This article discusses citizen participation in the governance process in light of two theoretical approaches: hooks’s talking back as a way to empower citizens and Mary Parker Follett’s constructive conflict as a form of participation founded in political dialogue. The authors argue that constructive conflict not only allows citizens and government to jointly define and redefine the governance process in truly collaborative ways but also permits the joint construction and delivery of effective public programs. The point of contact between citizens and administrators presents an ideal opportunity where citizens are most willing, by virtue of their physical presence in the routine interaction between citizens and administrators, and most able, by knowing something about their situation and the program/policy that affects them directly, to participate.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to argue that philosophic and administrative thought have enframed (Heidegger, 1977) us to unconsciously accept technology in public administration and the bureaucracy. Design/methodology/approach It builds on literature in phenomenology. Findings It discusses the implications of this phenomenon for organizational decision-making, management, and governance more broadly. Practical implications It questions whether we should utilize video technology in policing, and examine technology as good or bad before implementing it. Originality/value Most of the critiques of technology were in the early 1990s. This paper attempts to explain why we implicitly accept technology, links the philosophy of Immanuel Kant to Herbert Simon, and articulates how technology shapes our thinking.

Phenomenology is the study of things as they “appear” (phenomena) to us in their own terms, prior to formal conceptualization. This article traces the development of phenomenology in public administration within the larger realm of interpretive approaches. It describes applied phenomenology as developed by Ralph Hummel and discusses its usefulness in the study of public organizations and administrative practice. As a way of studying process, phenomenology allows administrators to bridge the theory–practice gap. Since understanding a situation depends on different kinds of knowledge, phenomenological epistemology fosters a more democratic public administration.

How can public administrators tasked with enforcing immigration laws bring care and commitment to human relationships and public connections? The contemporary anti-immigrant (anti-Other) “narrative” related to immigration policy is provided as exemplary socio-political-administrative terrain for exploring this question. Considering the undocumented alien as the “other” that possess a threat to the whole is problematic for democratic immigration policy making and governance. This paper suggests that pragmatism and Hannah Arendt’s political theory of publicness offer a theoretical groundwork for understanding and overcoming the destructive dynamics of “othering.” This framework can help administrators, through reflection in action and situational awareness, make sense of their daily practice. Finally, the discussion centers on lessons for street-level bureaucrats to reconsider the border and “others” under a new light, as constitutive of the public space.

No abstract