Abstract:The importance of ontology to social theory is emerging in a variety of fields associated with political theory, including public administration. This article explores the ontological underpinnings of Follett's theory of governance, including both political and administrative theory. The observation of similarities between Follett's concepts and those of Whitehead's process philosophy led to the discovery that they were indeed contemporaries who mutually influenced one another's work, with Follett focusing on … Show more
“…Along these lines, future research can generate new insights on the value of public encounters for the quality of public service delivery, decision‐making, and problem solving. In this relational approach, what public professionals and citizens are able to do is the product of the quality of the ongoing interactional process through which they encounter each other (Stout and Staton ). It implies attending to public encounters asa particular qualitative process or way of talking and interacting with others… It is concerned … with the particular texture of contextual interaction or contact and a kind of mutual learning through activity and interaction that such contact provides… [which] exists as a relational possibility in concrete settings.…”
Section: The Communicative ‘In‐between’: Public Encounters As Relatiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on recent calls for appreciating the relational, situational, and performative quality of interactional processes (Campbell Rawlings and Catlaw ; Stout and Staton ), this article argues that, up to now, public encounters have been insufficiently captured as that which happens ‘in‐between’ public professionals and citizens. Developing public encounters into a subject area of its own will require a wider recognition of this in‐between as a distinct phenomenon that directly shapes the value of public encounters.…”
Public encounters, face‐to‐face contact between public professionals and citizens, was first identified as a key issue in public administration 80 years ago, but never developed into a subject area of its own. Although receiving attention in research on street‐level bureaucrats' contact with customers, clients, and citizens, the concept of public encounters is hardly used. However, it has great potential to overcome current limitations in understanding how public encounters can enhance the quality of services, decisions, and outcomes. This article traces the historical development of research on public encounters and sets a future agenda for developing it into a subject area of its own. The main argument is that, so far, the encounter, or ‘in‐between’, has not been captured as a distinct phenomenon. A framework is developed to examine this in‐between in terms of the everyday communicative practices and processes through which public professionals and citizens encounter each other.
“…Along these lines, future research can generate new insights on the value of public encounters for the quality of public service delivery, decision‐making, and problem solving. In this relational approach, what public professionals and citizens are able to do is the product of the quality of the ongoing interactional process through which they encounter each other (Stout and Staton ). It implies attending to public encounters asa particular qualitative process or way of talking and interacting with others… It is concerned … with the particular texture of contextual interaction or contact and a kind of mutual learning through activity and interaction that such contact provides… [which] exists as a relational possibility in concrete settings.…”
Section: The Communicative ‘In‐between’: Public Encounters As Relatiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on recent calls for appreciating the relational, situational, and performative quality of interactional processes (Campbell Rawlings and Catlaw ; Stout and Staton ), this article argues that, up to now, public encounters have been insufficiently captured as that which happens ‘in‐between’ public professionals and citizens. Developing public encounters into a subject area of its own will require a wider recognition of this in‐between as a distinct phenomenon that directly shapes the value of public encounters.…”
Public encounters, face‐to‐face contact between public professionals and citizens, was first identified as a key issue in public administration 80 years ago, but never developed into a subject area of its own. Although receiving attention in research on street‐level bureaucrats' contact with customers, clients, and citizens, the concept of public encounters is hardly used. However, it has great potential to overcome current limitations in understanding how public encounters can enhance the quality of services, decisions, and outcomes. This article traces the historical development of research on public encounters and sets a future agenda for developing it into a subject area of its own. The main argument is that, so far, the encounter, or ‘in‐between’, has not been captured as a distinct phenomenon. A framework is developed to examine this in‐between in terms of the everyday communicative practices and processes through which public professionals and citizens encounter each other.
“…The ideal-type model presented herein builds on previous typological work explicated in dissertations, conference papers, and publications (Love, 2008(Love, , 2010b(Love, , 2011(Love, , 2012Stout, 2010bStout, , 2011Stout, , 2012aStout, , 2012bStout, , 2012cStout & Salm, 2011;Stout & Staton, 2011). However, by combining the preceding models, we have filled critical gaps in both.…”
This article presents a Governance Typology comprising philosophical and practical theoretical elements which compose four ideal-types found in dominant Western political theory, what we label Institutional, Holographic, Atomistic, and Fragmented governance types. Then a fifth synthesis type is articulated, Integrative Governance, which is based on relational process ontology derived from alternative sources. The article then makes the argument that Integrative Governance is fitting in terms of the contemporary context and leading edge theory and addresses important critiques of the other governance types. In closing, the article affirms Integrative Governance and argues it is a more fruitful grounding for global governance and a more sustainable future.
“…Weak ontologies can provide a robust and detailed explication and yet remain fluid in character as amendable normative affirmations. Examples can be found in process philosophy (Stout and Staton 2011) and indigenous spirituality (Stout 2010). Contrarily, “strong” ontologies are fixed and rigid in character, claiming to represent permanent Truth.…”
Section: Why Is Ontology Important To Political Theory?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Working forward toward political form, this sounds quite a bit like the political and administrative philosophies of Hannah Arendt and Mary Parker Follett (Stivers 2008, 2002b; Stout and Staton 2011; Stout 2010a), or what has been called the collaborative tradition of public administration (Stout 2006, 2007, 2009a, 2009b). Practices for collaboration with citizens (Vigoda 2002) include citizen governance (Box 1998), deliberative democracy ( Dryzek 1990; Fischer 2003; Forester 1999; Fox and Miller 1995; Roberts 2004), substantive democracy, (Box et al 2001), participatory policy making (deLeon 1992; Dryzek and Torgerson 1993; Fischer and Forester 1993; King, Feltey, and Susel 1998; Ventriss 1985; Walters, Aydelotte, and Miller 2000;), and coproduction in implementation (King and Zanetti 2005; Sharp 1980; Whitaker 1980).…”
A growing number of public administration theorists are taking up the question of ontology—the nature of existence. This primer on the topic provides a basic explanation of ontology, describes the fundamental debates in the competing ontologies of Western philosophy, and discusses why ontology is important to social and political theory, as well as to public administration theory and practice. Using an ideal‐type approach, the author analyzes how different ontologies imply particular political forms that undergird public administration theories and practices. This ideal‐type model can be used to identify the ontological assumptions in these theories and practices. The article concludes with an invitation for personal reflection on the part of scholars and practitioners in regard to which ontology best fits their experience and beliefs and the alternatives that we might pursue for a better future.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
