceptions of students, 

teachers, and administrators. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 32(1), 13–24. 

Cashin, W. E., & Downey, R. G. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 563–572. 

Denhardt, R. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public Administration 

Review, 61(5), 526–534. 

d’Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American 

Psychologist, 52(1), 1198–1208. 

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and 

research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (* Thank you.) 

Griffin A., & Cook, V. (2009). Acting on evaluation: Twelve tips from a national conference on student 

evaluations. Medical Teacher, 31, 101–104. 

Jirovec, R. L., Ramanathan, C. S., & Alvarez, A. R. (1998). Course evaluation: What are social work 

students telling us about teaching effectiveness? Journal of Social Work Education, 34(2), 229–236. 

Labovitz, S. (1970). The assignment of numbers to rank order categories. American Sociological Review, 

35(3), 515–524. 

McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218–1225. 

O’Sullivan, E. & Rassel, G.R. (1989). Research methods for public administrators. White Plains, NY: 

Longman. 

Otani, K., Kurz, R. S., & Harris, L. E. (2005). Managing primary care using patient satisfaction 

measures. Journal of Healthcare Management, 50(5), 311–325. 

Pike, C. K. (1998). A validity study of an instrument designed to measure teaching effectiveness. 

Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 261–271. 

Whittington, L. A. (2001). Detecting good teaching. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(5) 5–8. 

Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grøgaard, J. B. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical 

deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 183–195. 

Wolfer, T., & Johnson, M.M. (2003). Reevaluating student evaluation of teaching: The teaching 

evaluation form. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 111–121. 



Koichiro Otani is an associate professor in the Department of Public Policy at 

Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne. He received a PhD in Health 

Services Research from Saint Louis University. 

B. Joon Kim is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy at 

Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne. He received a PhD in 

Public Administration and Policy from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University. 

Jeong-IL Cho is an assistant professor in the Department of Professional Studies 

at Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne. She received a PhD in 

Teaching and Learning from the University of Iowa. 


An Executive MPA Program for 

China: Lessons from the Field 

Wenxuan Yu 

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 

Marilyn Rubin 

John Jay College, City University of New York 

Wei Wu 

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 

Abstract 

Master of Public Administration (MPA) programs are offered in more 

than 100 universities in China. All require applicants to pass a competitive 

national entrance exam in five subject areas. This requirement significantly 

discourages senior-level public administrators, many of whom graduated 

from college several years ago and have work schedules that do not allow 

time to prepare for an academically focused examination. These senior-level 

administrators need an Executive MPA (EMPA) or similar program with 

more realistic entrance requirements and a curriculum designed for people 

with significant professional experience. Drawing on the data collected 

from surveys of MPA students enrolled in six MPA programs in China and 

students enrolled in an EMPA program in Singapore specifically designed 

for Chinese public servants, this article reports how the demographic 

differences between MPA students and EMPA students affect their preference 

for professional public administration education in terms of knowledge 

components, managerial competencies, teaching modalities, and examination 

methods. The findings of the study significantly challenge not only Chinese 

universities that would like to adopt the existing MPA education model for 

EMPA education but also universities outside of China that are establishing 

EMPA or joint EMPA programs with Chinese governments or universities. 

JPAE 18(3), 545–564 


W. Yu, M. Rubin, & W. Wu 

The origins of Public Administration as an academic discipline in China 

can be traced back to the 1920s when it was first introduced into the higher 

education curriculum as a subfield of political science. After the establishment of 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, however, public administration 

education, along with other social science disciplines, was abolished by the Chinese 

government because such education was deemed irrelevant for the country’s political, 

social, and economic development. It was not until the 1980s that public administration 

education was reintroduced in China (Xue, Peng, & Zhang, 2002). 

From then until 2001, public administration education at the undergraduate 

and graduate levels in China was theoretically oriented, 1 focusing on the 

introduction of Western public administration theories and developing and 

interpreting Marxism and socialism with Chinese characteristics. Practical 

applications and decision making were not generally included in the curriculum 

(Ma & Liu, 2007). 

Pushed and pulled by external and internal factors such as the transition 

in China from a planned economy to a more market-driven economy and the 

increasing demand for professional public administrators, in 2001 China’s 

Academic Degree Commission of the State Council, Ministry of Education 

and Ministry of Human Resources, established the National MPA Education 

Steering Committee (NMESC) to initiate practice-oriented Master of Public 

Administration (MPA) education. The first national MPA entrance exam 

took place in 2001(Tong & Straussman, 2003; Yang, 2005). In the same year, 

NMESC approved 24 prestigious universities to offer the MPA degree; by 2008, 

MPA programs had been established in 100 universities (Zhu, 2008). 

As part of the MPA admission requirements, applicants must pass a competitive 

national entrance exam in five subject areas: English, Fundamentals of Public 

Management, Math, Literature, and Logic. This requirement significantly 

discourages senior-level public administrators, many of whom graduated 

from colleges several years ago and have work schedules that do not allow 

time to prepare for an academically focused examination. These senior-level 

administrators need a program with more realistic entrance requirements and a 

curriculum designed for individuals with significant professional experience. 

This demand is not unique to China. In the United States, for example, 

the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Education (NASPAA) 

has stated on its website that “the Executive MPA is a Masters degree designed 

for individuals …[who] possess significant professional achievements and 

are interested in advancing their careers” (NASPAA, 2011a). 2 A 2007 survey 

conducted by NASPAA found that 57 of its more than 250 member institutions 

were offering an EMPA or similar program (NASPAA, 2007). NASPAA has 

established an Executive MPA Committee to address several fundamental 

issues related to EMPA programs such as program formats, curriculum design, 

and accreditation. 


An Executive MPA Program for China 

Similar issues have to be addressed in establishing an EMPA program in 

China (Dong, 2010). NASPAA’s curriculum models for EMPAs and similar 

programs provide some guidance (Holmes, 2006). With few exceptions, 

however, (Denhardt, 2001; Ventriss, 1991), the pedagogical literature on 

graduate programs in public administration has focused on traditional MPA 

programs, covering topics such as program evaluation, overall curriculum 

design, and teaching methods for specific MPA courses (Aristigueta, 2002; 

Brown, Brudney, Waugh Jr., & Hy, 2000; Holzer & Lin, 2007; Jennings, 1989; 

McCaffery, 1992; Rosenbloom, 2005). 

In this article, we provide information that we hope will be useful in 

establishing an EMPA program for Chinese public officials by addressing 

three questions related to EMPA education from the “demand side”: (a) What 

are the differences in the demographic characteristics of MPA students and 

EMPA students? (b) How do these differences influence preferences related 

to knowledge components, managerial competencies, and teaching and 

examination methods? (c) How should we teach Chinese EMPA students based 

on different preferences of MPA and EMPA students? 

To answer these questions, we surveyed students enrolled in several MPA 

programs in China and in an EMPA program at Nanyang Technological 

University (NTU) in Singapore specifically designed for Chinese senior 

public officials. We hope that the findings reported in this paper will inform 

the development of EMPA programs in China and that they will be useful 

for universities outside of China that are establishing EMPA or joint EMPA 

programs with Chinese governments or universities. This objective is especially 

important given the increasing number of senior public administration officials 

being sent outside of China for advanced public management training (Ye, Sun, 

& Wu, 2009). 

The article consists of four sections. The first section briefly introduces 

the development of MPA and EMPA education in China. The second section 

discusses our research methods. The third section presents our findings, and the 

fourth provides suggestions for educating Chinese EMPA students. 

MPA and EMPA Programs for Chinese Students 

From the earliest days of MPA education in China, the targeted student 

body has been civil servants and others working for public institutions 

(Shiyedanwei). 3 In fact, NMESC requires that 80% of intakes of each MPA 

program come from the public sector. NMESC also requires that applicants 

must hold a nationally recognized college degree, have at least 3 years of work 

experience, and pass a national entrance examination. 

Although the delivery of Chinese MPA programs has evolved from the 

initial mandated 1-year, full-time model to a much more flexible system 

including some 2- to 4-year, part-time options to meet public administrators’ 



practical needs, the three admission requirements listed earlier apply to all 

applicants. The third admission requirement, passing a competitive national 

entrance exam, significantly deters senior-level public managers from pursuing 

an MPA degree. Information gleaned from our interviews with deans of schools 

with MPA programs in China revealed that most MPA students are junior-level 

public officials with less than 10 years of work experience and are in relatively 

low positions in the Chinese government. 

These interviews also revealed that there is increasing demand among higherlevel 

public administrators for graduate-level public administration. Senior 

public administrators want to be systematically trained in public administration 

to improve their management competencies. Having an MPA degree will 

significantly improve their image as experienced public administrators equipped 

with cutting-edge knowledge and skills. Senior-level officials also want an MPA 

because an increasing number of their subordinates are pursuing the degree, and 

for them not to have one would result in their “losing face” (Chen, personal 

communication, Dec. 6, 2009). 

In the absence of an EMPA program in China, Nanyang Technological 

University (NTU) in Singapore, a city-state located about 4,000 miles from 

mainland China, offers an EMPA degree program specifically designed for 

China’s senior public officials. Since 2004, about 100 public officials have been 

sent to NTU each year by Chinese governments at various levels. To date, almost 

700 persons have graduated from the program. A significant number of alumni 

have been promoted to important government positions in China, such as vice 

governor, mayor, and party general secretary (Wu, 2007). 

The EMPA program at NTU is a 1-year, full-time residential program. 

Students must complete at least 12 courses or 40 credits and a master’s thesis to 

obtain an EMPA degree. 4 Although English is the working language of NTU, 

its bilingual faculty members also teach courses in Mandarin. Because of its 

uniqueness and success, NTU’s EMPA program is seen as a model for China’s 

public administration educators looking to develop their own EMPA degree 

programs (Ma, personal interview, June 15, 2009). The findings presented later 

can be used to design these programs. 

Methodology 

In December 2008, we distributed questionnaires to students attending the 

EMPA program at NTU in Singapore and six MPA programs in China that were 

established before 2003 and are considered to be the leading programs in the 

country. We distributed the questionnaire to all 83 EMPA students in the 2008 

cohort at NTU. Sixty-two valid questionnaires were returned, for a response rate 

of 75%. We also created a focus group of 20 EMPA students to obtain additional 

information about attitudes toward Nanyang’s EMPA curriculum, teaching, and 

examination methods. 



In China, we were unable to select students for participation in the survey 

randomly due to the inaccessibility of the population of students in all MPA 

programs and our limited resources. Instead, using convenience sampling, 

questionnaires were distributed by liaisons at each of the six universities included 

in our study to their MPA students; 212 responses were received. We could not 

calculate the response rate, because information was not available on the exact 

number of questionnaires that were distributed. We also interviewed five deans at 

leading schools of public administration in China to obtain their opinions on the 

development of MPA and EMPA education. 

The Surveys 

In the questionnaires, we solicited students’ attitudes toward knowledge 

components, managerial competencies, teaching methods, and examination 

methods. We used “knowledge components” instead of courses because a 

knowledge point may be covered in several courses. We compiled a list of 26 

knowledge components taught in public administration and public policy 

courses in China, Singapore, and the United States, drawing heavily on Holzer 

and Lin’s study of MPA curricula in the United States (Holzer & Lin, 2007), 

NASPAA’s accreditation guidelines (NASPAA, 2008), China’s National MPA 

Education Steering Committee guidelines (NMESC, 2000), and NTU’s EMPA 

curriculum (see Table 2). 

For managerial competencies, we relied on models developed by Quinn, 

Faerman, Thompson, McGrath, and Clair (2006) and Whetten and Cameron 

(2006). We grouped 15 selected competencies into four categories: intrapersonal 

competence, analytical reasoning competence, interpersonal competence, and 

group management competence (see Table 3). 

For teaching methods, we asked respondents to rank seven widely used 

teaching methods: formal structured-lecture teaching, case studies, group 

project and presentation, class discussion led by professors, peer discussions, role 

playing, and site visiting. For examination methods, MPA/EMPA students were 

asked which of seven examination methods they preferred: closed-book exam, 

open-book exam, term paper, take-home exam, and other types of exam methods 

appropriate for specific subjects. 

Findings 

As shown in Table 1, EMPA and MPA respondents were quite different in 

their demographic characteristics. MPA students were much younger than the 

EMPA students. Among MPA students, 54% were 30 years of age or younger; 

one EMPA respondent was less than 30 years old. In the United States, there is 

also an age differential between MPA and EMPA students, but it is not nearly 

as pronounced as that in China. Among the schools responding to the 2006 



NASPAA survey referred to earlier, the average student enrolled in their executive 

education programs for public service professionals was over 30 years of age 

compared with 27 years of age for the average student enrolled in a traditional 

MPA program (NASPAA, 2006). Of the responding schools, 70% “estimated 

the average age of the Executive Masters students between 36–45 years old” 

(NASPAA 2006, p. 4). 

Table 1. 

Demographic Characteristics of EMPA and MPA Respondents 

Characteristic EMPA MPA 

Age 20–30 1 (1.7%) 86 (53.6%) 

31–40 28 (48.3%) 69 (43.1%) 

41–50 29 (50.0%) 5 (3.1%) 

Gender Female 7 (12.1%) 78 (45.9%) 

Male 51 (87.9%) 92 (54.1%) 

Position* Ke 5 (8.6%) 77 (56.2%) 

Chu 45 (77.6%) 20 (14.6%) 

Ting 6 (10.3%) 0 

Other 2 (3.5%) 40 (29.2%) 

Tenure Less than 1 year 0 5 (2.8%) 

1–5 years 2 (3.5%) 66 (36.7%) 

6–10 years 10 (17.2%) 68 (37.8%) 

11–15 years 22 (37.9%) 30 (16.7%) 

More than 15 years 24 (41.4%) 11 (6.1%) 

*In China’s public administration system, the bureaucratic ranks are provincial/ ministerial level 

(Sheng), divisional/municipal level (Ting), departmental level (Chu), and office level (Ke). 



The EMPA students in the Nanyang EMPA were much more likely to 

be male than were MPA students in Chinese universities: 88% of the EMPA 

students compared with 54% in the MPA programs. This, to a large degree, 

reflects the different gender composition in lower-level versus senior-level 

public officials in China. The gender proportions differ, however, from those 

in EMPA programs in the United States, where 50% of EMPA students 

in the schools responding to the 2006 NASPAA survey were male and 50% 

were female (NASPAA, 2006). Similar to China, this is generally reflective of 

women’s representation in government in the United States. In 2009, 

women comprised approximately 46% of state and local government 

employees in the United Statesand 44% of all federal government employees 

(U.S. EEOC, 2009). 

As would be expected given the age differential between the two groups 

of Chinese students, EMPA respondents had several more years of work 

experience than did MPA students. More than three times as many EMPA 

students (79%) had 10 or more years of work experience when compared with 

MPA respondents (23%). 

Chinese MPA and EMPA students also differed with respect to their 

positions in government bureaucracies. Within China’s public administration 

system, the bureaucratic ranks are provincial/ministerial level (Sheng), 

divisional/municipal level (Ting), departmental level (Chu), and office level 

(Ke). 5 Among MPA respondents to our survey, only 15% were at Chu or 

higher, compared with 78% of EMPA respondents. Among the EMPA 

students, six were at the Ting level; none of the MPA respondents had 

attained this rank. 

The following sections examine the impact of these demographic 

differences on the preferences of MPA and EMPA students related to 

knowledge components, teaching methods, and examination methods. 

Knowledge Components 

In Table 2, we show the preferences of EMPA and MPA students for 

knowledge competencies in terms of the mean score of each competency. 



Table 2. 

Perceived Preferences for Knowledge Components of EMPA and MPA Respondents 

Rank EMPA Students Mean MPA Students Mean 

1 Macroeconomics 2.91 Public human resource management 2.54 

2 Microeconomics 2.85 Communication in public settings 2.54 

3 Public policy theory 2.79 Leadership 2.45 

4 Economic development policy 2.79 Chinese government and politics 2.45 

5 Leadership 2.76 Public policy theory 2.45 

6 Chinese government and politics 2.71 Program performance management 2.44 

7 Communication in public settings 2.69 Constitutional and administrative law 2.4 

8 Public budgeting/financial management 2.63 Economic development policy 2.39 

9 International finance and trade 2.62 Public organization theory 2.38 

10 Program performance management 2.61 Public budgeting/financial management 2.33 

11 Education policy 2.60 Qualitative research methods 2.33 

12 Public organization theory 2.57 Administrative ethics and anticorruption 2.32 

13 Administrative ethics and anticorruption 2.56 International/comparative public administration 2.32 

14 Information technology and e-government 2.56 Macroeconomics 2.31 

15 Urban planning 2.55 Quantitative research methods (statistics) 2.31 

16 Public health policy 2.53 Information technology and e-government 2.31 

17 Environmental policy 2.52 Microeconomics 2.25 

18 Public human resource management 2.52 American government and politics 2.20 

19 International/comparative administration 2.51 International finance and trade* 2.20 

20 Constitutional and administrative law 2.50 Nonprofit organization management 2.20 

21 Nonprofit organization management 2.46 Public-private partnership 2.17 

22 Energy policy 2.41 Public health policy 2.17 

23 Public-private partnership 2.39 Environmental policy 2.13 

24 American government and politics 2.38 Energy policy 2.12 

25 Qualitative research methods 2.31 Education policy 2.12 

26 Quantitative research methods (statistics) 2.30 Urban planning 2.10 

Note. Students were asked to show their preferences for the usefulness of knowledge components using a 3-point scale (1 = not that useful, 2 = somewhat 

useful, 3 = very useful). The mean was calculated as the average of student responses. The same mean score for competencies with different ranking is 

due to rounding to two decimal places. 



Among MPA students, human resource management was the most preferred 

knowledge component; EMPA students ranked it 18th of the 26 components. 

Among EMPA students, macroeconomics and microeconomics were the most 

preferred knowledge components, while MPA students ranked them 14th and 

17th, respectively. The high ranking by EMPA respondents for economics 

reflects the emphasis on economic development in China. For the past 30 years, 

administrative performance in promoting local economic development has been 

the most important factor determining senior public officials’ promotion and 

career progress in China (Zhou, 2007). 

Although both EMPA and MPA respondents showed lower preferences for 

analytical methods (both qualitative and quantitative) than other knowledge 

components, EMPA respondents were more likely to consider analytical methods 

unimportant than were MPA respondents. Both qualitative and quantitative 

research methods were ranked the lowest of all knowledge components by EMPA 

students. Several EMPA students told us that as senior-level administrators in 

their agencies or jurisdictions, their responsibility is to make decisions and not 

to collect and analyze data. They do not see any practical relevance of analytical 

methods in their positions (Zhao, personal communication, Dec. 8, 2009). 

Quantitative and qualitative teaching methods, however, are not only about 

data collection and technical analyses. They inform sound decision making and 

strategic planning. The problem here may not be about whether we have to teach 

research methods, but about how we show their relevancy. 

Except for economic development policy (ranked 4th), EMPA students 

ranked policy areas such as education policy (11th), environmental policy 

(17th), energy policy (22nd), and public health policy (16th) lower than other 

knowledge components. The apparent lack of interest in any specific policy 

area (i.e., the generalist orientation of senior-level officials) may be explained by 

the human resource policy adopted by the Chinese government. Senior public 

officials are often rotated or promoted to different agencies, even to different 

jurisdictions, that involve different functions from their previous positions. They 

thus perceive general knowledge and skills in leadership, decision making, and 

policy making and implementation to be more important than knowledge or 

techniques in a specific policy area. One EMPA student told us that “the scope 

of knowledge is much more important for us than the depth of knowledge” 

(Huang, personal interview, Dec. 11, 2009). 

Our findings also show that both MPA and EMPA students perceive 

international/ comparative administration as relatively unimportant, but 

EMPA students see it as even less important than do MPA students. This 

knowledge component was ranked 19th by EMPA students and 13th by 

MPA students. The knowledge component, American government and politics, 

was ranked 18th by EMPA students and 24th by MPA students. Instead, 

EMPA and MPA students both expressed strong interest in learning more 

about Chinese politics and government (ranked 6th and 4th, respectively). 

Three factors explain these rankings. 



First, although in the past 30 years China has achieved rapid economic 

development by adopting its “Reform and Opening-up” policy, the nation’s 

internationalization and openness are generally limited to international finance 

and trade and foreign investment in the regions located along the east coast. 

For most of the public officials working elsewhere in China, their focus and 

responsibilities are still internally oriented. 

Second, a prevailing public discourse in China is that because of its 

unique history, culture, and current economic and social development, foreign 

practices—particularly public administration practice in the United States—may 

not be applicable. According to our interviews and personal observations, this 

sentiment was ubiquitous. 

Third, because humanities and social science education were ignored in 

China before the 1980s due to a variety of political factors, most of the EMPA 

students in the survey had relatively limited knowledge of Chinese history, 

political science, public administration, and law. Their on-the-job training has 

focused primarily on specific technical and administrative issues and political 

doctrine. Thus they would like an understanding and a broader picture of the 

intricacy of Chinese politics and the operation of Chinese government at all 

levels. More important, because of the “group thinking” practiced by Chinese 

governments, media, and Internet management (Donald, Keane, & Hong, 

2002), Chinese public officials are more interested in learning about different 

opinions and perspectives on Chinese politics and government than about 

foreign practices. 

We also found that although democratization and rule of law are considered 

crucial by experts for China’s long-term sustainable economic development (Yao, 

2010), the ranking by EMPA students (20th) on the knowledge component 

of “constitutions and administrative law” shows that the importance of 

democratization and rule of law has not been commonly recognized by Chinese 

senior public service administrators. 

Managerial Competencies 

Similar to knowledge components, we found differences between EMPA 

and MPA respondents in their perceptions of the importance of managerial 

competencies. In Table 3, we show the rankings of the perceived importance 

of managerial competencies for both groups of students. EMPA students were 

more likely to emphasize analytical reasoning competencies (strategic thinking 

and planning and the ability to apply theory to problem analysis), while 

MPA students were more likely to prefer group management competence and 

interpersonal competence (working in teams, motivating others, and managing 

conflicts). This disparity may be explained by the different professional 

responsibilities of the two groups. 



Table 3. 

Perceived Preferences for Managerial Competencies of EMPA and MPA Respondents 

Rank EMPA Students Mean MPA Students Mean 

Strategic thinking and planning 

Working in teams 

1 

2.84 

2.59 

(Analytical Reasoning Competence) (Group Management Competence) 

Ability to apply theory 

Creativity 

2 

2.80 

2.59 

(Analytical Reasoning Competence) (Analytical Reasoning Competence) 

Creativity 

Motivating others 

3 

2.78 

2.58 

(Analytical Reasoning Competence) (Interpersonal Competence) 

Negotiation 

Managing conflict 

4 

2.76 

2.57 

(Interpersonal Competence) (Interpersonal Competence) 

Motivating others 

Strategic thinking and planning 

5 

2.74 

2.56 

(Interpersonal Competence) (Analytical Reasoning Competence) 

Managing conflict 

Negotiation 

6 

2.73 

2.56 


Oral communication 

Oral communication 

7 

2.69 

2.56 


Understanding the external environment 

Ability to apply theory 

8 

2.66 

2.54 


Critical thinking 

Written communication 

9 

2.65 

2.52 

(Analytical Reasoning Competence) (Analytical Reasoning Competence) 

Working in teams 

Taking initiatives 

10 

2.65 

2.49 

(Group Management Competence) (Interpersonal Competence) 

Leading people 

Understanding the external environment 

11 

2.64 

2.49 

(Group Management Competence) (Interpersonal Competence) 

Written communication 

Leading people 

12 

2.62 

2.48 

(Analytical Reasoning Competence) (Group Management Competence) 

Taking initiatives 

Critical thinking 

13 

2.60 

2.48 


Managing time and stress 

Managing time and stress 

14 

2.57 

2.46 

(Intrapersonal Competence) (Intrapersonal Competence) 

Giving presentations 

Giving presentations 

15 

2.57 

2.46 


Note. Students were asked to show their preferences for managerial competencies using a 3-point scale (1 = not that useful, 2 = somewhat useful, 3 = very useful). 

The mean was calculated as the average of student responses. The same mean score for competencies with different ranking is because of the rounding to two decimal places. 



As discussed earlier, EMPA students hold management or institutional 

level positions in their organizations. They are thus responsible for designing 

organizational rules and procedures, allocating organizational resources, and 

dealing with the interaction between organizations and their environment. 

They make decisions and are held accountable for the consequences of their 

decisions. Therefore, analytical reasoning competencies such as strategic thinking 

and planning and the ability to apply theory to problem analysis are considered 

important by EMPA students. 

In contrast, most MPA students in China hold positions in lower levels 

of government and are primarily responsible for implementing decisions and 

policies made by senior management. They thus need skills about how to work 

within a team and cooperate with team members to accomplish their missions. 

We also found that while both groups rank creativity as an important 

competency for their career development—EMPA students ranked it third, and 

MPA students 13th—they did not see the same level of importance for critical 

thinking. The tension between creativity and critical thinking among Chinese 

EMPA students and MPA students, in some sense, reflects the conflicts between 

traditional administrative culture, education, ways of governance, and the rapid 

changes of political, social, and economic landscapes in contemporary China. 

On the one hand, the increasing problems arising in the process of 

urbanization and democratization in China require public officials to come up 

with new ideas and devise new policy tools. On the other hand, values such as 

obedience, rote learning, government secrecy, traditional administrative culture, 

and education have long-lasting effects on Chinese public officials (Nussbaum, 

2010; Piotrowski, Zhang, Yu, & Lin, 2009). 

One finding that needs to be further explored is that both groups of 

students ranked “giving presentations” as the least important managerial 

competency (both ranked it 15th). A possible explanation could be the difference 

between Western and Chinese cultures. In Western culture, effectively reporting 

performance to stakeholders is considered an important part of managerial 

competence. In the Chinese culture, “speak less and do more” is a moral 

imperative for public officials (Casimir & Waldman, 2007). 

Teaching Methods 

In Table 4, we compare the rankings of MPA and EMPA students of seven 

teaching methods used in public administration education. In general, our findings 

show that EMPA students were more likely to prefer formal, structured lectures and 

less likely to favor peer discussions than were MPA students. EMPA students told us 

that while they have been working in government for a long time, they are rarely 

trained in public administration and public policy. With very tight schedules, 

it would be difficult for them to find additional time to systematically learn 

about public administration and policy. They preferred to take advantage of 



the opportunity to learn from teaching materials, assigned articles, and lectures 

rather than participating in discussions with other students (Wang & Li, personal 

communication, Jan. 5, 2009). In contrast, MPA students prefer to learn from the 

experiences of their peers and are more open to interactive teaching methods. 

Several EMPA students also told us that they did not like the group projects 

approach to teaching, because it is time consuming and presents the “free-rider 

problem.” Some of them told us that some senior officials took advantage of 

classmates with lower ranks and did not contribute to their group projects. They 

believe that performance evaluation based on group projects is unfair and does 

not reflect individual efforts and performance (Huang, Zhao, & Wu, personal 

communication, Jan. 5, 2009). 

Table 4. 

Teaching Method Preferences of EMPA and MPA Respondents 

Rank EMPA Students Mean MPA Students Rank 

1 Case studies 3.43 Case studies 3.34 

2 

Formal structured-lecture 

teaching 

3.18 

Class discussions led 

by professors 

3.29 

3 Site visiting 3.16 Site visiting 3.29 

4 

5 

Class discussions led 

by professors 

Group projects and 

presentations 

3.08 

Group projects 

and presentations 

3.22 

2.95 Role playing 3.16 

6 Role playing 2.89 Peer discussions 3.07 

7 Peer discussions 2.69 

Formal structuredlecture 

teaching 

Note. Students were asked to rank seven teaching methods in terms of their effectiveness using a 7-point 

scale (from 1 = the most effective to 7 = the least effective). The same mean score for teaching methods 

with different ranking is due to rounding to two decimal places. 

2.70 

Examination Methods 

Table 5 shows that EMPA students preferred open-book tests and term 

papers. MPA students showed much more flexibility in examination methods; 

close to one third had no preference. Although closed-book exams were the 

least preferred examination method, 8% of the EMPA respondents selected the 

closed-book test as their preferred examination method, while none of the MPA 

students did so. Linking this finding with those concerning teaching methods 



would seem to indicate that the traditional Chinese teaching and learning 

methods emphasizing rote learning and structured teaching have a stronger 

influence on older Chinese public officials than on the younger generation 

(Infeld & Li, 2009; Nussbaum, 2010). 

Table 5. 

Examination Methods Preferences of EMPA and MPA Respondents 

Rank EMPA Students Percentage MPA Students Percentage 

1 Open-book exams 39.3% 

It depends on the type 

of course 

31.7% 

2 Term papers 23.0 Open-book exams 28.3 

3 

It depends on the 

type of course 

19.7 Take-home exams 24.9 

4 Take-home exams 9.8 Term papers 15.1 

5 Closed-book exams 8.2 Closed-book exams 0 

Note. The percentages indicate the proportions of students who chose the examination method as 

their favorite. 

Summary and Conclusions 

EMPA education is the next growth area for public administration education 

in China. In establishing an EMPA program, an important question is how to 

distinguish it from a regular MPA program. We tried to answer this question 

based on (a) our surveys of MPA students in six universities in China and 

students in the EMPA program at NTU; (b) focus group discussions with 

Chinese EMPA students at NTU; and (c) interviews of deans of five prestigious 

schools of public administration in China. We found that the demographic 

differences between the MPA and EMPA students influence their preferences in 

relation to knowledge components, managerial competencies, and teaching and 

examination methods. 

Our study shows that Chinese EMPA students have a very strong interest 

in micro- and macroeconomics and in international trade and finance, areas not 

always stressed in traditional MPA programs. Chinese EMPA students showed 

a lack of interest in constitutions and administrative law, which constitute the 

spirit of public administration and are at the core of public administration 

education worldwide (Frederickson, 2004; Rosenbloom, 2005). Moreover, 



Chinese EMPA students showed strong interest in Chinese government and 

politics rather than in comparative public administration, a subject area that 

has long been advocated by many public administration scholars and educators 

(Dahl, 1947; Jreisat, 2005; Peters, 2001). Both EMPA and MPA students 

expressed their disinterest in research methods that are considered to be 

important for public administrators and policy makers (McNabb, 2002; Meier, 

Brudney, & Bohte, 2008). 

In terms of teaching and examination methods, the finding that Chinese 

EMPA students prefer the “hard” teaching and examination approaches instead 

of peer discussions and group projects reveals that for most senior Chinese public 

administrators, pursuing an EMPA degree probably is a “catch-up activity.” They 

prefer hard examination approaches because they believe that those methods 

are fairer and more efficient. These senior officials are influenced by traditional 

Confucianism and the idea of meritocracy in which having a good exam score 

“saves face” and provides better promotion opportunities. 

In general, our findings suggest that an EMPA program developed for 

Chinese public officials consider the following recommendations: 

1. Emphasize the practical relevance of an EMPA degree. 

2. Balance internationalization and localization. 

3. Educate generalists rather than experts in specific policy fields. 

4. Cultivate critical thinking. 

5. Emphasize the uses of research, and demonstrate how quantitative 

and qualitative research methods can inform decision making. 

6. Use formal structured lectures, and pay special attention to free-rider 

problems that may occur in group projects. 

7. Use exams (closed book and open book) and term papers as primary 

examination methods to evaluate students’ academic performance. 

We acknowledge, however, that EMPA program curricula and pedagogy 

cannot be developed based solely on the perspectives of current students and 

educators. EMPA program development must also consider the perspectives of 

other stakeholders such as government agencies and nonprofit organizations. 

While there is no body of literature that speaks to these perspectives, Holmes 

states in her seminal article on Executive MPA programs that assessing their 

value “usually turns to defining critical competencies necessary for executive 

leadership in the public sector” (Holmes, 2006, p. 3). 

The research presented in this paper has opened the dialogue for identifying 

critical competencies for EMPA programs in China. The next step in our 

research is to survey EMPA degree holders from NTU—most of whom 

hold high positions in all levels of government in China––to ascertain their 

perspectives on competencies necessary for effective leadership in public service. 

Research is also needed to assess the value of an EMPA degree in China 

and elsewhere. Again, there is no body of literature that speaks to this topic, 



but testimonials from EMPA program graduates in the United States provide 

anecdotal evidence as to the positive value of their degree. 6 Most are employed 

by—and many are in charge of—government agencies and nonprofit 

organizations in the United States. And NASPAA’s Executive MPA Committee 

“is actively pursuing additional opportunities to…articulate the value of 

Executive MPA programs” (NASPAA, 2011b). 

Assessments undertaken to identify the value of the Executive MBA 

(EMBA) can inform research concerning the value of the EMPA to graduates 

and its contribution to improving the provision of public services. For example, 

satisfaction indicators such as that developed by the Executive MBA Council 

to measure the importance of the EMBA to business school alumni (Executive 

MBA Council, 2011) could be used to assess the value of the EMPA to program 

graduates. Surveys such as those conducted by the Wall Street Journal to assess 

company satisfaction with EMBA graduates (Dizik, 2008) could be used to 

gauge the value of the EMPA degree to public service providers. 

In closing, we also suggest that EMPA programs focused on Chinese 

public officials take advantage of the invaluable socialization process that can 

be derived from program participation, not only equipping students with 

practical management strategies and techniques and cultivating their managerial 

competencies but also stressing the need to “think outside of the box”; the 

willingness to challenge entrenched stereotypes and assumptions; and, most 

important, the examination of constitutional and democratic values. 

Although Chinese EMPA students are very practically oriented and may seek 

only the knowledge and skills that they think will help them address immediate 

management issues, they also need to understand (a) that the raison d’être of 

public organizations is to pursue democratic values as well as administrative 

efficiencies, and (b) the importance of the rule of law for China’s political and 

economic reforms. Incorporating these values into EMPA programs will not 

only help Chinese students move ahead in their careers but also help promote 

excellence in China’s public service. 

However, despite the support for EMPA degree programs by China’s 

National MPA Education Steering Committee and the strong demand from 

practitioners for developing these programs, it may take several years for such 

programs to emerge in China. One reason for this delay is that the Organization 

Departments of the Chinese Communist Party at various levels of government 

have concerns that changing admission MPA admissions policies, such as 

replacing the entrance exam with interviews and other “softer” methods, would 

compromise the quality of the MPA education and could encourage highranking 

public officials to use various methods to influence admission decisions 

(Chen, personal communication, Dec. 20, 2009). A second reason might be that 

MPA education, in general, is still under development in China and pretty much 

a “foreign thing.” Just as in other realms of administrative reform, the tensions 



between internationalization and localization (i.e., how to balance Western 

culture, values, and ideologies with traditional Chinese culture and socialist 

ideology), cause concern among many Chinese public administration educators 

and Chinese governments. This is especially true given that most public officials 

are Communist Party members (Yang, 2005). When EMPA programs are 

established in China, however, an appropriate education model that is able to 

address these tensions is needed. We hope that lessons learned from NTU’s 

EMPA program will inform efforts by Chinese universities as well as universities 

outside of China to educate experienced public officials. 

Footnotes 

1 Before 2001, the master’s degree in public administration in China was called the Master of 

Administration. For more details, see Yang (2005). 

2 NASPAA is the institutional membership organization in the United States that promotes 

excellence in public service education. Its membership includes U.S. university programs in 

public affairs, public policy, public administration, and nonprofit management as well as selected 

programs outside of the United States. 

3 In China, some individuals working for public institutions are not part of the civil service system 

and therefore are not considered to be civil servants (Gongwuyuan). 

4 Most of NTU’s EMPA courses are four credits, but some electives are three credits. 

5 The Chinese administrative system has five layers: the central government (Zhongyang), provinces 

(Sheng), centrally controlled municipalities (Zhixiashi), and special administrative regions 

including Hong Kong and Macau (Tebiexingzhengqu), municipalities (Shi), counties (Xian) and 

townships (Xiang). 

6 See, for example, EMPA student testimonials from Columbia School of International and Public 

Affairs (Columbia, 2011) and from the Evans School of Public Affairs at Washington University 

(Evans, 2011). 

References 

Aristigueta, M. P. (2002). Tools, techniques, and uses for performance measurement. Journal of Public 

Affairs Education, 8(1), 83–88. 

Brown, M. M., Brudney, J. L., Waugh Jr., W. L., & Hy, R. J. (2000). Graduate education technology in 

the public sector: The need and response. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information 

systems (pp. 9–25). New York: Marcel Dekker. 

Casimir, G., & Waldman, D. (2007). A cross cultural comparison of the importance of leadership traits 

for effective low-level and high-level leaders. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 

7(1), 47–60. 

Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. (2011). Executive MPA testimonials from current 

students and alumni. Retrieved from www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degree_programs/empa/ 

testamonials.html 



Dahl, R. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration 

Review, 7(1), 1–11. 

Denhardt, R. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public 


Dizik, A. (2008, September 28). Executive MBA programs: Are they worth it? Wall Street Journal. 

Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122245000101279341.html 

Donald, S., Keane, M., & Hong, Y. (2002). Media in China: Consumption, content and crisis. 

New York: Routledge. 

Dong, K. (2010, June). The challenges and opportunities of MPA education worldwide. Paper 

presented at the Sino–U.S. conference on Public Administration, Fujian: Xiamen. 

Evans School of Public Affairs. (2012). Executive MPA alumni profiles. Retrieved from http:// 

evans.washington.edu/executive-education/mpa/profiles 

Executive MBA Council. (2011). Research/return on investment. Retrieved from http://www. 

emba.org/research_corp_roi.htm 

Frederickson, H. G. (2004). The Journal of Public Affairs Education at age 10: History, content, 

and prospects. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(2), 83–89. 

Holmes, M. H. (2006). Executive MPA curriculum models. NASPAA. Retrieved from www.naspaa. 

org/execMPA/doc/Executive_MPA_Curriculum_Models.pdf 

Holzer, M., & Lin, W. (2007). A longitudinal perspective on MPA education in the United States. 


Infeld, D. L., & Li, W. (2009). Teaching public administration as a Fulbright Scholar in China: 

Analysis and reflections. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 333–347. 

Jennings, E. T. (1989). Accountability, program quality, outcome assessment, and graduate 

education for public affairs and administration. Public Administration Review, 49(5), 

438–446. 

Jreisat, J. E. (2005). Comparative public administration is back in, prudently. Public 


Ma, J., & Liu, Y. (2007). Identity crisis in Chinese public administration. Journal of Renmin 

University of China, 4, 8–12. 

McCaffery, J. (1992). Teaching budgeting: An agenda for the 1990s. In J. Rabin (Ed.), Handbook 

of public budgeting (pp. 125–146). New York: Marcel Dekker. 

McNabb, D. E. (2002). Research methods in public administration and nonprofit management: 

Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 

Meier, K. J., Brudney, J. L., & Bohte, J. (2008). Applied statistics for public and nonprofit 

administration. Boston: Wadsworth. 

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2006). 

Sector survey of executive education programs for public service professionals. Retrieved from 

http://216.119.97.87/execMPA/doc/2006ExecEduSurveyReport.pdf 



———. (2007). List of public affairs executive education programs. Retrieved from www.naspaa.org/ 

execMPA/find.asp 

———. (2008). NASPAA STANDARDS 2009: Defining quality in public affairs education. Retrieved 

from www.naspaa.org/accreditation/standard2009/docs/NS2009Standards03.26.08.pdf 

———. (2011a). Executive master of public administration career center. Retrieved from www.naspaa. 

org/execMPA/index.asp 

———. (2011b). Executive MPA center: For executive MPA directors. Retrieved from www.naspaa.org/ 

execMPA/director.asp 

NMESC. (2000). Explanations to several issues about the guidelines of educational plans for MPA 

degree program. Retrieved from www.mpa.org.cn/displaynews1.asp?id=76 

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010, July). The ugly models. The New Republic. Retrieved from www.tnr.com/ 

article/politics/75973/the-ugly-models 

Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy (5th ed.). London: Routledge. 

Piotrowski, S. J., Zhang, Y., Yu, W., & Lin, W. (2009). Key issues for implementation of Chinese open 

government information regulations. Public Administration Review, 69, S129–S135. 

Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., McGrath, M. M., & Clair, L. S. S. (2006). Becoming 

a master manager: A competing values approach (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 

Rosenbloom, D. H. (2005). Taking social equity seriously in MPA education. Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, 11(3), 247–252. 

Tong, C. H., & Straussman, J. D. (2003). A master of public administration degree with Chinese 

characteristics? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9(2), 105–116. 

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2009). Job patterns for minorities 

and women in state and local governments (EEO-4), 2009. Retrieved from www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/ 

statistics/employment/jobpat-eeo4/2009/table1/table1.html 

Ventriss, C. (1991). Contemporary issues in American public administration education: The search for 

an educational focus. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 4–14. 

Whetton, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. 2006. Developing management skills (7th ed.). New York: 

Prentice Hall. 

Wu, W. (2007, November). Keep pace with time: Curriculum setting in the “Major’s Class” at Nanyang 

Technological University. Paper presented at the International Conference on Degree Education for 

Public Servants, Macau, China. 

Xue, L., Peng, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2002). Public administration and China’s development. Management 

World, 2, 43–55. 

Yang, K. (2005). Globalization and public affairs education: The case of China. Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, 11(2), 105–120. 

Yao, Y. (2010). The end of Beijing consensus. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from www.foreignaffairs.com/ 

articles/65947/the-end-of-the-beijing-consensus 



Ye, L., Sun, J., & Wu, X. (2009). Toward successful overseas training for Chinese public officials. 


Zhou, L. (2007). Governing China’s local officials: An analysis of promotion tournament model. 

Economic Research Journal, 7, 37–49. 

Zhu, L. (2008). MPA education in the process of China’s reform and open-up. China Higher 

Education Research, 10, 35–38. 

Wenxuan Yu is an assistant professor of Public Administration in the School of 

Humanities and Social Sciences at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. 

He received his doctorate in public administration from Rutgers University– 

Newark. He is the incumbent Chair of the Chinese Public Administration 

Section of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). His research 

interests include public sector performance management, citizen participation, 

e-government, comparative public administration, and public affairs education. 

E-mail: wxyu@ntu.edu.sg 

Marilyn Marks Rubin is a professor of Public Administration and Economics 

at John Jay College of the City of New York, where she teaches courses in 

Fiscal Policy, Economics, and Research Methods and is director of the College’s 

MPA Program. She has served as a technical advisor to several universities 

outside of the United States in their efforts to establish MPA programs as well 

as to the Korean Women’s Development Institute on gender budgeting and 

the government of Thailand on performance evaluation. She is a fellow in the 

National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and a Fulbright Senior 

Specialist. E-mail: mrubin@jjay.cuny.edu 

Wei Wu is an associate professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences 

at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is Director of Nanyang 

Centre for Public Administration and Director of China Affairs Office of 

Nanyang Technological University. His research interests include leadership, 

public communication, crisis management, and public affairs education. 

Email: wwu@ntu.edu.sg 


Teaching Collaborative Governance: 

Phases, Competencies, and 

Case-Based Learning 

Ricardo S. Morse and John B. Stephens 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Abstract 

Collaborative governance is becoming a primary motif in public administration 

research and practice. There is widespread recognition of the need to 

develop leaders for collaborative governance, yet clear guidelines or standard 

operating procedures are elusive. However, while the literature is varied, a 

broad model of collaboration phases is distinguishable and core competencies 

are emerging. This article outlines a four-phase model of collaborative 

governance and corresponding competencies to help ground education and 

training for collaborative governance. The application of this approach to case 

teaching is demonstrated by repurposing a readily available teaching case. 

The field of public administration has undergone a shift in emphasis over the 

last two decades. Whereas public administration has traditionally been somewhat 

synonymous with government bureaucracy, that is no longer the case. An emphasis 

on hierarchy, command-and-control, and top-down management has given way to 

an emphasis on networks and collaboration (O’Leary & Bingham, 2009; Osborne, 

2010). Indeed, the notion of the public agency as Weberian hierarchy is being 

supplanted by images of blurred or “fuzzy” boundaries, and of networks as key 

links between governance and government (Kettl, 2002; Kettl & Goldsmith, 2009). 

While organizational management still matters and bureaucracy persists, 

public managers and public administration scholars realize that the public’s work 

is increasingly accomplished through a variety of initiatives and relationships 

that cross organizational boundaries. The overarching label that is increasingly 

used to describe this new paradigm is collaborative governance. The term may 

be seen as an outgrowth of an expanded notion of “governance” that provides 

the intellectual superstructure for the new paradigm (Osborne, 2010). George 

Frederickson explained that the concept of governance “performs a kind of 

rhetorical distancing of public administration from politics, government, and 

JPAE 18(3), 565–584 


R. S. Morse & J. B. Stephens 

bureaucracy” (1997, p. 78). Governance is more than government; it is the 

combined efforts of all sectors in the “steering” of society. Governance “describes 

the processes and institutions through which social action occurs, which might 

or might not be governmental” (Kettl, 2002, p. 119). 

Collaborative is added as a modifier to governance to emphasize the 

nature of the process by which the various societal actors engage in collective 

action. Collaborative governance is often used to describe how public agencies 

partner with non-state stakeholders in the process of solving public problems 

or otherwise creating public value (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson, Crosby, & 

Stone, 2006). However, collaborative governance also often involves partnerships 

between public agencies and may incorporate interagency and intergovernmental 

partnerships as well (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). 

Collaborative governance is thus an umbrella term 1 that encompasses 

various interweaving strands of public administration scholarship including 

intergovernmental and interagency collaboration, regionalism, cross-sector 

partnerships, public service networks (or simply network studies), consensus 

building, and public engagement. As such, it is more of a broad frame or motif 

for public administration rather than a singular model or framework. There is no 

theory of collaborative governance per se. 

While some offer models and guidelines, collaborative governance eschews 

POSDCORB-like straightforwardness. There are many models and frameworks 

and many vantage points from which to approach collaborative governance. 

It is a complex and contingent body of thought. Yet there is an unquestioned 

recognition in public administration and related fields that practitioners in the 

public sector need to be better equipped to manage and lead in a world of shared 

power, that is, within the context of collaborative governance. 

The aim of this article is to contribute to the question of how to develop 

collaborative competencies in current and future public practitioners. 2 We specifically 

examine what we need to teach in terms of collaborative governance. We review 

the relevant literature and present a four-phase model of and competencies 

for collaborative governance. We then provide a demonstration of how the 

four-phase model and competencies can be used in one of the most common 

teaching tools in public affairs, the case study. The potential of cases for teaching 

collaborative competencies are often not fully realized because of their “hindsight 

is 20/20” presentation. When teaching collaborative governance, cases ought 

to emphasize thinking through contingencies, as the subjects in the cases did. 

While collaborative governance is complex and contingent, the process 

itself can be understood in terms of broad phases and decisions that must be 

made within those phases. Because of this, a prospective use of case studies, where 

the action is stopped periodically so learners can assess progress and consider 

adaptations, offers significant advantages over the more common 

retrospective design. 


Teaching Collaborative Governance 

Collaborative Governance—Phases and Competencies 

In this section, phases of and competencies for collaborative governance are 

examined. While the literature on collaborative governance is still very much in 

flux (and is likely to continue to be so for the foreseeable future), a broad model 

of collaborative process in terms of phases or stages is emerging, while at the 

same time a set of collaborative competencies is coalescing. 

Phases of Collaborative Governance 

In the literature, both academic and more applied, there are many attempts 

to characterize or model processes of collaborative governance. The different 

models and frameworks demonstrate, for the most part, important consistencies. 

While each may have a different emphasis (descriptive versus normative, for 

example), and each speak to slightly different audiences, they all paint a very 

similar picture of what collaborative governance looks like. 

Talking about collaborative process in terms of broad stages or phases is 

common in the literature. For example, Carlson (2007) outlines the tasks of 

leaders in collaborative governance based on what they do “before, during, 

and after.” Chrislip’s Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook (2002) breaks down 

collaborative tasks along the lines of “getting started, setting up for success, 

working together, and moving to action.” Jeffrey Luke (1998) speaks in 

terms of “raising awareness, forming working groups, creating strategies, and 

sustaining action.” These and other discussions of collaboration and collaborative 

leadership share strong consistencies with one another, suggesting widespread 

agreement around conceptualizing collaboration in terms of broad phases with 

corresponding competencies. Table 1 presents a synthesized four-phase model 

of collaborative governance, drawing on the models mentioned earlier as well 

as several other sources, including Ansell & Gash (2008), Bryson et al. (2006), 

Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson, & Stuart, (1996), Gray (1989), Linden 

(2002, 2010), Straus (2002), Susskind & Thomas-Larmer (1999), Winer & Ray 

(1994), and Wondolleck & Yaffee (2000). 

Table 1. 

Phases of Collaborative Governance 

Assessment Initiation Deliberation Implementation 

Is collaboration necessary? 

Are preconditions 

in place? 

Who are the 

stakeholders? 

Who might fill key roles 

(sponsor, convener, and 

facilitator)? 

How to frame 

the issue? 

How to engage 

stakeholders? 

Who/what else 

is needed? 

What kind of 

process? 

How to develop effective 

working group? 

What ground rules? 

How to invent options 

and decide? 

How to facilitate 

mutual learning? 

Who will do what? 

How to broaden 

support? 

What kind of 

governance structure? 

How to monitor 

progress? 



The first phase of collaborative governance involves assessment. This phase 

deals with initial conditions that greatly affect the likelihood of partnership 

success and an assessment of whether collaboration is necessary and possible. 

This phase includes 

• understanding contextual factors such as a history of cooperation 

and other institutional incentives or constraints (Ansell & Gash, 

2008; Bryson et al., 2006); 

• identifying stakeholders (Chrislip, 2002; Gray, 1989; Linden, 2010; 

Luke, 1998); 

• general agreement on the problem, or at least a sense of shared 

purpose (Bryson et al., 2006; Gray, 1989; Linden, 2010); and 

• a sense of urgency (Luke, 1998) or commitment to “pursue a 

collaborative solution now” (Linden, 2010, p. 40). 

Thus the critical function for would-be collaborative leaders is situation assessment. 

The initial conditions must be analyzed to assess whether collaboration is 

actually needed and feasible (Carlson, 2007; Carpenter, 1999; Chrislip, 2002; 

Luke, 1998; Susskind & Thomas-Larmer, 1999). 

Once it is clear that conditions necessitate collaboration and that the 

potential for collaborative success is at least somewhat favorable, the process 

moves from assessment to initiation. Process initiation involves 

• identifying convener and sponsor roles, which may involve 

identifying resources (Carlson, 2007; Chrislip, 2002; Gray, 1989; 

Bryson et al., 2006); and 

• convening stakeholders, developing a working group, and process 

design (Carlson, 2007; Chrislip, 2002; Gray, 1989, Luke, 1998). 

Whereas the assessment phase is primarily about analytical skills, process 

initiation emphasizes the “soft skills” of convening, relationship development and 

team building (Alexander, 2006). 

After initiating a process with a core group of stakeholders and gaining 

commitments to work together in some fashion, the difficult work of deliberation 

begins. Here facilitation skills come to the fore. Elements of the deliberation 

phase include 

• establishing ground rules (Gray, 1989; Luke, 1998); 

• deliberation and dialogue as part of a mutual learning process aimed 

at creating and exploring options (Gray, 1989; Luke, 1998; Ansell & 

Gash, 2008); and, ultimately, 

• reaching collaborative agreements (Carlson, 2007; Chrislip, 2002; 

Gray, 1989; Luke, 1998). 

In their discussion of intergovernmental collaboration, Agranoff and McGuire 

(2003) refer to a kind of “groupware” that is developed in successful partnerships, 

a notion that closely tracks the elements of the deliberation phase. They argue that 

this groupware entails social capital, shared learning, and negotiation (pp. 179–80). 



Once partners decide on outcomes and strategies, the collaborative process 

moves to the implementation phase (Carlson, 2007). Implementation involves a 

variety of mutually supporting components, including 

• designing governance structures (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 

2006; Gray, 1989; Luke, 1998); 

• building constituency support or finding other “champions” 

(Chrislip, 2002; Gray, 1989; Linden, 2010; Luke, 1998); and 

• monitoring agreements, evaluating outcomes, and otherwise 

managing the partnership (Chrislip, 2002; Gray, 1989; Luke, 1998). 

The implementation phase is where many partnerships flounder. Agreements 

and plans are made, but when the proverbial “rubber meets the road,” it can be 

difficult for partners to change or otherwise follow through. 

In outlining collaborative processes in this way—as four broad phases—it is 

important to acknowledge that every phase may have a porous border with its 

adjoining phases, and in practice there is often iteration between the deliberation 

and implementation phases. Additionally, there is a great deal of variation 

within each phase regarding the particular elements and ordering of events. 

Collaborative processes rarely occur in a neat, step-by-step fashion, which is why 

“systems thinking” is often identified as a meta-competency (Luke, 1998). 

Yet broad phases are discernable, and expressed in this manner each 

phase of the collaborative process emphasizes different sets of competencies. 

Assessment requires analytical skills. Initiation is about networking and 

persuasion. Deliberation involves group dynamics and other process skills. And 

implementation involves a constellation of “network management” competencies 

(Milward & Provan, 2006). We turn now to the extant literature on collaborative 

competencies. 

Collaborative Competencies 

Recently, several noteworthy efforts have been made to define the 

competencies for collaborative governance. The literature identifies numerous 

collaborative competencies 3 that generally correspond with the phases of 

collaborative governance outlined earlier. First, a general framework of 

collaborative competencies developed by a group of practitioners and scholars, 

and specifically aimed at training government officials, is presented. Next, several 

other academic and practitioner sources are reviewed. We think the recent work 

of a multi-university network on collaborative governance (described next) is 

the most useful starting point for developing a competencies-based approach to 

teaching collaborative governance. 

From 2009 to 2011, a working group of the University Network for 

Collaborative Governance (UNCG) 4 developed and refined a set of collaborative 

competencies for public managers and planners. The working group analyzed 

many diverse sources of competencies for leadership and collaboration, 

including the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Executive Core 



Competencies, the International City/County Management Association 

(ICMA), the Cooperative Extension System, and the Centre for Innovative and 

Entrepreneurial Leadership in British Columbia. 

The UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies (Emerson & Smutko, 

2011) is unusual and important for several reasons. First, it draws from diverse 

sources, from cooperative extension to federal agencies to thought leaders in the 

realm of civic engagement. Second, the working group is made up of scholars 

and practitioners from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds. Third, UNCG 

itself spans various institutions and programs, so the need to find the maximum 

overlap amid different “pracademic” orientations was important. 

The working group identified 10 primary competencies and grouped them 

into the categories of (a) leadership and management competency; (b) process 

competency; (c) analytic competency; (d) knowledge management competency; 

and (e) professional accountability competency. Specific competencies include 

the following: 

• Analytic and strategic thinking in and for collaborations 

• Negotiating agreements and managing conflict 

• Working in teams and group facilitation 

• Evaluating and adapting processes 

• Personal integrity and professional ethics 

The complete list, with detailed descriptions and assessment tools, can be found 

in the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies (Emerson & Smutko, 2011). 

The UNCG’s collaborative competencies guide is a particularly good 

resource for the reasons noted earlier, and also for further validation that has 

taken place since the draft document was first developed in 2009. At a May 

2010 conference on environmental conflict resolution, developers of the UNCG 

collaborative competencies surveyed attendees to gain feedback on the clarity and 

usefulness of the competencies. Approximately 50 responses came from federal 

agency personnel, collaboration/conflict resolution practitioners, and others 

in the field. Thus the UNCG work represents a thorough review of relevant 

sources, the insight of a cross-disciplinary team of scholars and practitioners, and 

the additional feedback of dozens more practitioners. 

Another significant effort at developing collaborative competencies is the 

Turning Point Initiative. The initiative’s purpose is to transform and strengthen 

the public health system in the United States by making it more community 

based and collaborative. 5 One result of the effort was the development of 

learning modules organized around six key principles of collaborative leadership: 

(a) assessing the environment; (b) creating clarity (visioning and mobilizing); 

(c) building trust; (d) sharing power and influence; (e) developing people; and 

(f) self-reflection. We find general consistency with these principles, the UNCG 

work, and the phases of collaboration identified earlier. 



Russell Linden’s Leading Across Boundaries (2010) draws from examples 

of government, nonprofit, and inter-sector collaboration to identify five 

characteristics of collaborative leaders: 

1. Feel driven to achieve the goal through collaboration, with a 

measured ego. 

2. Listen carefully to understand others’ perspectives. 

3. Look for win-win solutions to meet shared interests. 

4. Use pull more than push. 

5. Think strategically: connect the project to a larger purpose. (p. 78) 

These characteristics are more personal qualities than specific skills. Yet it is 

important for practitioners to reflect on underlying attitudes or dispositions that 

contribute to whether one recognizes an opportunity for collaboration at all, as 

well as what tools to apply in collaborative situations. 

The Policy Consensus Initiative’s Practical Guide to Collaborative Governance 

(Carlson, 2007) does not explicitly list competencies, but it is practice oriented 

and as such identifies the skills needed to successfully lead collaborative efforts. 

The competencies gleaned from Practical Guide include 

• mastering different forms of collaborative governance—different 

degrees of consultation, cooperation and collaboration; 

• understanding conditions which favor or impede collaboration; 

• assessing conditions: applying principles to situations; 

• providing pre-process steps to convene stakeholders; 

• designing an appropriate forum, developing ground rules, and 

(often) choosing and working with an impartial facilitator; 

• helping participants prepare, participate at the table, and 

communicate with their constituency or superiors; 

• ensuring effective participation within the size and nature of the group; 

• applying tools for managing discussion and formulating areas of 

agreement; and 

• crafting longer-term governance structures to support ongoing collaboration. 

In the field of planning, Innes and Booher’s (2010) discussion of the “praxis 

of collaboration” includes relevant analytical and behavioral skills. While their 

discussion is too extensive to fully summarize here, important aspects of praxis 

include establishing necessary conditions (including providing incentives, 

developing leaders, and establishing inclusionary decision making) and creating 

authentic dialogue, which the authors see as the “praxis of process” (p. 97). Their 

theme is the application of principles to “the context, players and problem.” 

They note that “one can start from known best practices and follow some broad 

steps,” but “the particulars of each situation are critical and normally will require 

deviations from guidelines.” The notion of praxis embraces a learn-by-doing 

approach to process, emphasizing “experimenting, testing and adapting” (p. 116). 



A complementary discussion of strategies and competencies comes from a 

book on networked government, which is closely aligned with conceptions of 

collaborative governance (Koliba, Meek, & Zia, 2010). The authors’ strategies 

for network management are similar to the other works on collaborative 

competencies: oversight; mandating; providing resources; negotiation and 

bargaining; facilitation; participatory governance/civic engagement; brokering; 

boundary spanning; and systems thinking. Bingham, Sandfort, and O’Leary 

(2008) similarly outline what they refer to as the “capabilities” of “collaborative 

public managers.” Their list of capabilities is likewise consistent with other work 

in this review. Included in their list are items such as network design, meeting 

facilitation, conflict management, and evaluating outcomes. 

Getha-Taylor’s (2008) study of high performers’ scores on OPM’s Executive 

Core Qualifications (ECQs) found that the most significant competencies for 

collaborative effectiveness are (a) interpersonal understanding, (b) teamwork 

and cooperation, and (c) team leadership. These results are significant because 

they stand in contrast to what OPM identifies as key competencies for building 

coalitions (political savvy, negotiating/influencing, and partnering). 

Finally, Morse’s (2008) review of collaborative competencies compiles the attributes, 

skills, and behaviors identified in the research on collaborative leadership that were 

not already identified as competencies for effective public organizational leadership. 

Attributes include systems thinking and a sense of mutuality. Skills include strategic 

thinking and facilitation. Behaviors include stakeholder identification, issue framing, 

and facilitating mutual learning processes (2008, p. 85). 

Table 2. 

Collaborative Competencies—Themes from the Literature 

Assessment Initiation Deliberation Implementation 

Issue analysis 

Environmental 

assessment 

Stakeholder 

identification 

Strategic thinking 

Stakeholder 

engagement 

Political/community 

organizing 

Building social capital 

Process design 

Group facilitation 

Team building and 

group dynamics 

Listening 

Consensus building 

Interest-based 

negotiation 

Developing action plans 

Designing governance 

structures 

Public engagement 

Network management 

Conflict resolution 

Performance evaluation 

Meta-Competencies 

Collaborative mind-set 

Passion for creating public value 

Systems thinking 

Openness and risk taking 

Sense of mutuality and connectedness 

Humility or measured ego 



This review illustrates how the different approaches to collaborative 

competencies have significant consistencies with one another and correspond 

in large part to the four-phase model (see Table 1). While it is not exhaustive, 

the sampling here indicates the strong common themes across academic and 

practitioner approaches to collaborative competencies. Table 2 summarizes the 

competencies identified in the literature, grouping them by the four phases of 

collaborative governance. It is important to note here that while particular phases 

tend to emphasize certain competencies, many competencies are important 

across many or all phases. Organizing them along the phases, therefore, is 

seen as more helpful for teaching and learning, particularly in structuring case 

teaching (as illustrated next). Additionally, there are several meta-competencies 

or personal qualities that cut across the phases of collaboration and underlie one’s 

approach to collaboration in general (e.g., whether opportunities are seen, what 

specific tools are used, etc.). 

One of the meta-competencies for collaborative governance worth special 

mention is systems thinking. Peter Senge describes systems thinking as “a discipline 

for seeing wholes....seeing interrelationships rather than things...seeing patterns 

of change rather than static ‘snapshots’” (1990, p. 68). Jeffrey Luke further explains that 

this habit of thinking involves (a) “thinking about impacts on future generations;” 

(b) “thinking about…ripple effects and consequences beyond the immediate 

concern;” and (c) “thinking in terms of issues and strategies that cross functions, 

specialties, and professional disciplines” (1998, p. 222). 

Russ Linden similarly speaks of a “collaborative mind-set” that involves 

taking the long view or seeing the big picture, which he relates to the notion of 

“court vision” in basketball (Linden, 2010, pp. 1–2). Given that this mind-set or 

way of seeing the world undergirds whether one even recognizes an opportunity 

or need for collaboration, it stands to reason that education and training for 

collaborative governance ought to emphasize the development of systems thinking. 

Phased Case Method for Teaching Collaborative 

Governance Competencies 

The preceding section outlines a four-phase model of collaborative 

governance and corresponding competencies drawn from the literature. 

This model provides a foundation for the task of developing collaborative 

competencies in public affairs students (in-service and pre-service) in terms of 

thinking about what to teach. We now turn to the question of how to teach 

these competencies. While there are many useful pedagogical approaches (e.g., 

O’Leary, Bingham, & Choi, 2010), the case method merits special attention. 

Case-based teaching or the “case method” (Boehrer, 1996; Gomez-Ibanez 

& Kalt, 1986; Lynn, 1999; Wasserman, 1994) is widespread in public affairs 

education and has great potential for teaching collaborative competencies. 

However, given the process and related competencies of collaborative 



governance, we argue for a prospective, phased approach to case teaching. 

By phased approach we mean simply that the action is stopped periodically at 

critical points—for collaborative governance cases, those points falling between 

phases—so learners can assess progress and consider adaptations. 6 

The typical way of reading cases retrospectively lends itself to seeing 

snapshots, to deductive logic, and linear thinking. On the other hand, a phased, 

prospective approach (described and illustrated next) invites readers to look 

for the interrelatedness and patterns that are the essence of systems thinking, 

which as mentioned earlier is a meta-competency for collaborative governance. 

The four phases provide a frame for the big picture of collaborative governance 

(seeing the “forest for the trees”), while dealing with the complex variables within 

each phase allows readers to grapple with the contingent, nonlinear complexity 

of collaborative processes. 7 

There are several widely used sources for teaching cases in public affairs. 

The two most prominent are the Electronic Hallway (http://hallway.evans. 

washington.edu), maintained by the Evans School of Public Affairs at the 

University of Washington, and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government 

Cases (www.ksgcase.harvard.edu). Both collections include many cases related 

to collaborative governance. The Electronic Hallway even has a category titled 

“Collaboration, Networks, and Partnerships” that includes 60 cases. 

Another newer, smaller, and free collection of cases that all deal directly 

with collaborative governance is called E-PARCC (http://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/ 

parc/eparc). The Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and 

Collaboration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School promotes an annual 

competition for cases, simulations, and syllabi and publishes the best submissions 

on their website. As of July 2011, the website offers 13 cases from the 2007– 

2011 competitions. Our analysis of cases from all three sources found that while 

there are several multipart cases that have to do with collaborative governance, 

none follow a specific model of collaboration or induce the kind of prospective 

reading of the case as we propose here. However, several cases offer material that 

could be adapted into our four-phase model, as we illustrate next. 

Beyond the Success Story: Demonstrating the Phased Case Method 

To illustrate how a phased case study approach for teaching collaborative 

competencies works, we offer a repurposing of an existing, freely available case 

study, designed for teaching and focused on collaboration. In presenting how this 

case can be adapted and taught prospectively along the phases of collaborative 

governance and corresponding competencies, we seek to illustrate that adapting 

case teaching can be done with readily available, existing teaching cases. At the 

same time, we offer this example to suggest how future collaborative governance 

cases might be constructed. 

The case study chosen is the “The Health Careers Institute Collaboration” 

(HCIC) by Jay Kiedrowski and Allison Rojas of the University of Minnesota 

(2007). The case is part of the collection of collaborative management materials 



at E-PARCC and earned an honorable mention in the 2007 Best Teaching Case 

Competition. 8 HCIC is presented in two parts. Here we show how it can be 

adapted to use the four-phase framework. 9 

Health Careers Institute Collaboration—Summary 

The Health Careers Institute Collaboration case opens with the needs of 

the distressed Phillips neighborhood in Minneapolis. The challenges facing the 

neighborhood and concerns of government officials and hospital and corporate 

employers based in the neighborhood are summarized. The centerpiece of the 

case is the initiation of the Phillips Partnership, which seeks improvements in the 

areas of public safety, jobs, housing, and infrastructure. Specific projects of this 

“informal collaboration” include how a career advancement institute targeting 

Phillips residents is adapted to the St. Paul–Ramsey County area. 

The narrative of Part A concludes with a “problems arise” section and 

discussion questions about the viability of the career advancement institutes 

in terms of strategy, leadership, and stakeholder interests. Part B examines the 

financial difficulties and ultimate shuttering of a second career advancement 

institute serving the St. Paul–Ramsey County area. The revitalization of the 

career advancement institute in the Phillips neighborhood leads to revised 

leadership of the venture and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that, 

while never signed, guides the “new” collaboration. 

HCIC—Revision into Four Phases 

The four phases for case study design are assessment, initiation, deliberation, 

and implementation (see Table 2). To redraft the material for the assessment 

phase, the first two sections of Part A are germane. This material covers the 

meeting where the idea of the collaboration was born. Part A presents a short 

history and description of current challenges and the Phillips Partnership’s focus 

on public safety, jobs, housing, and infrastructure. 

Phase 1: Assessment. After some of the Part A material, the case narrative is paused 

and students are asked to assess the situation, drawing on the four-phase framework and 

accompanying competencies shown in Tables 2 and 3. Questions include the following: 

A. What are the issues? How are they framed, and what else might be relevant? 

B. Who are the stakeholders? What interests are represented at the genesis 

meeting and which are absent? In what ways, if any, should the “highpowered” 

stakeholders include representatives of the neighborhood and 

small businesses? 

C. What are the incentives to collaborate? Financial resources become clear 

only as specific projects of the Phillips Partnership are described.Efficiencies, 

stronger programs, or new revenues are common considerations in 

assessing a potential collaboration. 



D. What are the barriers to collaboration? This element is addressed much 

later in the case study, when problems arise after some clear successes. 

E. How would you design/structure the collaboration given the issues, 

stakeholders, incentives and barriers? 

The questions are designed to develop the competences associated with the 

assessment phase, such as issue analysis and stakeholder identification (see Table 2). 

We suggest having learners consider several questions about whether to collaborate, 

contrasted with less formal ways of cooperation or coordination (Winer & Ray, 

1994). The case study notes some factors about whether collaboration is a good idea, 

but additional information on possible stakeholders and their past interactions 

would be helpful for a full redraft into phases. At this point, the issues and 

stakeholder assessment should lead to a “go or no-go” decision on collaboration. 

Phase 2: Initiation. The next phase, initiation, would take material from 

the next two sections: “Train to Work” (TTW) and “Phillips Health 

Careers Institute.” TTW describes a new program to hire neighborhood 

residents with basic job skills to work at one of the hospitals. Phillips Health 

Careers Institute begins a year later, focusing on an employer-nonprofit 

pilot of a jobs certificate training program to advance TTW graduates and 

existing low-level hospital employees into higher-paying positions. 

The initiation phase calls upon these competencies: stakeholder engagement, 

political/community organizing, building social capital, and process design. 

Thus, for Phase 2, students focus on the organization and expectations of the 

collaborative process and examine stakeholder relations and dynamics. 

A. What is the structure of the collaboration? How is the structure influencing the 

operations and opportunities/barriers of the collaboration? The original case 

addresses these questions later. Public leaders need to assess early on, at the 

initiation phase, to help all stakeholders consider sustainability challenges 

before a crisis occurs. 

Next students are called on to compare their initial, more speculative, list of 

barriers and incentives for collaboration to the reality of the case. 

B. What is the interaction among stakeholders? Sub-questions include “How do 

existing relations—positive, negative, or in between—guide the choice of 

issues, the ability to get resources, and the formal and informal leadership in 

the collaboration?’ and “How are ‘newer players’ involved and given voice?” 

C. What activities are taking place? How are resources identified and utilized? 

How is the workload distributed? What are the incentives to collaborate? For 

public leaders to better grasp collaboration, it would be a good idea to 

have more case material addressing meeting dynamics, between-meeting 

communication and activities, and some information on the hopes and 

challenges of individual stakeholders as they judge how much time and 

resources to put into a collaboration compared to their unilateral activities. 



D. What are choices for developing the collaboration? Most partnerships at the 

initiation phase depend on discussions of options, complex considerations of 

seeking and committing resources, and reaching agreement about choosing 

one direction over another. Here are some potential narrow-bore choices: 

(1) Start one project, and see it through until it yields some success. 

(2) Start many projects, so any one success can keep the group focused 

and supportive of the larger collaboration. 

(3) Add stakeholders (e.g., for new resources, expertise, community 

legitimacy, etc.). 

Phase 3: Deliberation. 

The third phase is where partners engage in a deliberative process of mutual 

education, defining criteria, and generating options. There is some material in 

HCIC about how the stakeholders worked together to share their perspectives 

and needs, how criteria for particular programs were established, and how 

options were generated and assessed, but more details are needed for a full 

redrafting consistent with the phases model. 

Part A concludes by describing the effort to duplicate the Phillips Health 

Care Career Development effort in St. Paul–Ramsey County by engaging health 

care providers, academic institutions, a nonprofit training organization, and a 

county worker development agency. This new collaboration is the East Metro 

Health Careers Institute (EMHCI). The paid coordinator for Phillips eventually 

transferred, full-time, to the EMHCI. 

A “problems arise” section notes how the recession following 9/11 reduced 

openings for medical staff and thus demand for HCI and EMHCI graduates. 

State government and foundation monies were tighter and the hospitals, which 

found it easier to recruit employees, had less desire to contribute to the institutes. 

The competencies for this phase are group facilitation, team building and 

group dynamics, listening, consensus building, and interest-based negotiation. 

The case addresses two important features of the group’s dynamics. First, all but 

one of the original board members had left by 2002. Second, 

During the first two years of East Metro HCI’s inception, governance and 

leadership issues began to emerge. At one point, staff from the McKnight Foundation, 

a significant funder of the program, was asked to mediate a session among 

collaboration members. McKnight’s $200,000 award for the third and fourth 

years of EMHCI was contingent upon the successful resolution of operations 

issues that had been identified during the first two years. (Part A, p. 11) 

Questions for the deliberation phase: 

A. How did the stakeholders share their interests, expertise and needs with one 

another? How well (if at all) were differences in power, authority, resources, and 

culture addressed? 



B. Was there a designated option generation stage separate from assessing options? 

C. Were the criteria explicit and inclusive of the goals/concerns of each stakeholder? 

Was there agreement on the weighting of criteria? 

D. Is the collaboration meeting its purpose? What level of psychological, organization, 

and time/money/expertise are stakeholders investing in the effort? 

Phase 4: Implementation. 

Part B of the case is “the rest of the story” of the two partnerships. It covers 

2004–2007, with the demise of the EMHCI at the end of 2004. Three key 

foundations thought EMHCI should have been self-sustaining after three years. 

The Phillips HCI project was recast by two stakeholders—Project for Pride 

in Living (PPL) and Minneapolis Community and Technical College—as the 

Health Careers Partnership (HCP) to better reflect its informal collaborative 

status, and it was joined with PPL’s Train to Work program. PPL became 

the program manager, fiscal agent, and recruiter; the college provided the 

certified academic training. PPL took responsibility for fund-raising. This new 

collaboration was similar to the original Health Careers Institute with business, 

government, education, and philanthropy stakeholders. A difference was the 

primary leadership role of a nonprofit agency. Although the partners never 

signed the MOU, they used it as the foundation of their operations. 

Implementation questions come at the end of the case study. It depends 

if the collaboration has concluded (or was significantly changed, as in this 

case) or is ongoing. If it is ongoing, there would be iterative deliberation 

and implementation phases. Our questions call for readers to reflect on the 

whole case, to consider how variables affected the outcome, and to highlight 

the competencies for this phase: developing goals and action plans as well as 

designing governance structures, public engagement, network management, 

conflict resolution, and performance evaluation. 

Questions at this stage: 

A. What was the collaboration’s clearest outcome? 

B. How was implementation of particular projects monitored and assessed? Did all 

participants have a common view of the degree of success or were there opposing 

opinions? 

C. Did the goals of the collaboration change? How did that affect the participation 

of stakeholders? 

D. Which barriers to collaboration were addressed effectively? Which ones proved to 

be continuing challenges? 

E. What kind of institutional structure was chosen for the partnership? 

This exercise demonstrates that an existing case can be repurposed around 

the four-phase model of collaborative governance. The original case study and 

our adaptation share some questions and objectives for teaching, but the 

adaptation has concentrated on the differences that the four-phase model brings 



to presenting the case and teaching about collaboration concepts in a practical 

manner. Other cases could be adapted in a similar manner and, perhaps more 

important, future cases on collaborative governance might be written more in 

this manner. 

The discussion questions corresponding with each phase in the case 

emphasized phase-specific competencies. It should be noted that the 

meta-competencies or personal qualities (Table 2) underlie decisions and 

interpretations throughout each phase. There are many options for how to 

incorporate reflection on these attributes into a phased case teaching method. 

For example, a discussion specifically on the meta-competencies and how they 

affect phase-by-phase dynamics could be held at the end of a case session, or this 

aspect could be the subject of a reflective essay. 

Conclusion and Next Steps 

We have presented a collaborative governance framework of four phases that 

can be used in teaching and learning about collaborative governance. Competencies 

for public leaders and managers to enact collaborative governance were also 

identified and are shown to correspond with the four phases. The value of using 

the phases and competencies with case learning is demonstrated by showing how 

a four-phase approach can work with an existing, readily available case study. 

The four-phase framework and list of competencies may be used in a variety 

of ways by those seeking to develop collaborative governance competencies in 

students of public affairs. We have shown that the phased approach can be used 

with existing cases, though this may involve some retrofitting, and possibly 

some additional case material, on the part of the instructor. The four phases 

and competencies can also be used as a framework for writing new cases. The 

framework and example can serve as guides for what details to include, where 

to pause the narrative, and what kinds of questions focus attention on phasespecific 

competencies. 

Clearly, it is important for public affairs teachers to test the efficacy of 

learning from phased cases and other pedagogical tools. An important aspect 

of learning efficacy may be the nature of the learners. Lynn offers a nice review 

of “sizing up your learners” on many dimensions (1999, pp. 50–59). One 

hypothesis is that learners with more experience that includes boundary-crossing 

collaboration would learn better from phased cases. On the other hand, students 

with little or no work experience may have fewer assumptions (biases) and offer 

different ways of thinking on how competencies could be applied and adapted 

when analyzing phased cases. 

Learning how to manage and lead effectively in collaborative governance is 

a core concern for 21st-century public administration. The contingent nature 

of collaborative processes demands that practitioners apply systems thinking 

and collaborative skills to an ever-changing set of circumstances. The four-phase 



model and related collaborative competencies reviewed here offer a starting 

point for considering what to teach, and a phased case demonstration that better 

matches the complex systems inherent in collaborative governance arrangements, 

we argue, is one important component of how. 

There is more to be learned about the what, of course, and other innovative 

practices regarding the how. Hence the need, in the pages of this journal and 

elsewhere, for an exchange among teachers of collaborative governance regarding 

their cases, learning objectives, and teaching techniques. 

Footnotes 

1 “Collaborative public management” (Bingham & O’Leary, 2008; O’Leary & Bingham, 2009), 

the “new public governance” (Osborne, 2010), or simply “new governance” (Salamon, 2002) are 

similar terms often used interchangeably with collaborative governance. 

2 See also Bingham et al., (2008), Crosby (2010), Crosby & Bryson (2005), O’Leary et al., (2010), 

Posner (2009), and Salamon (2002). 

3 While other terms, such as capability, may be preferred (Bingham et al., 2008, p. 274), we use 

the term competency here, consistent with the leadership development literature, to mean the 

knowledge and skills necessary for effective leadership and management. 

4 The University Network for Collaborative Governance (UNCG) consists of 25 programs, centers, 

or institutes across 26 colleges and universities. They are devoted to “practical scholarship” on 

local, state, and federal level collaborative work on programs, regulations, and policies. See www. 

policyconsensus.org/uncg/index.html for more information. 

5 See www.turningpointprogram.org/Pages/about.html for more information (accessed May 2, 

2012). The initiative involved 23 state and local partners to improve public health and work— 

via collaboration—in a variety of areas. Five National Excellence collaboratives were created as 

part of the initiative. One of those collaboratives focused on leadership development, defined as 

“collaborative leadership for achieving common goals.” 

6 A “time series case” (Naumes & Naumes, 2006) is similar to what we describe as a phased-case 

approach. Here we emphasize a specific approach for how to structure and divide a case to align 

with the four-phase model of collaborative governance. 

7 Our argument coheres with case teaching guidance on “decision-forcing” situations where 

conflicting principles or inconclusive evidence engage students’ reasoning (Gomez-Ibanez & Kalt, 

1986; Wasserman, 1994; Lynn, 1999), 

8 Available at http://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/parc/eparc/cases. We thank the authors for their 

permission to use their case to demonstrate the approach discussed in this article. 

9 A longer exposition with the entire original case study and our modifications side by side would be 

desirable but is not possible given space limitations. We hope this shorter illustration offers a good 

starting point for more conversation. 



References 

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local 

governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 

Alexander, J. (2006). The challenge of complexity. In F. Hesselbein & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), The leader 

of the future 2: Visions, strategies, and practices for the new era (pp. 85–94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public 

Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571. 

Bingham, L. B., & O’Leary, R. (Eds.). (2008). Big ideas in collaborative public management. Armonk, 

NY: M.E. Sharpe. 

Bingham, L. B., Sandfort, J., & O’Leary, R. (2008). Learning to do and doing to learn: Teaching 

managers to collaborate in networks. In L. B. Bingham & R. O’Leary (Eds.), Big ideas in 

collaborative public management (pp. 270–286). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. 

Boehrer, J. (1996). How to teach a case. Electronic Hallway, University of Washington’s Daniel J. Evans 

School of Public Affairs. (9 pages). Retrieved from http://hallway.evans.washington.edu 

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector 

collaboration: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(Supplement), 

44–55. 

Carlson, C. (2007). A practical guide to collaborative governance. Portland, OR: Policy Consensus Initiative. 

Carpenter, S. (1999). Choosing appropriate consensus building techniques and strategies. In L. 

Susskind, S. McKearnon, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus-building handbook: A 

comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 61–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Chrislip, D. D. (2002). The collaborative leadership fieldbook: A guide for citizens and civic leaders. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Cormick, G. W., Dale, N., Emond, P., Sigurdson, S. G., & Stuart, B. D. (1996). Building consensus for 

a sustainable future: Putting principles into practice. Ottawa, Ontario: National Round Table on the 

Environment and the Economy. 

Crosby, B. C. (2010). Leading in the shared-power world of 2020. Public Administration Review, 

70(Supplement), S69–S77. 

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a 

shared-power world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, N., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative 

governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. 

Emerson, K., & Smutko, L. S. (2011). UNCG guide to collaborative competencies. Portland, OR: Policy 

Consensus Initiative and University Network for Collaborative Governance. 

Frederickson, H. G. (1997). The spirit of public administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifying collaborative competencies. Review of Public Personnel 

Administration, 28(2), 103–119. 



Gomez-Ibanez, J. A., & Kalt, J. (1986). Learning by the case method. Kennedy School of Government 

Case Program (N15-86-1136.0), 6 pp. 

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey- 

Bass. 

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative 

rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge. 

Kiedrowski, J., & Rojas, A. (2007). The health careers institute collaboration. (Parts A & B). Case study 

available at http://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/parc/eparc/cases/health-careers-institute-collaboration.asp 

Kettl, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century 

America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Kettl, D. F., & Goldsmith, S. (Eds.). (2009). Unlocking the power of networks Keys to high-performance 

government. Washington, DC: Brookings. 

Koliba, C., Meek, J. & Zia, A. (2010). Governance networks: Public administration and policy in the 

midst of complexity. New York: Taylor & Francis. 

Linden, R. M. (2002). Working across boundaries: Making collaboration work in government and 

nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

———. (2010). Leading across boundaries: Creating collaborative agencies in a networked world. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic leadership: Strategies for an interconnected world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Lynn, L. (1999). Teaching and learning with cases: A guidebook. Chappaqua, NY: Seven Bridges Press. 

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative networks. 

Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. 

Morse, R. S. (2008). Developing public leaders in an age of collaborative governance. In R. S. Morse 

& T. F. Buss (Eds.), Innovations in public leadership development (pp. 79–100). Armonk, NY: M.E. 

Sharpe. 

Naumes, W., & Naumes, M. J. (2006). The art & craft of case writing. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 

O’Leary, R., & Bingham, L. B. (Eds.). (2009). The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the 

twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 

O’Leary, R., Bingham, L. B., & Choi, Y. (2010). Teaching collaborative leadership: Ideas and lessons 

for the field. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(4), 565–592. 

Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice 

of public governance. New York: Routledge. 

Posner, P. L. (2009). A public administration education for the third-party governance era: 

Reclaiming leadership of the field. In R. O’Leary and L.B. Bingham (Eds.), The collaborative 

public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century (pp. 233–253). Washington, DC: 

Georgetown University Press. 



Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In L. 

M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 1–47). New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: 

Doubleday. 

Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work: Powerful ways to build consensus, solve problems, and 

make decisions. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 

Susskind, L., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). Conducting a conflict assessment. In L. Susskind, S. 

McKearnon, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus-building handbook: A comprehensive guide 

to reaching agreement (pp. 99–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Wasserman, S. (1994). Introduction to case method teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. 

Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining and enjoying the journey. 

Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 

Wondolleck, J., & Yaffee, S. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural 

resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

Ricardo S. Morse is an associate professor at the UNC School of Government, 

where he teaches and advises state and local public officials in the areas of 

collaborative governance, citizen engagement, and public leadership. His research 

has appeared in a variety of books and journals including Public Administration 

Review, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, The Leadership 

Quarterly, and Public Administration Quarterly. Dr. Morse can be reached at 

rmorse@sog.unc.edu. 

John B. Stephens is an associate professor of Public Administration and 

Government at the UNC School of Government, where he teaches MPA 

students and public officials in public dispute resolution, facilitation, 

collaborative problem-solving and citizen participation. His research has 

appeared in Journal of Public Deliberation, School Law Bulletin, and he is coauthor 

of Reaching for Higher Ground: Creating Purpose-driven, Principled, and 

Powerful Groups (2008). Dr. Stephens can be reached at stephens@sog.unc.edu. 



Classrooms as Communities of Practice: 

Designing and Facilitating Learning 

in a Networked Environment 

Naim Kapucu 

School of Public Administration, 


Abstract 

Learning is a continuing social action that takes place through interactions 

with the environment and other individuals. Forming communities of 

practice provides participants with an environment that combines knowledge 

and practice and the opportunity to learn through relationships with their 

peers and practitioners in the community. This study explores the classroom 

as a community of practice and examines the role classroom activities have 

in students’ collaborative learning. The study uses a graduate-level public 

administration course as the case. The classroom activities in this course 

were designed to enhance peer interaction in the classroom and to facilitate 

learning by balancing theory and practice. The results of two separate surveys 

indicate that providing environments that blend practice with classroom 

knowledge lead to highly positive outcomes. Activities that foster peer 

interaction result in a dramatic increase in friendship relations between 

students while leading to only a slight increase in the advice network between 

students. One reason for this result might be the group projects, which create 

a silo effect on students and limit their work relationships with peers. 

Learning is not merely a function of individual efforts to obtain information 

and knowledge from the outside and absorb it. Nor is it bounded with a concrete 

start and end. Instead, learning is a social process taking place within the context 

of our daily actions and experiences (Smith 2003, 2009). 

In higher education programs and classes, students are encouraged to form 

and work in groups, complete their assignments through a team effort, work 

with the community partners of their universities, and interact with each other 

for other class activities. Higher education programs, in a sense, are training 

venues preparing students to be “reflective practitioners” with the skills to 

JPAE 18(3), 585–610 


N. Kapucu 

solve complex problems (Bok, 1986; Schon, 1987). Collaborative learning, 

active learning, and experiential learning are not new to public affairs and 

administration programs. Several articles have been published in the Journal of 

Public Affairs Education pertaining to these subjects (Bushouse & Morrison, 

2001; Guldberg & Pilkington, 2006; Kapucu, Arslan, Yuldashev, & Demiroz, 

2010; Koliba, 2004; Neubauer, Hug, Kamon, & Stewart, 2011; Weimer, 2002). 

Collaborative learning is understood as the active participation of students in 

the learning process instead of being passive absorbers of the information 

provided. Students can become an active part of the learning process by 

applying what they learn in the classroom through working with other peers 

and practitioners in their community (Arum and Roksa, 2011; Kapucu et al., 

2010; Neubauer et al., 2011). The trend toward collaborative learning practices 

requires greater attention to its theoretical underpinnings and the measurement 

of its effectiveness. 

Learning (teaching from another perspective) through interaction with peers 

has been an important tool in higher education (Kapucu et al., 2010). Bringing 

individuals together and forming communities of practice is an important tenet 

of learning, and learning patterns within a community are particularly important 

because most of the learning occurs due to human practice and interaction with 

others. Communities of practice acts as a catalyst for students to internalize the 

knowledge they are exposed to and allows them to reach different interpretations 

of the same knowledge. Similarly, Guldberg (2010) examines “how students 

talked with other students about their practice and how they constructed 

meaning, using what they were learning within this learning community to 

apply to their work based communities” (p. 171). 

This study considers the classroom environment as a community and 

analyzes learning tools from the standpoint of communities of practice (Koliba, 

2004). Communities of practice are formed by people of similar concerns 

or interests with the aim of addressing these concerns, solving problems, or 

improving their performance with regular interaction. Communities of practice 

assume that students’ engagement in their social lives is the fundamental process 

by which they learn in professional degree programs (Bok, 1986). The article 

focuses on engaging students and the collaboration in well-structured contexts 

that focus on student learning and activities in courses designed with this 

expectation in mind. While discussing collaborative learning within communities 

of practice, the study examines course activities designed to increase student 

interactions and for learning in a graduate-level course. Key questions of this 

research are as follows: How does relationship building affect student learning 

in communities of practice? How do different types of assignments and class 

activities affect learning? How can we develop more effective, informative, and 

instructive learning assignments? 


Classrooms as Communities of Practice 

Literature Review and Background 

The importance of relationships and networks in education has been 

discussed in literature. John Dewey, for example, emphasized that education/ 

learning can occur only in the context of engaged networks and relationships. 

He sees communication as a major educational activity by nature (1963, 

1966). Connectedness is also seen as an important part of good teaching and 

learning practice (Cross, 1981; Guldberg & Pilkington, 2006; Jones, 2004; 

Palmer, 2007). Besides traditional classroom environments, new information 

technologies are now available, such as social networking and online teaching 

platforms that can provide additional venues for teaching and learning as 

well as networking and relationship building among students, community 

members, and faculty (Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Read, 2010). These networks 

can play a significant role in disseminating knowledge among the participants 

of the communities of practice (Barabási, 2002; Downes, 2005; Guldberg 

& Pilkington, 2006; Kapucu et al., 2010; Siemens, 2004). Communities of 

practice, with the informal network characteristics of individuals in mind, can 

be intentionally designed and sustained (Barab, Kling, & Gray, 2004; Harlan, 

2008). While the main tenets of communities of practice have been discussed 

and considered by scholars in various ways, certain characteristics stand out as 

the cornerstones of the concept. The following section discusses and emphasizes 

the usefulness of facilitative leadership for communities of practice and the 

role of collaboration. The section also discusses learning within communities 

of practice. 

Facilitative Leadership for Communities of Practice 

Before any community of practice can be created and functional, clear 

leadership should be established for the initiation and continuation of the 

process. The broad definitions and roles of a leader reflect facilitation and 

management of community activities (Jones, 2004; Polin, 2008; Wenger, 

2000). Accordingly, the main role of a leader is to initiate, develop, manage, 

and monitor the community’s activities with the purpose of aligning them with 

overall community goals. In a sense, leadership is an integral part of ensuring the 

implementation of decision outcomes and community goals. 

One characteristic of an effective leader is the ability to facilitate 

collaboration and teamwork and foster participation in the overall process, 

leading to an achievement of outcomes (Schwarz, 2002). Collaborative or shared 

leadership is especially critical when dealing with modern, complex problems 

and is important to consider as we prepare our graduates to deal with such 

problems in real life (Crosby & Bryson, 2005). If leaders are not firm believers of 

participatory decision making or are reluctant to adapt to ideas confronting their 

beliefs, communities of practice will not get beyond wishful thinking. In the 

specific example of a classroom environment, for the purposes of this article, the 


N. Kapucu 

professor is in the leadership position and plays the role of being a facilitator or 

inhibitor for the formation of communities of practice (Guldberg & Pilkington, 

2006; Wenger, 2000; Shields, 2003). 

Collaboration for Communities of Practice 

If a facilitative leader, a professor in this case, succeeds in creating a 

community of practice, his or her role is to foster collaboration that ultimately 

will lead to learning. Collaboration, however, is primarily about the community 

participants’ level of belongingness in regards to the community. Wenger 

(2000, 2005) suggests that engagement, imagination, and alignment are the 

three pillars of belongingness for individuals regarding their environment. The 

author defines engagement as simply getting together with people, sharing 

experiences and knowledge, and doing something together. Imagination refers 

to attachment to broader images that people build up in their minds. For 

example, nation is a concept or image that individuals feel belongingness to, 

viewing it as a community of fellow citizens sharing some common grounds 

and values. This image of nation is built up in human minds as we imagine 

the round shape of our planet earth. Alignment, on the other hand, refers to 

working parallel to other processes such as peers’ efforts and engagement in 

collaborative relationships. It connotes a mutual alignment toward common 

goals as well as the separate processes of collaborating with partners. Wenger 

(2000) differentiates between these three pillars because each one requires 

a different style of work and attention. Overall, it is the extent to which a 

community member is engaged in collaborative practices that determines how 

well a community of practice is functioning. 

Berardo’s (2011) study on the emerging field of scholarly networks 

highlights important points in regard to collaborative approaches in 

communities of practice. In his study, Berardo (2011) surveys participants of 

the Political Network Conference in 2008 and 2009 and identifies the change 

in coauthorship relationships between people. His findings indicate that an 

increasing number of scholars from dispersed backgrounds (e.g., sociology, 

public administration, and other subfields of political science) work together in 

the period following the conferences. Berardo (2011) concludes that this diverse 

group of people is forming a new and innovative community of scholarship. 

Members of this community interact with individuals from very different 

backgrounds, including computer scientists, social psychologists, statisticians, 

and philosophers. Berardo (2011) explains the benefits of this collaboration with 

a quote, by the American Society of Political Science, as “a better understanding 

of network theorizing and analysis across political science and to connect the 

study of networks in political science to other disciplines as well” (p. 74). 

Communities of practice are increasingly interdisciplinary. Lazer, Mergel, 

and Friedman (2009) conducted a study similar to Berardo’s (2011) work 



on scholarly networks. They identified co-citation patterns in the American 

Sociological Review and the American Journal of Sociology, two major 

journals in the field of sociology. Lazer and Friedman (2009) define cocitation 

as “a shared reference of two articles to a third source” (p. 44). The 

authors differentiate coauthorship and co-citation analysis and state that 

“while co-authorship networks reflect the structure of collaboration within a 

research community, co-citation networks reflect the structure of attention 

within a research community” (p. 45; emphasis in original). Their findings 

indicate changes in the patterns of citations and interests of research within 

the community of sociologists. They note that the citations for social network 

articles have dramatically increased (46% for social networks and 26% for nonnetwork 

research) within last two decades. These network research citations 

include a number of important different disciplines and subfields such as physics 

and computational sociology. This study shows the emerging trend in the field of 

sociology is to collaborate with other disciplines, which leads to more innovative 

research and thoughts in social network analysis and sociology. 

Learning in Communities of Practice 

When collaboration takes place within a community, the most evident 

reflection of its effectiveness is learning. Wenger (2005) sees learning as “a 

fundamentally social phenomenon, reflecting our own deeply social nature as 

human beings capable of knowing” (p. 3). Wenger (2000) defines learning as 

“interplay between social competence and personal experience. It is a dynamic, 

two way relationship between people and social learning systems in which they 

participate” (p. 227). Wenger formulates this definition of learning from a social 

learning standpoint. Viskovic (2006) supports Wenger’s idea of mutual learning 

and states that learning can be formal (as in an educational setting) or informal 

(as in daily activities based on trial and error), emphasizing an unending process 

of inquiry. Thus learning is a process that has no identifiable start and end, and 

it develops through interaction with our environment. Lave (1991), in turn, 

considers learning as a nonsubjective process, oriented to the social world, 

through which individuals continuously develop their skills and establish their 

identity. This view specifically emphasizes the counterintuitive or subconscious 

element of learning through communities of practice. 

Wenger’s (2005) social theory of learning (Figure 1) specifically emphasizes 

the process of learning based on the extent of social participation. That is to 

say, participants are involved in a community (belonging) to engage in certain 

activities (doing), thus establishing their identity (becoming) to interpret the 

world around themselves (experience). In a sense, the theory emphasizes a 

subconscious process of learning through participation with the purpose of 

substantiating and legitimizing individual actions. 


N. Kapucu 

Figure 1. 

Components of a Social Theory of Learning: An Initial Inventory 

(Wenger, 2005, p. 5) 

In scholarly environments, learning and inquiry go hand in hand. The 

teaching methods of scholars are the reflections of the findings of their inquiries 

in bridging theory with practice in the classroom environment. In other words, 

the method of inquiry influences the teaching methods and tools of a scholar as 

well as student learning. The community of inquiry is a baseline for developing 

methods and analysis for solving problems. Shields (2003) notes several factors 

that are the driving force of communities of inquiry. First, problems are the 

mother of inquiry, and therefore, the communities of inquiry. She states that 

“a problematic situation is a catalyst that helps or causes community to form 

and it provides a reason to undertake inquiry” (Shields, 2003, p. 511). Second, 

a scientific attitude would arise from the synergy created by the community. 

Research methods, experimental and analytical reasoning, and the development 

of strong warrants are the tools needed to address the problematic situation. 

Third, interactions between community members, namely participatory 

democracy, help in facilitating the generation of new ideas and solutions. 

Democratic participation and relationships are particularly important in the field 

of public administration because the graduates of this discipline are expected to 

be representatives of democratic values in their realms. Participatory democracy 

includes values and ideals in the process of inquiry and aligns the goals and 

purposes of the community toward these values (Shields, 2003). 

Communities of practice bear a critical role in educating public administrators. 

Inclusion of a democratic understanding of knowledge to the learning process 

helps melt down barriers between citizens and future public administrators. That 



is to say, providing only pure technical expertise to students may create a class 

of experts versus citizens, whereas educating future public administrators with 

democratic values and aiming to create a soul for public service are the goals we 

should consider. A communities of practice perspective is also a good way to 

prepare students for public service (Bok, 1986). Stivers (2010, p. 256) highlights 

this point and says “broadening our own ways of knowing, and admitting 

qualitative, historical, philosophical, and critical research approaches to the list 

of approved models of social science” (emphasis in original) are the necessary 

actions to take in order to develop public administrators equipped with a public 

service conscience. 

The educational setting of communities of practice described in this 

article presents an opportunity to discuss and internalize public service values 

through various tools presented and supervised by the instructors. The role 

of the instructor in this context, thus, is to consciously mobilize participants’ 

subconscious attitudes toward dealing with and brainstorming on the societal 

issues they are expected to tackle in the future. Such an approach, in turn, would 

lead to an understanding of collaborative and participative decision making. 

Participatory decision making in a community requires the inclusion of all 

members and stakeholders of that community through a consensus-oriented, 

deliberative process of problem solving. An equal right of voice and balanced 

chance of influencing the decision-making process of members in a community 

is a viable part of the credibility needed in decision making (Johnston, Hicks, 

Nan, & Auer, 2010; Polin, 2008). A democratic mind-set cannot be injected 

into people in a hierarchical environment, but instead needs to be practiced 

in a naturally democratic environment (Stivers, 2010). To address this issue, 

classroom environments have to be designed for experiencing, understanding, 

and absorbing democratic behavior. Higher education institutions can prepare 

individuals by practicing democratic principles not only on campuses but also 

in communities (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2007; Brown & Witte, 2008). 

Students of public administration and public servants should learn how to 

collaborate with people rather than merely learning how to manage a contract. 

The role of experts is also critical when solving problems within a community. 

Expertise enables members of a community of inquiry to understand the 

issue more clearly and develop solutions based on a combination of analytical 

arguments and experience (Cross, 1981; Shields, 2003). To enable experts and 

public servants to favor democratic values and citizen thoughts, they have to 

learn and practice this mind-set before becoming professionals. 

The main factors constituting communities of practice as stated earlier— 

facilitative leadership, collaboration, and learning—may be complemented by 

other elements. Wenger (2000) identifies several other elements for designing 

communities of practice: events, learning projects, and artifacts. Events are the 

attempts to bring community members together for common purposes such as 

meeting community needs. “Formal and informal meetings, problem-solving 


N. Kapucu 

sessions, or guest speakers” are some examples of events that Wenger identifies 

(2000, p. 231). Learning projects help communities of practice strengthen their 

commitment to their network and learning agenda, which helps them to engage 

in more sophisticated learning practices. Whereas artifacts are the common 

grounds or objects for community members such as documents, tools, websites, 

and symbols, communities of practice requires additional skills for collective 

learning (Krackhardt, 1992; Wenger, 2000; Wenger & Snyder 2000). The work 

of community building needs to be acknowledged, and all members of the 

community should have access to the necessary resources needed to learn and be 

active participants of this effort. 

To sum up, communities of practice, and specifically those of the 

educational environment, should aim to prepare community individuals for the 

realities of the social world. In a sense, they should be a bridge between formal 

learning and informal practice, thus creating more prepared and sophisticated 

citizens equipped with innovative and dynamic tools for problem solving. 

The cornerstone of the characteristics of such community individuals is their 

attachment to solution-oriented, collaborative, all-inclusive, and participatory 

environments as the arena for positive change. 

Activities and Assignments for Community of Practice 

This study uses the classroom environment as an example of a community 

of practice. A master’s-level course on emergency and crisis management was 

developed and designed to enhance students’ understanding of these issues and 

build the analytical and practical skills needed to perform effectively in positions 

related to emergency management and homeland security. The focus of the 

delivery system of the class is interactive learning. Lectures, case presentations, 

practitioner guest speakers, group discussions, and presentations that actively 

involve students were included in the course. When possible and applicable, 

the processes of learning activities included comprehensive discussions not 

only on “what” was learned but also on the “so what” questions, which helped 

to complete the learning cycle. Course requirements included position papers, 

FEMA Emergency Management Institute Independent Study Courses (FEMA 

EMI IS), community-based service-learning research projects (term paper), 

presentations, and peer paper evaluations. A summary of relevant activities is 

provided next. 

Network Management Article Assignment 

Students are usually assigned to read an article on relationship/network 

building and management before they come to the first class. The importance 

of relationship building, investing in social capital, is emphasized in the first 

class and throughout the term. The current article used for this assignment 



was written by Uzzi and Dunlap (2005) on how to manage your network. 

The assignment is used as a way to promote and provoke an understanding of 

network environments and its benefits, along with advice and suggestions for 

personal use. It is also employed as a method to awaken conscious and goaloriented 

acts when developing personal relationships, rather than pursuing 

a random and purposeless set of interpersonal relationships. Communities 

of practice are and should be settings where established goals find realization 

through collaborative and networked relationships. 

Ice-Breaking Activities 

One of the most important factors to promote collaboration, and thus 

learning, within communities of practice is the all-inclusive ice-breaking 

activities that aim at establishing closer and denser relationships. Collaboration 

is generally impossible or unviable if community participants have distant 

relationships and know little about their peers. Ice-breaking activities specifically 

create an environment of better understanding and greater awareness of others’ 

goals and motives for participation. One such activity used in the course is the 

self-introduction of students to other peers, which requires every student to 

remember and repeat the names of the students who introduced themselves 

before him or her. Such an approach leads to better efforts to remember 

classmates’ names and encourages more interaction in the future. In addition, 

students are asked to introduce themselves on the web-based course system 

with a paragraph about themselves and their expectations from the course. 

Every student in the class is required to share an interesting or unusual fact 

about themselves in the introduction posting on the web-course system. This 

exercise provides a more striking picture about the students’ identity and helps 

establish a memory in a nonconventional way. Other students are expected to 

analyze these details and backgrounds about their peers and are asked to identify 

group members for their class projects. The formation of project groups is the 

next stage of ice-breaking activities, by which students establish relevance and 

try to find a midpoint based on class discussion to determine the term project 

goal. An occasional midterm or semester-end dinner with the whole class has 

also been an effective method for socializing and developing relationships with 

classmates during the semester. Lastly, the professor takes an approach that puts 

learning, as opposed to grading or testing, at the center of the course. Students 

are encouraged to participate in all activities with the single purpose of fostering 

learning through inclusion and participation. The main contribution of this set 

of activities to the notion of communities of practice is that participants break 

down the borders between each other, opening space for deliberate discussion of 

important issues. In this sense, little can be achieved before learners learn from 

others, and the best way to do so is to be involved in a deliberate interpersonal 

exchange of ideas, tools, and labor. 


N. Kapucu 

Course Graded Activities 

Several graded activities and assignments are administered in class as well. 

Class participation is strongly encouraged as the main requirement for learning. 

Students are also asked to conduct a term-long service-learning project that 

focuses on a certain real-world case with the ultimate purpose of providing 

implementable results to the relevant agency studied or partnered with. A 

librarian usually visits during the second week of class to present resources 

available at the main university library. The provision of a paper proposal by 

the third week, a draft paper by the tenth week, and the final project by the 

last day of class are requirements that establish a viable monitoring mechanism 

and secure timely delivery of the projects. In addition, students are asked to 

prepare two position papers during two nonconsecutive weeks that are posted 

on Webcourses, an online web platform designed/adapted for UCF for online 

teaching and learning; these papers are expected to be read and commented 

on by all other students in the class. Position papers are also presented in class, 

which enables further classroom discussion. Furthermore, students are required 

to complete three FEMA Emergency Management Institute Independent Study 

Courses online, at the end of which they receive certificates of completion. At 

the end of the term, groups are required to present their study results in the 

classroom. Lastly, the group members are asked to evaluate their group peers’ 

work during the term, which secures fair and equitable academic conduct toward 

all group members. Overall, students are encouraged to communicate with the 

professor in regard to any class-related issue when and if needed for clarification 

or other supportive purposes. This set of activities is the main mobilizer or 

catalyst for collaboration in communities of practice within educational 

environments. Having a specific goal lets participants concentrate and stay 

focused on the central issue while developing a common solution through shared 

decision making and unified efforts. 

Guest Lectures 

The course also focuses on the importance of real-world examples. 

Practitioners from the emergency and crisis management field are invited to 

class for a discussion pertaining to their insights and firsthand experience. A 

common practice is that the professor provides a list of scholars or practitioners 

to students (some of which would attend by default) to obtain feedback about 

their preferences and interests. Students are also welcomed to provide suggestions 

of their own. The practitioners are then invited to the class to discuss the most 

relevant and up-to-date topics with students—a relatively informal and flexible 

classroom discussion environment, which is then followed by a questionand-answer 

segment. Including guest lecturers has been an effective way to 

promote nonconventional discussion in class supported by real-world examples. 

Specifically in terms of communities of practice, this approach presents an 



opportunity to substantiate or supplement in-class activities and propositions 

with outsider expertise. This helps link the formal setting of education with 

the informal setting of practitioners, which eliminates the gaps in solutions 

developed in term projects. 

Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Visits 

Having close relationships with the community also presents an opportunity 

to visit settings related to emergency and crisis management. The Emergency 

Operations Centers (EOC) of Orange County as well as Orlando City have 

provided such an opportunity. Students are able to visit these centers with the 

purpose of gaining a better understanding of how governments respond in times 

of disasters. One class session is specifically allocated for this activity, during 

which the respective emergency manager/coordinator explains the structure, 

mechanisms, and operations of the EOCs and provides a tour of the facility. 

The EOC visits are an additional step to support in-class theoretical discussions 

with real-world practices. As with guest lectures, the visits help students realize 

the link between theoretical expectations and practical limitations. The main 

contribution, accordingly, is the strengthened view about reality that will find its 

reflections in the term projects. 

Online Activities and Webcourses 

As stated earlier, this class uses a mixed mode of teaching, namely both 

face-to-face and web-based. The web-based Webcourses system provides 

an opportunity for students to interact with their peers as well as with the 

instructor in regard to the course content, materials, and assignments. This 

interface allows for real-time chat discussions, posting of inter-peer discussions 

or announcements and reminders, and following individual and group progress. 

Students are also encouraged to use this system with the purpose of creating 

unified and coordinated teaching and monitored learning, thus preventing 

confusion, misunderstanding, or ambiguity on the students’ side. From the 

communities of practice perspective, this opportunity of additional exposure 

to interpersonal communication and collaboration shows the extent to which 

communities of practice can diversify and expand their venues for learning. In a 

sense, communities of practice of this type set a standard and model for problemsolving 

tools requiring alternative methods of dealing with the issues at hand. 

Class-End Review Questions 

The students are also encouraged to participate in a class-end discussion 

based on review questions provided by the instructor in each module online in 

Webcourses. Each PowerPoint presentation provided by the instructor ends with 

questions promoting critical thinking on issues of importance. This activity also 

serves as the summation of what has been discussed and learned in the class. The 


N. Kapucu 

connection between the previous class and that specific day’s topic is established, 

and key points about the next class are presented. The main purpose of this 

activity is to provide a more general and bird’s-eye-view synthesis in light of the 

class materials and real-world practices. It is an opportunity for brainstorming 

and creative thinking, which produce common decisions and unified action 

outside of the classroom. Communities of practice, in this regard, are settings for 

idea cultivation and diversification targeting all-inclusive solutions in the end. 

Thus the overall literature pertaining to communities of practice and its 

important tenets reflects that a classroom environment is an example of a 

community of practice when appropriate activities and assignments are designed 

and facilitated by a professor who takes a leadership position. The professor 

is in charge of ensuring that activities and assignments designed and used for 

the course lead to collaborative and individual learning. Some activities and 

assignments will be more favorable for the communities of practice approach, 

while others will lead to limited collaborative learning. 

Method 

Data for this research comes from surveys administered in a classroom at the 

University of Central Florida (UCF). With more than 56,000 students, UCF 

has the second-largest student population in the nation. UCF Department of 

Public Administration has the largest Master of Public Administration (MPA) 

program in the state of Florida. The class or course in which the surveys were 

administered was a joint course for several programs in the Fall 2010 semester. It 

was a required course for the Emergency Management Certificate Program and 

an elective course for MPA, MNM (Master of Nonprofit Management), and 

PhD students. 

Two surveys were conducted in a class with 29 students. The first survey 

aimed at capturing the structure and network of friendships and work 

relationships within the classroom and to see the change overtime (see Appendix 

A). Students were asked to identify the individuals they see as their friends 

(friendship network), and the individuals they work/consult with (advice 

network). Two network surveys were administered, one at the beginning and 

another at the end of the semester. While only one student did not participate in 

the survey at the beginning of the semester, all students completed the survey at 

the end of the semester. UCINET social network analysis software was used for 

analyzing the data (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). 

The second survey was administered only at the end of the semester. It 

aimed at revealing the perceived effectiveness of theoretical and practical learning 

materials, tools, and activities in actual learning environments (see Appendix B). 

The questionnaire included both open-ended and close-ended questions, and 

responses were measured on the Likert Scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) 

to 5 (strongly agree). All 29 students participated in this survey. The close-ended 



questions were analyzed in SPSS software. Both surveys were administered in the 

classroom. Students who were not able to attend the class were asked to fill out 

the questionnaire on a Microsoft Word document and send it via e-mail. 

Students in the classroom were from various educational programs at 

different levels. There were students from the MPA program, the Emergency 

Management Certificate Program, the Master of Nonprofit Management 

program, and PhD degrees. Table 1 illustrates that most of the students were 

from the MPA program (19 students). Only seven students were from the EM 

Certificate Program. Two students were in both the EM certificate and MPA 

degrees (dual degree), and only one doctoral student was from the conservation 

biology program. 

Table 1. 

Frequency Distribution of Student Education Background 

Frequency Percentage Valid 

Percentage 

Cumulative 

Percentage 

Valid MPA 19 65.5 65.5 65.5 

EM certificate 7 24.1 24.1 89.7 

PhD 1 3.4 3.4 93.1 

Dual degree 2 6.9 6.9 100.0 

Total 29 100.0 100.0 

Findings and Discussion 

This section discusses the findings of the two surveys conducted in class 

during the semester. The section also covers the network analysis that was 

performed to identify the structure and level of collaborative relationships among 

students who responded to the first survey at the beginning and end of the 

semester, and the qualitative analysis of responses provided by students to the 

second survey. 

Network Analysis 

The network analysis conducted focused on two dimensions—the friendship 

network and the advice network. The former is basically the extent to which 

students in class know each other and are friends, while the second implies the 

level of collaboration students are involved in. Two centrality measures, namely 

degree and closeness centrality, were analyzed for the purposes of this study. The 

degree centrality measure indicates the number of connections that a node has 

in a network, while closeness centrality measure indicates the distance of a node 

to others in the network. To put it simply, when the number of connections 


N. Kapucu 

increases, nodes have more alternatives and shorter paths to reach a random peer 

in a network. The results of the analysis are detailed next. 

Friendship Network 

Table 2 indicates the change of student interaction during the semester, 

in which only outgoing links were included. The average student link with his 

or her peers was 3.586 at the beginning of the semester and 6.069 at the end. 

This change in friendship connections in the network indicates an increase in 

classroom connectedness. The table shows that some students did not identify 

anyone in the classroom as their friends (however, these students are seen 

connected to other students in Figure 2 because of their incoming ties). The 

student with the maximum number of ties has identified nine individuals as 

his or her friends. Figures for the end of the semester indicate an increase in 

the number of connections for both the least and most connected students. At 

the end of the semester, students with the least outgoing connections had three 

friendship links as opposed to zero connections at the beginning of the semester. 

Students with the highest number of connections had 11 outgoing links to their 

peers as opposed to nine links at the beginning of the semester. 

The closeness mean of the classroom was 9.865 at the beginning of the 

semester, and it was 44.212 when the semester was ending. This result shows a 

dramatic increase in students’ friendship connectedness and the ability to reach 

others through a significantly shorter distance. 

Table 2. 

Descriptive Statistics for Class Friendship Network 

Beginning of the Semester 

End of the Semester 

Degree Closeness Degree Closeness 

3.586 9.865 6.069 44.212 

Std Dev 2.443 2.973 Std Dev 2.067 9.743 

Sum 104.000 286.071 Sum 176.000 1282.139 

Variance 5.967 8.839 Variance 4.271 94.918 

Minimum 0.000 3.448 Minimum 3.000 27.723 

Maximum 9.000 14.894 Maximum 11.000 66.667 

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the structure of friendship network relationships 

in the classroom. Figure 2 shows a number of weakly connected nodes. Some 

cliques also are visible between students. These islands of individuals refer to 

heterogeneous relationships within the classroom. 



Figure 2. 

Friendship Network at the Beginning of Semester 

Figure 3 depicts a more homogenously connected network where there are 

no weakly connected individuals in the classroom. The semester-ending network 

still has cliques; nevertheless, the level of connectedness has improved and students 

can reach others through shorter paths due to the relative homogeneity of the network. 

Figure 3. 

Friendship Network at the End of Semester 


N. Kapucu 

Advice Network 

Classroom advice (work) networks represent a relatively different nature 

from those of the friendship networks. Table 3 indicates a minor increase in 

the connectedness of students with respect to their collaboration. This is also 

observable in the closeness centrality measure of the overall network. There has 

been a very minor increase in the closeness of students to each other. 

Table 3. 

Descriptive Statistics for Class Advice Network 

Beginning of the Semester 

End of the Semester 

Degree Closeness Degree Closeness 

3.552 6.001 4.138 6.140 

Std Dev 1.192 1.772 Std Dev 0.681 1.736 

Sum 103.000 174.033 Sum 120.000 178.066 

Variance 1.420 3.141 Variance 0.464 3.015 

Minimum 0.000 3.846 Minimum 3.000 3.994 

Maximum 5.000 8.408 Maximum 6.000 8.537 

Figures 4 and 5 visualize the change of work relations within the classroom. 

The network includes six cliques that are weakly connected or not connected to 

others at all. Preestablished work relationships and the silo effect of study groups 

might be the main reason for this structure. 

Figure 4. 

Advice Network at the Beginning of Semester 



Figure 5, on the other hand, illustrates a minor change in the network 

at the end of the semester. All the cliques are connected to each other via one 

or two nodes. Preestablished network structure has not been decomposed or 

reformed, but it is slightly more connected than it was at the beginning of 

the semester. 

Figure 5. 

Advice Network at the End of Semester 

Table 4 indicates the descriptive statistics for the second survey. Students 

were asked to share their opinions about their learning experience in the 

classroom. The results indicate that most of the students agree that they learned 

about substantial issues and concepts of emergency and crisis management in 

this class. They also concur that networking and relationship building, which 

were emphasized in the class, are critical in their practical life. The effectiveness 

of class activities to develop relationship building and networking is perceived as 

mostly positive. 


N. Kapucu 

Table 4. 

Descriptive Results 

I did learn substantial issues on emergency & 

crisis management in this class. 

Network/relationship building emphasized in 

class is critical in real life. 

Activities in the class were helpful in developing 

networks/relationships. 

Team activities were helpful in to my learning 

in the course. 

Service-learning term projects were helpful to 

my learning. 

Field visits (e.g., EOC visit) were helpful to my 

learning. 

Practitioner guest speakers were helpful to my 

learning. 

FEMA IS Courses were helpful in understanding 

class materials. 

Position papers were helpful in understanding 

the course material. 

Diverse experiences of my classmates were 

helpful to my learning. 

I found the mixed-mode design of the course 

useful (online and face to face). 

Valid N (listwise) 29 

N Min Max Mean SD 

29 3.00 5.00 4.58 0.56 

29 4.00 5.00 4.75 0.43 

29 2.00 5.00 4.03 0.82 

29 1.00 5.00 3.37 1.08 

29 1.00 5.00 3.65 1.11 

29 1.00 5.00 4.55 0.94 

29 3.00 5.00 4.76 0.51 

29 3.00 5.00 4.41 0.73 

29 3.00 5.00 4.10 0.67 

29 3.00 5.00 4.10 0.81 

29 1.00 5.00 4.03 1.23 

The average response for the effectiveness of the classroom activities indicates 

a general agreement in the classroom toward their positive effects. Team activities 

and service-learning projects were perceived as less effective than other tools of 

learning. The average decisions for these two tools were between “neither agree/ 

nor disagree” and “agree.” Field visits and guest speakers were perceived as the 

most effective elements of learning within the course with mean scores of 4.55 

and 4.76 respectively. Students generally agreed that FEMA-IS courses, position 

papers, and experiences of classmates were useful for their learning. Mixed-mode 

class settings were also found useful, although relatively high standard deviation 

indicates that some students were not in favor of it. 

Responses to open-ended questions in the same survey support the overall 

results of the descriptive statistics presented in Table 4. In response to the 

question referencing the most useful tools employed in class, students mostly 

emphasize position papers, field visits, and guest speakers. The following two 

comments can be considered a summary of the overall responses: 



(a) The position papers were most useful because they sparked 

discussion and explanation in class that helped increase my 

understanding of the issues. 

(b) I think that the guest lecturers were most useful for learning because 

they allowed me to see how the academic component of emergency 

management ties into professional applications for emergency 

management. The guest lecturers also seemed to collectively stress 

the importance of strong management skills in any field, inclusive of 

emergency management. 

Students felt that the position paper was a good networking tool to build 

relationships within their group during the semester. Although many students 

enjoyed the position papers, not many had positive feelings concerning the term 

projects. While some felt that working with real agencies and solving their issues 

was a great way to network and gain insights into practical issues, some students 

felt the term project should have been an individual assignment rather than a 

team assignment. Additionally, some students felt the FEMA IS courses were 

very helpful as well. 

In response to the second question that asked students for recommendations 

to improve the course, students suggested inviting more guest speakers, 

conducting the class face-to-face as opposed to mixed mode, assigning individual 

projects instead of group projects, and replacing term projects with shorter 

assignments (such as one-page reaction and response papers). As mentioned 

earlier, some students seem to have been uncomfortable working in groups for 

their term projects, which is challenging due to time and the decision-making 

disadvantages of teamwork, though some argued that group projects developed 

their teamwork skills. Moreover, a student recommended that more student 

networking and bonding activities should be developed, such as writing position 

papers in different groups as opposed to writing position papers and term papers 

as part of the same group. Thus the feelings concerning group assignments and 

projects are mixed and require a more in-depth study. 

The preference for a face-to-face design was explained by the need to employ 

more opportunities to have quality and sophisticated discussions in class when 

compared to the mixed mode, which uses online activities. A few students also 

suggested that in addition to the FEMA IS courses, a disaster training element 

such as a tabletop exercise should be included in the class as well. Another 

student recommended that instead of the term project, the group project 

should focus on practicing drafting an emergency operations plan. Both these 

recommendations focus on including more activities that will help bridge the 

gap between knowledge and practical training/practice and developing a better 

community of practice. 


N. Kapucu 

Conclusion 

This study focused on the university classroom environment as the 

community of practice, and presented insight on how course design and 

activities can enhance learning. The literature stresses the importance of 

leadership and/or facilitation to increase community collaboration; thus, by 

example, learning in a social context was supported by the findings of this study 

through the analysis of two surveys conducted in class with students during the 

academic semester. 

The results of the survey show that through student participation in 

engaging and reflective class activities and assignments, learning did take place. 

The friendship network was greatly strengthened in class over the course of the 

semester, for the analysis shows there were no weakly connected individuals 

at the end of the semester. The advice network, on the other hand, remained 

dotted with cliques that were weakly connected to each other through only one 

or two nodes. The main reason for this is attributed to the emphasis placed 

on team service-learning projects that formed a major part of the class grade 

and required groups to work very closely with each other. Position papers also 

required the same teams to work together but for a shorter period of one to 

two weeks. Thus preestablished work and team relationships, and the silo effect 

of working in teams, are exhibited through the lack of connectedness within 

the advice network. Additional survey results on the perceived effectiveness of 

various instructional and assessment tools in class show that position papers, 

guest speakers, and field visits were the most enjoyable segments of the class for 

students and contributed the most to their learning. Term projects seemed to be 

the least enjoyable activity for students, since they had to face many challenges 

concerning group dynamics and managing tasks. 

The findings point to the fact that the class environment can be and should 

be designed in a way that promotes learning through social interaction. In a 

sense, social interaction in class should be facilitated and directed toward the 

deliberate actions of collaboration, which in turn result in learning. It is also 

important to have a course design that reflects both the theoretical and practical 

insights of the field taught. Having a balanced design of theory versus practice 

as well as lecturing versus discussion-based teaching is an essential part of 

presenting the classroom environment as communities of practice. 

The research conducted for this paper and strategies provided in it can be 

replicated in other settings in public affairs and administration programs or 

courses. Most of the programs in the field of public affairs and administration are 

applications oriented and focus on community-based problem-solving activities 

or service-learning projects. Some issues should be highlighted in regard to 

communities of practice in a classroom environment. First, facilitative leadership 

plays a vital role in determining the direction of community participants’ actions. 

This is especially important because community actors might have clique- 



oriented or subgroup agendas that should be transformed into overall common 

community strategies. Producing different actions for a common goal is possible 

only with an overarching authority that monitors and facilitates the subordinate 

ideas, thoughts, and actions. 

Second, it is essential to grasp the idea of collaboration that would intertwine 

different mind-sets and lead toward a single common goal. Collaboration is 

specifically important in terms of the interdisciplinary nature of the issues 

that communities of practice generally face. Thus, working collaboratively 

means working across boundaries of disciplines, fields, groups, and mind-sets. 

Collaboration also represents the utilization of different methods and tools when 

trying to reach a common goal. Diversity of perspectives, ideas, instruments, and 

solutions is a richness communities of practice inherently bring about. 

Third, communities of practice are environments of dynamic learning. 

Learning in such environments takes place as a result of the collaborative action 

facilitated by a higher authority. In turn, learning leads to further collaboration 

on the basis of accumulated experience and knowledge. Collaboration and 

learning thus stand as mutually reinforcing phenomena mediated and moderated 

by leadership. Accordingly, the methods and tools designed to teach or promote 

learning should be structured in a way that fosters collaboration, and vice versa. 

Fourth, communities of practice should be built upon the reflections of 

the practical world. The interaction with real-world practitioners and firsthand 

experience are the strengtheners and justifiers of in-class activities. They are 

vital in promoting interest, increasing awareness, and fostering reality-based 

judgments in the comparatively close environment of classrooms. They are also 

direct sources of information and knowledge, which is exceedingly important for 

projects and activities performed in the class. 

Finally, the network survey results show that the teaching tools used in 

classrooms provided an increase in student interaction even though the work 

network did not change substantially. The second survey, in which students 

commented on the usefulness of class activities, shows that activities establishing 

interaction with peers and the professional world (e.g., EOC visits, guest 

speakers) have made a significant contribution to student learning. That 

coincides well with the literature, since the classroom is a community of practice 

itself, and a stage where students establish the fundamentals of their professional 

career. Classroom activities give students the opportunity to become embedded 

in a learning environment consisting of peers and professionals. Tailoring 

similar practices to different classroom settings would enable students of 

different courses and disciplines to learn from their peers and connect classroom 

knowledge with real-world examples. 

There are some additional points for professors who would like to apply 

these practices in the classroom environment. First, every discipline has 

different specifications, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating a 


N. Kapucu 

community of practice. Expectations from students are different for each class; 

thus, tailoring class activities toward the community of practice method is 

critical. Second, professors are the facilitators of the classroom community, and 

building a community of practice is in their hands. In that sense, the facilitators 

of communities of practice need to be able sense the students’ tendencies and use 

appropriate strategies to promote collaborative activities within the classroom 

and within the professional environment. For example, putting students merely 

into groups, without a variety of strategies encouraging peer interaction (e.g., 

class discussions, position papers, online teaching tools) may create isolated 

cliques within the class. Thus, students become stuck in small group networks 

and lose the opportunity to learn from experiences of their peers and the 

classroom environment. Last, linking the class environment with the professional 

world is vital for combining the theoretical knowledge originating in class with 

real-life experience. 

Acknowledgments 

I acknowledge the assistance and feedback of Fatih Demiroz, Vener Garayev, 

and Rebecca Dodson for the article. 

References 

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: 


Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004). Designing virtual communities in the service of learning. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Barabási, A. L. (2002) Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. 

Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & J. Puckett. (2007). Dewey’s Dream: Universities and democracies in an age of 

education reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

Berardo, R. (2011). Networking networkers: An initial exploration of patterns of collaboration among 

members of a new community in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(1), 69–75. 

Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. C., & Freeman, L C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social 

network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. 

Brown, D. W., & Witte, D. (2008). Agents of Democracy. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation. 

Bushouse, B., & Morrison, S. (2001). Reflective Practicum: Applying the service learning pedagogical 

approach to Masters in Public Affairs programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(1): 9–17. 

Crosby, B., & Bryson, J. (2005). Leadership for the common good. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Cross, P. K. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 



Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Free Press. 

———. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. 

Downes, S. (2005). An introduction to connective knowledge. Stephen Downes: Stephen’s Web. Retrieved 

from www.downes.ca/post/33034 

Guldberg, K. (2010). Using the lenses of socio-cultural activity theory and communities of practice to guide 

an empirical study. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, 

2010. Retrieved from www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/ 

Guldberg.pdf 

Guldberg, K. K., & Pilkington, R. M. (2006). A community of practice approach to the development 

of nontraditional learners through networked learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 

22(3), 159–172. 

Harlan, M. A. (2008). Personal learning networks: Professional development for the isolated school 

librarian. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. 

Johnston, E. W., Hicks, D., Nan, N., & Auer, J. C. (2010). Managing the inclusion process in 

collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(4), 699–721. 

doi:10.1093/jopart/muq045. 

Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks. 

Association for Learning Technology Journal, 12(1), 82–93. 

Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., Yuldashev, F., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Social Network Analysis (SNA) 

applications in evaluating MPA classes. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(4), 541–563. 

Koliba, C. (2004). Assessing reflection assignments for public affairs courses: Implications for educating 

reflective practitioners. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(4), 295–309. 

Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In 

N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 

216–239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Lave, J. (1991). Situation learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. 

Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

Lazer, D., Mergel, I., & Friedman, A. (2009). Co-citation of prominent social networking articles in 

sociology journals: The evolving canon. Connections, 29(1), 44–64. 

Neubauer, B. J., Hug, R. W., Hamon, K. W., & Stewart, S. K. (2011).Using personal learning networks 

to leverage communities of practice in public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 

17(1), 9–25. 

Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Polin, L. G. (2008). Graduate professional education from a community of practice perspective. In C. 

Kimble, P. Hildreth, & I. Bourdon (Eds.), Communities of practice: Creating learning environments 

for educators, Volume 2 (pp. 89–105). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 


N. Kapucu 

Rudestam, K., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of online learning (2nd ed.). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Shields, P. M. (2003). The Community of Inquiry: Classical Pragmatism and Public Administration. 

Administration and Society, 35(5), 510–538. 

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of 

Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(3), 3–10. Retrieved from www.elearnspace.org/ 

Articles/connectivism.htm 

Smith, M.K. (2003, 2009). Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved 

from http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm 

Stivers, C. (2010). Democratic knowledge: The task before us. Administration & Society, 42(2), 

248–259. 

Uzzi, B., & Dunlap, S. (2005). How to build your network. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 53–60. 

Viskovic, A. (2006). Becoming a tertiary teacher: Learning in communities of practice. Higher 

Education Research & Development, 25(4), 323–339. 

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. 

———. (2005). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 


Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000, January–February). Communities of practice: The organizational 

frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139–145. 

Naim Kapucu, PhD, is a professor and founding director of the Center for 

Public and Nonprofit Management (CPNM, 2008–2011) in the School of 

Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. His main research 

interests are emergency and crisis management, collaborative governance, 

and organizational learning and design. He teaches public and nonprofit 

management, emergency and crisis management, and analytic techniques for 

public administration courses. He can be reached at kapucu@ucf.edu. 



Appendix A 

Network Survey for XXX Course 

The purpose of the survey is to collect data on collaborative learning in 

the classroom environment for XXX course students. The analysis will identify 

the informal (friendship) network and work-related (formal) network in the 

classroom as a living organization in the beginning of the term and toward 

the end of the term. It also will identify the most helpful activities for student 

interactions. Your responses are confidential, and will not be revealed without 

your consent; only aggregate results will be made available. Your participation in 

the research is voluntary and will not affect your grade for the class. If you have 

any questions, please contact Dr. XXX at xxx@xxxx or at (XXX) XXX-XXX. 

Your name: ____________________________ 

Please name the students that you know in the class (you can list as many as 

you wish): 

1. _____________________ 

2. _____________________ 

3. _____________________ 

4. _____________________ 

5. _____________________ 

Please name the students that you work/consult with for study/assignments and 

related issues in the class (you can list as many as you wish): 

6. _____________________ 

7. _____________________ 

8. _____________________ 

9. _____________________ 

10. _____________________ 

Which aspect of the course activities helped you interact and learn from the class 

members (you can check more than one option)? 

__ Team service learning (term) project 

__ Class discussions 

__ Position papers 

__ Peer paper evaluation 

__ FEMA EMI IS courses 

__ Other (please specify): __________ 


N. Kapucu 

Appendix B 

Survey for Learning in the Context of Lived Experience 

The purpose of this short survey is to collect information on learning through lived 

experiences as part of the XXX course. The analysis will identify the perceived 

effectiveness of theoretical and practical learning materials, tools, and activities in 

actual learning. It also will identify the most helpful activities that provide learning 

opportunities to students. Your responses are confidential and will not be revealed 

without your consent; only aggregate results will be made available. Your participation 

in the research is voluntary and will not affect your grade for the class. If you have any 

questions, please contact Dr. XXX at xxx@xxxx or at (XXX) XXX-XXXX. 

Please rate each of the following statements based on the scale provided based on 

your experience during the term. 

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly 

Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 

5 4 3 2 1 

[ ] I did learn substantial issues on emergency and crisis management in this class. 

[ ] Network/relationship building emphasized in the class is critical in real life. 

[ ] Activities in the class were helpful in developing networks/relationships. 

[ ] Team activities were helpful to my learning in the course. 

[ ] Service learning term projects were helpful to my learning. 

[ ] Field visits (e.g., EOC visit) were helpful to my learning. 

[ ] Practitioner guest speakers were helpful to my learning. 

[ ] FEMA IS courses were very helpful in my learning in the class. 

[ ] Position papers were helpful in understanding the course materials. 

[ ] Diverse experiences of my classmates were helpful to my learning. 

[ ] I found mixed-mode design of the curse useful (online and face-to face). 

Please provide additional feedback to the following questions: 

Which learning tools (e.g., term projects, position papers) used in the class were 

most useful for learning? (Additional recommendations) __________________ 

______________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________ 

What are your recommendations for further improvement in the design of the 

managing emergencies and crisis course? _______________________________ 

______________________________________________________________ 

Please check one of the options most appropriate for you. 

As part of which program are you taking this course? 

[ ] MPA [ ] EM certificate [ ] MNM [ ] PhD [ ] Other (please specify): _______ 


Review of 

Accountable Governance: 

Problems and Promises 

Edited by Melvin J. Dubnick and H. George Frederickson 

Review by Peter W. McDanel 

Public accountability is a hallmark of modern democratic governance 

and the foundation of the popular performance management movement. 

“Democracy is just an empty exercise if those in power cannot be held 

accountable in public for their acts and omissions, for their decisions, their 

policies, and their expenditures” (source: the foreword). Accountability 

is frequently discussed in the business world, and in particular the public 

accounting arena where the public accounting industry reacts slowly in detecting 

fraud and irregularities. Poor behavior and reaction has led to public fury and 

the enactment of regulation by Congress such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 

which attempts to force accountability upon industry. Misunderstandings have 

occurred between institutions and the public they serve. A possible reason for 

this disconnect is that institutions think of accountability in informational terms 

while citizens think of accountability in terms of relationships. 

This six-section volume offers a rich diversification of thought from 25 

of the best-known scholars in the field of public affairs on the various aspects 

of accountability, providing a rich framework for further dialogue between 

government officials, educators, and citizens. The work addresses the complex 

challenges of the accountability movement, the obstacles to accountability, the 

difficulty in assessing accountability, and ways that officials and the public adapt 

to accountability. Also included are strategies to improve accountability as well as 

applications of the accountability movement in practice. 

The first section explores the complex challenges facing the accountability 

movement. First of all, the writers suggest that multiple layers of oversight lead 

to redundancy and inefficiencies. As an example of this inefficiency, one of the 

chapters discusses the case of welfare reform. When products that are procured 

are complex (where neither the buyer nor the seller of the products understands 

the cost, quality, and quantity parameters), inefficiencies may occur and lead to 

weaker accountability. Also addressed is the accountability of global governance 

organizations (entities that promulgate rules with the goal of global adoption). 

JPAE 18(3), 611–614 


P. W. McDanel 

The writers then discuss the many obstacles facing the accountability 

movement. First performance measure regimes are examined. Here, the 

reader questions whether performance measurement can actually improve 

accountability. This question drives directly to the heart of the program review 

and evaluation process efforts in government. Next, the authors shift attention to 

accountability and a general government jurisdiction: the American county, and, 

in particular, the concept of political accountability in the external environment 

in which accountability is measured. 

Following the discussion of obstacles facing the accountability movement, 

the authors address the issues of assessing accountability. Since there is a 

dearth of conceptual modeling and empirical research about accountability 

mechanisms, and the positive and unintended negative outcomes that may occur, 

a conceptual framework is proposed using the policy streams model. A second 

chapter provides an informative chapter on the uses and impact of information 

technologies on the assessment process and the possible impacts on governance. 

Any discussion of accountability must address ways that government officials 

will react to the accountability imposed on them. One enlightening entry 

emphasizes the topic of blame avoidance, where politicians and bureaucrats 

attempt to dodge accountability, leading to positive as well as negative effects. 

Specific examples of accountability include international nongovernmental 

organizations (Bangladesh PROSHIKA) and U.S. nonprofit organizations that 

have grown dramatically in size and influence over the past 25 years. 

The remaining sections of the work address strategies and rethinking 

accountability. One of the important questions is who evaluates the 

accountability movement; that is, who’s watching the watchers? Given the 

recent attention to accountability in public discourse, the authors conclude by 

discussing works that explore some the fundamental questions raised by the 

increasing obsession with accountability as it pertains to political and social life. 

Any work on these issues must include an exploration of possible questions and 

answers as well as implications of the recent “obsession” to create policy solutions 

to the financial crises associated with the great recession of 2007 to 2010, and 

beyond. Most of the policy debate coalesces around the role of governance and 

ways of funding effective solutions to the problems in financial markets. Other 

financial authors have offered explanations for the crisis, including expansive 

monetary policy in excessive levels of debt as well as flawed incentives that led 

to the housing crisis. Accountable Governance contains an excellent chapter on 

“Rethinking the Obsession” that provides a framework for beginning to think 

about what has happened as well as possible policies to prevent a future crisis; 

this is excellent material for present-day and future dialogues. 

This book, if used as a textbook, should position well within a graduate 

public accounting and/or finance course in an MPA Program as a secondary 

reader to the primary textbook. It could also be adapted for use in a doctoral 


Review of Accountable Governance 

level scope and theory course. It would also be an important book added to the 

recommended reading list of graduate courses in program review and evaluation. 

I am also certain that young assistant professors in their early careers could find 

this book useful in identifying significant new research opportunities given the 

reality that new models are needed to fully understand all the ramifications of 

accountability in government. 

In conclusion, the editors wisely suggest that despite two decades of 

advances in understanding accountability, there are still many avenues for 

future research including the need to investigate and break free from cultural 

blinders to understand what it means to be accountable as well as the need to 

research the philosophical social cognitive foundations of our own approaches to 

accountability governance. This work provides the framework from which this 

future research may begin. 

Footnote 

Accountable Governance 

328 pp. (pbk) 

M.E. Sharpe (December 28, 2010) 

Armonk, NY 

ISBN#978-0-7656-2384-3 (pbk) 

Dr. Peter W. McDanel, DBA, CPA, CMA, CFM is an adjunct professor at 

Davenport University and at Indiana Wesleyan University. 



Erratum 

In volume 18:2, “Public Administration and Public Service Perspectives” 

by Keith F. Snider and René G. Rendon, Table 5 on page 341 was incorrect. 

The correction for the table is below. Apologies to the authors and readers. 

— Kris Norman-Major 

Managing Editor 


“body of knowledge” (see for example, websites for NIGP [www.nigp.org] and the 

National Contract Management Association [NCMA; www.ncmahq.org]) leads 

educators to consider courses in procurement policy, procurement management 

(including organization, personnel, and financing), and procurement law. 

Table 5. 

Adding Public Procurement to Public Administration Curricula: Three Levels. 

Low Engagement Possible Syllabus Topics Possible Textbooks 

Adding Procurement 

Content to Existing 

Courses 

• Procurement Policy 

• Contracting Processes 

and Practices 

• Economics of 

Contracting 

• Government Contract Law 

• Contract Administration 

• Contract Pricing and 

Negotiations 

• Managing Procurement 

Projects 

• The responsible contract manager: Protecting 

the public interest in an outsourced 

world (Cohen & Eimicke, 2008) 

• Introduction to public procurement 

(Thai, 2004) 

• World-class contracting (Garrett, 2011) 

• Governing by contract: Challenges and 

opportunities for public managers 

(Cooper, 2003) 

• Procurement & public management: 

The fear of discretion and the quality 

of public performance (Kelman, 1990) 

Moderate Engagement Possible Syllabus Topics Possible Textbooks 

Adding a Procurement 

Course 

High Engagement 

Adding a Procurement 

Concentration 

• Procurement Policy 

• Contracting Processes 

and Practices 

• Economics of Contracting 

• Government Contract Law 

• Contract Administration 

• Contract Pricing 

and Negotiations 

• Managing Procurement 

Projects 

• The responsible contract manager: Protecting 

the public interest in an outsourced 

world (Cohen & Eimicke, 2008) 

• Introduction to public procurement 

(Thai, 2004) 

• World-class contracting (Garrett, 2011) 

• Governing by contract: Challenges 

and opportunities for public managers 

(Cooper, 2003) 

• Procurement & public management: 

The fear of discretion and the quality of 

public performance (Kelman, 1990) 

Possible Course Titles and Textbooks 

• Introduction to Public Procurement—Introduction to public 

procurement (Thai, 2005) 

• Government Contract Law—Formation of government contracts 

(Cibinic & Nash, 1998) 

• Contract Negotiations and Pricing—Guide to contract pricing 

(Murphy, 2009) 

• Supply Management—World class supply management (Burt, Dobler 

& Starling, 2003) 

• Public Procurement Policy—Government procurement management 

(Sherman, 1991); Government by contract: Outsourcing American 

democracy (Freeman & Minow, 2009)

Information for Contributors 

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of 

Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching 

and learning in public affairs broadly defined, which includes the fields of policy analysis, public 

administration, public management, public policy, nonprofit administration, and their subfields. 

Advancing teaching and learning includes not only the improvement of specific courses and teaching 

methods but also the improvement of public affairs program design and management. The goal 

of JPAE is to publish articles that are useful to those participating in the public affairs education 

enterprise, not only in the United States, but throughout the world. In service to this goal, articles 

should be clear, accessible to those in the public affairs fields and subfields, and generalizable. The new 

editorial team is particularly interested in articles that (1) use rigorous methods to analyze the relative 

effectiveness of different teaching methods, and (2) have international and/or comparativecomponents 

or consider the effect of country setting. Articles submitted for publication in JPAE should not already 

be published or in submission elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at conferences are welcome. 

Generally, manuscripts should conform to the JPAE style sheet available at www.naspaa.org/JPAE/ 

stylesheet.pdf. Specifically, they should: 

• Be typed in a standard 12-point serif font (such as Times New Roman), double spaced, with 

margins of no less than one inch on all sides. 

• Use APA-style in-text citations and references. More information on APA style can be found 

at http://www.apastyle.org/. 

• Not include author(s) names either on title page or in body of the manuscript in order to 

allow for anonymous peer review. 

• Not exceed 30 pages in length, including notes, references, and tables. 

• Include endnotes that are not embedded through the word processor. 

• Not use automated bibliography tools (Endnote, Refworks, or the tool in Word). 

Submissions should be made online at http://www.edmgr.com/jpae. At the site, you will be instructed to 

create an account if you have not already done so or to log in under your existing account. 

Submitting authors will be asked for contact information, names of any additional authors, up to three 

subject classifications to which the manuscript relates, and an abstract of approximately 150 words. 

Additional instructions for registration in this system and submission of manuscripts can be found at 

http://www.edmgr.com/jpae or the JPAE website at www.naspaa.org/jpae. Authors should expect to 

receive acknowledgment of receipt of the manuscript and can follow its progress through the review 

process at the www.edmgr.com/jpae site. 

All articles are given an initial review by the editorial team. Articles must meet basic criteria including 

writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and interest to JPAE readers before they 

are submitted for external, double-blind peer review. If accepted for publication, manuscripts cannot 

be published until they conform to APA style and all of the authors have provided copyright transfer 

authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about 5 lines). 

Any questions about the manuscript submission, review, and publication process can be addressed to 

the editorial team at jpae@hamline.edu. 

Because of its mission, the Journal of Public Affairs Education allows educators to reproduce any 

JPAE material for classroom use, and authors may reproduce their own articles without written 

permission. Written permission is required to reproduce any part of JPAE in all other instances.

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration 

1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517 

202-628-8965 • fax 202-626-4978 • www.naspaa.org 

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of 

Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). Founded in 1970, NASPAA serves as a national and 

international resource for the promotion of excellence in education for the public service. Its institutional 

membership includes more than 250 university programs in the United States in public administration, policy, 

and management. It accomplishes its purposes through direct services to its member institutions and by 

• Developing and administering appropriate standards for educational programs in public affairs through 

its Executive Council and its Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation; 

• Representing to governments and other institutions the objectives and needs of education for 

public affairs and administration; 

• Encouraging curriculum development and innovation and providing a forum for publication and 

discussion of education scholarship, practices, and issues; 

• Undertaking surveys that provide members and the public with information on key educational issues; 

• Meeting with employers to promote internship and employment opportunities for students 

and graduates; 

• Undertaking joint educational projects with practitioner professional organizations; and 

• Collaborating with institutes and schools of public administration in other countries through 

conferences, consortia, and joint projects. 

NASPAA provides opportunities for international engagement for NASPAA members, placing a global emphasis 

on educational quality and quality assurance through a series of networked international initiatives, in 

particular the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe 

(NISPAcee), the Inter-American Network of Public Administration Education (INPAE), and the Georgian 

Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA). It is also involved locally; for instance, directing the Small Communities 

Outreach Project for Environmental Issues, which networks public affairs schools and local governments 

around environmental regulation policy issues, with support from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

NASPAA’s twofold mission is to ensure excellence in education and training for public service and to 

promote the ideal of public service. Consistent with NASPAA’s mission, JPAE is dedicated to advancing 

teaching and learning in public affairs, defined to include the fields of policy analysis, public administration, 

public management, and public policy. Published quarterly by NASPAA, the journal features commentaries, 

announcements, symposia, book reviews, and peer-reviewed scholarly articles on pedagogical, curricular, 

and accreditation issues pertaining to public affairs education. 

JPAE was founded in 1995 by a consortium from the University of Kansas and the University of Akron and 

was originally published as the Journal of Public Administration Education. H. George Frederickson was the 

journal’s founding editor. In addition to serving as NASPAA’s journal of record, JPAE is affiliated with the 

Section on Public Administration Education of the American Society for Public Administration.

summer 2012 - National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?