ADMINISTRATION

Campbell / THEORIZING
& SOCIETY
THE AUTHENTIC
10.1177/0095399704270582 / January 2005

THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC

Identity, Engagement, and Public Space

KELLY B. CAMPBELL
Arizona State University

This article builds upon and extends the work of civic engagement, deliberative democracy,
and discourse theorists by critically examining the ways in which civic engagement is cur-
rently conceptualized and utilized. Through this analysis, critical oversights, assumptions,
and biases concerning the potential of public participation, the nature of who is or is not en-
gaged, and the places where authentic engagement is occurring are revealed. To move the
field forward and to prevent scholars and practitioners from inadvertently sustaining the
very problems they are attempting to rectify, this author posits that a more critical and reflec-
tive approach to civic engagement and public participation efforts is needed. The article con-
cludes with suggestions for alternative locations of engagement, future research, and public
administrations role in supporting and facilitating publicly engaged citizens.

Keywords: civic engagement; citizen participation; democratic theory; identity; public

space; deliberative democracy; social capital

Politics, in our search for authentic public space, must as a concept be wid-
ened and deepened. We cannot return simply to a more intense and detailed
manipulation of who gets what when how. Politics is depicted, in
Heideggers treatment of the Greeks, as the place where a community gath-
ers to reexamine its most constitutive truths. A search for true public space
today must keep in mind this concern for getting in touch with the underly-
ing constitutive assumptions of a political community; it is on the basis of
these that any given historical community comes to terms with itself. The
most difficult matter regarding public space is this: The test of true open-
ness is that what comes to show itself is as likely to be evil as good, the hor-

EDITORS NOTE: When it was reviewed, Kelly Campbells article drew such sharply
divided reactions that we felt it would be an excellent catalyst for debate and therefore asked
the authors permission to place it in Disputatio Sine Fine. We hope that you will agree and
that some readers will be moved to join the fray.
ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 36 No. 6, January 2005 688-705
DOI: 10.1177/0095399704270582
2005 Sage Publications

688
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 689

rific as well as the welcome. Truly open space is no debating society: It

reveals and seals individual fates and communal destinies.
Ralph Hummel (2002, p. 106)

Public administration finds itself in a time when an increasing amount of

attention is being given to civic engagement and deliberative, discourse-
based democracy and the need to make citizenship more active, the policy
process more inclusive, and democracy more democratic. Although there
are three streams of literature that investigate and assert the social benefits
that accrue through increased participation (DeLeon, 1997; Denhardt &
Denhardt, 2003; Fox & Miller, 1995; Gutman & Thompson, 1996; King
& Stivers, 1998; Putnam, 2000; Wuthnow, 1998), the notion that civic par-
ticipation plays a crucial and potentially transformational (Scott, 2000)
role in citizen development is less often explored. Moreover, within these
civic engagement, deliberative democracy, and discourse theory litera-
tures, there are rarely conversations about what we mean when discussing
authentic participation and about whom we are envisioning in reference to
citizens. To take a critical and reflective look at ourselves and the ways in
which we are currently theorizing participation and participants, it is
important to first establish the linkages among identity, participation, and
transformation. Second, it is necessary to explore the current locations for
authentic engagement and to whom these opportunities are both intended
and available. After doing so, we can then begin to examine where we go
from here in terms of identifying alternative public spaces and means of
participating, measuring success, posing future research, and supporting
governments role in cultivating the publicly engaged self.

IDENTITY, PARTICIPATION, AND TRANSFORMATION

Although his study specifically looked at self-professed political activ-

ists, Teskes (1997) identity construction model of political participation
can nonetheless be useful to this discussion. Teske provides a challenge to
the way in which we have been historically conditioned to view humanity
through one of two distinct lenses. He explains how traditionally peoples
participation is seen as a result of either self-interest or altruistic motiva-
tions. His hope is that the motivation behind political involvement is not
entirely a matter of self-sacrifice and or a denial of the interests of the self
but that it also enriches and develops us as individuals and human beings
(p. 96). Teskes identity construction model reflects the idea that people
get involved as a result of a conscious and thought-out desire to be, or to
become, a certain type of person. What is left in question is whether this
690 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

same enrichment of self can be gained simply through the act of participa-
tion or if it can only occur after conscious reflection and decision to partic-
ipate. Even so, what his theory does do is introduce a connection between
public participation and identity construction upon which this article can
build.
To examine the role of participation in building and shaping identity,
one must first understand what is meant when discussing identity. I am
arguing that ones subjective position (identity) is socially constructed,
meaning that it is influenced, shaped, and achieved through relationships,
experiences, participation, and discourse. As a result, identity can, in fact,
be enhanced and transformed by broadening and enriching these condi-
tions. If we see identity as an accomplishment that can be continually
renegotiated via linguistic exchange and social performance (Cerulo,
1997, p. 387), then by opening up public spaces for engagement, we are in
turn constructing situations in which those exchanges and performances
can take place. Through participation, individuals become citizens and, as
Denhardt (2002) notes when discussing the Citizens First! Initiative in
Florida, people act one way when they are making decisions as individu-
als and a very different way when making decisions as citizens. As a
result, philosophers such as J. S. Mill and Hannah Arendt argue that this
type of participation is a good in and of itself: The benefits of participa-
tion in public affairs are primarily personal: participation improves the
moral, practical, or intellectual qualities of those who participate: it makes
them not just better citizensthough clearly this is crucialbut also
better individuals (Cooke, 2000, p. 948).
Moreover, publicly engaged citizens are able to explore and shape their
identities through their actions and relations with others in ways unavail-
able in nonpublic settings. Interaction with and among citizens allows
people an opportunity to share their experiences and learn from those of
others. This interaction develops a sense of connection among partici-
pants and their communities and governments. As Ryfe (2002), who stud-
ied the effects of 16 deliberative organizations, explains,

The most important result of these interactions is the construction and

maintenance of a shared sense of belonging. All of the evaluation studies I
have reviewed find that participants come out of the experience feeling
more informed and more connected to their communities . . . . It is in the
excitement over community involvement, the instigation to public action,
to reaching out beyond ones private life to share in issues of common con-
cern, and the feeling of being personally empowered that discourse organi-
zations make their most important impact. (p. 370)
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 691

Herein is the transformative potential of discourse and communicative

rationality: We can change and shape our identities and opinions through
interaction with others.

IMPLICATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT

Examining the linkages between participation and identity has numer-

ous implications for governmental and administrative relations. The
nature of the transformation in identity is contingent upon the type of
interaction experienced. For this reason, it becomes imperative to investi-
gate and problematize the crafting of civic identity. As Elsbach and
Bhattacharya (2001) point out,

At the individual level, a large amount of research on social identification

suggests that identification with a favorably perceived social group or orga-
nization enhances a persons self-esteem, self-distinctiveness, and self-
continuity . . . . Recent studies also show that identification provides bene-
fits to the organization by increasing members long-term commitment and
support for the organization . . . . [Other studies] show that group members
exhibit more cooperation and group support when group identifications are
salient and positive. (p. 393)

If citizens held a positive identification with their communities and

governments, then these benefits could be materialized. However, given
the often talked about antigovernment era in which we find ourselves
(King & Stivers, 1998), we must address how we plan to increase civic
identity in a time when people are skeptical, if not hostile, about govern-
ments efficacy for solving problems and sincerity for inclusion. What
does it say if government is currently looked upon in a negative light and
we are asking people to participate and become a part of it? It is important
for us to explore and understand what interactions these citizens have had
with government thus far. How people view the government and its
administrators says a lot about whether or not they will be inclined to
participate.
Civic participation with government transfers power from the policy
experts, out-of-touch politicians, and distant bureaucrats to the public.
Active participation encourages people to speak, analyze, and act for
solution . . . . It provides people with an opportunity to transform their
everyday experiences into meaningful social actions (Wagle, 2000, p.
216). This experience can transform the individuals participating, as men-
tioned before, but it can also revolutionize the relationship between
citizens and government.
692 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

Although a sense of belonging and community is justification enough

for deliberative mechanisms, this exchange among citizens also can pro-
vide a locus for social change and a counter to hegemonic discourse that
equates a lack of participation with an individuals apathy or uncaring and
uninterested nature. Looking at minority students participatory experi-
ences in a school setting, Herr (1999) argues, This shared experience
moves them from an acceptance of an individualized version of failure
on their part to one of common struggle to survive and thrive in an envi-
ronment that rendered them invisible on an ongoing basis (p. 238). This
type of awakening often prompts challenges to the status quo, highlight-
ing macro- and structural-level problems that need to be addressed.
Unfortunately, those in power are often reluctant, if not hostile, to a ques-
tioning of, or confrontation to, their privilege. As Herrs study points out,

Once [this broader awareness was] realized, the group [of minority stu-
dents] was ready for action outside the cocoon of their own meetings and
they became a force to contend with. Recognized by the administration as a
site for authentic participation, it was reconfigured and shut down. (p. 238)

I will be the first to admit that it is incredibly uncomfortable to recog-

nize, and extremely difficult to acknowledge, the ways in which we are
implicated in the maintenance of the status quo (public problems). It is
much easier and less messy to work with the good citizens. However, by
beginning to examine these issues, we open the door to inclusive engage-
ment, foster trust in the process, and move closer toward social equity.
If a majority of the literature acknowledges and upholds the
transformational potential of participation in civic matters, then why are
more people not involved? There remains a disconnect between the theo-
ries of civic engagement and citizens. For this reason, at this point in the
conversation, it becomes important to take a critical look at what is consid-
ered authentic participation and where it is occurring. After doing so, one
is better able to examine the implications of these assumptions and
explore how they affect who is involved and who is not and why this effect
occurs.

LOCATIONS FOR AUTHENTIC ENGAGEMENT

The ideal of authentic participation is very different from what is being

enacted in practice. On one hand, for civic engagement theorists such as
King and Kensen (2002), authentic participation is a normative ideal,
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 693

mutually constructed through the efforts of citizens and administrators.

They argue,

For meaningful identity to be achieved through the political realm, the par-
ticipatory process needs to be authentic. This means citizens, as well as
administrators and political leaders, can initiate and have an equal role in
determining processes, agendas, and issues. (p. 109)

On the other hand, deliberative democracy and discourse theorists tra-

ditionally locate the site for authentic participation in the formal policy-
making processes. Although these discourse theorists may support the
normative ideals expressed by King and Kensen (2002), their efforts at
creating more inclusion through the policy process thus far maintain and
replicate or reinforce the formal as a site for authentic engagement. As a
result, many of the efforts being undertaken in nonformal or governmental
settings are ignored, overlooked, or considered inauthentic because they
do not result in tangible policy outcomes.
Civic engagement theorists attempt to expand the focus and look at
locations both within and without politics and government. Even so, the
overwhelming majority of the literature addressing public administra-
tions role in civic engagement is (somewhat understandably) heavily
weighted toward formal policy processes. What this overlooks is the idea
that citizens are not necessarily as interested in the formal policy-making
process as we are and therefore may be directing their efforts in other loca-
tions that we are overlooking as a result of our myopic conceptualization
of authentic participation.
A citizen looking for opportunities to engage finds public meetings as
one of the few known ways to become involved. Unfortunately, although
this is the most commonly utilized strategy for public involvement, it is
not the most effective way of including citizens or fostering civic engage-
ment. Lando (2003) and Lukensmeyer and Brigham (2002) argue that the
purpose and format of public hearings as they are currently conceptual-
ized are problematic on several levels. Although many theorists argue par-
ticipation can have an educative and transformative effect on citizens, the
public meeting is one location where this does not occur. The public hear-
ing is primarily a symbolic gesture aimed at creating the illusion of inclu-
sion without actually addressing the challenges and benefits that arise
from expanded notions of citizen participation. As Lando explains,

Those attending a hearing want to influence policy to reflect their orienta-

tion and are not of a mind-set to be convinced that they need to reorient
694 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

themselves to see the perspective of the decision makers. Those council or

board members establishing policy likewise are not in a position to reorient
themselves . . . . They are using the hearing as a tool to explain or justify a
predetermined action. The end result is that the public hearing is an ineffec-
tive method of involving the citizen in local government. Because no real
information exchange occurs and those speaking tend to be polarized by the
process, the public hearing actually creates more cynicism about govern-
ment rather than producing any positive results. (p. 81)

In an informal exploration of a midsize (160,000 residents) southwest-

ern citys Web site, I found no references or links specifically addressing
citizen involvement or participation. A site search for citizen participation
revealed several hits to the public safety departments Citizen Police
Academy. The other hits involved transcripts of public comment on previ-
ously drafted growth management proposals. There were links to city
council meeting times as well as a calendar of events that listed times and
locations of meetings. However, there were no descriptions of the groups
meeting or their agenda items. With some further investigation into the
city council Web site, I was able to access their meeting agenda that
included a call to the public as the eighth and final agenda item and
contained the following announcement:

According to the [states] Open Meeting Law, the City Council may only
discuss matters listed on the City Council agenda. Matters brought up by
the public under public appearances that are not agendized cannot be dis-
cussed by the City Council. There is a five-minute limit per citizen.
Speakers visual aids or recorded audio tapes will not be allowed during
formal meetings. Citizens attending Council meetings should refrain from
making personal, impertinent and slanderous remarks or becoming boister-
ous while addressing the Council or while attending the Council meeting.
Unauthorized remarks from the audience, stomping of feet, yelling and
similar demonstrations are also not permitted. Violations of these rules may
result in removal from the City Council meeting. (City of Tempe Council
Meeting Agenda, 2002)

If the only participatory opportunity citizens have is to sit through a 4-

hour meeting to make a 5-minute call to the public, why are we surprised
by the lack of turnout? As an appointed member of several legislative
committees dealing with domestic relations issues (family court, domes-
tic violence, child support, etc.), I have attended numerous meetings of
multiple subcommittees and have spent hours addressing issues that get to
the very heart of our communities. Even with knowledge of the subject
matter, a familiarity of the process, and an interest in the outcomes, I have
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 695

often had a difficult time remaining attentive and enthusiastic. I have

watched as concerned parents and community members sit in the audi-
ence (separated from the formal committee members) and wait through
complicated discussions of legislation and governmental agency actions
only to be told at the end of the meeting to make their comments brief
because the meeting was running late. After public comment, citizens are
thanked, and that is the extent of their participatory efficacy. There is little
interaction or exchange of ideas and virtually no dialogue regarding prob-
lem identification, agenda setting, or the crafting of potential solutions
and policy recommendations.
Another formal location for engagement involves citizen review
boards or committees. Many of the citizen advisory boards that, in theory,
could move us closer toward Boxs (1998) notion of citizen governance,
usually require a quite lengthy application process and necessitate a cer-
tain level of education, experience, and skill. As will be discussed later,
these opportunities for inclusion are all too often appointed positions that
may serve to reinforce the participation of majority positions and
interests.
The tone of the aforementioned citys agenda notice raises concerns
regarding the underlying assumptions about the types of people who
attend these meetings, and this city is not an anomaly. To better understand
the implications of these assumptions, we must first look at who the
engaged citizens traditionally are and who we want them to be. After
doing so, we are better able to understand how the assumptions about citi-
zens, made by both those in government and in academia, affect who is
involved and who is not and why these conditions persist.

ENGAGING THE GOOD CITIZEN

It is commonly cited and widely acknowledged that civic engagement

is most likely to flourish in communities composed of individuals with
higher socioeconomic statuses. These citizens are usually well educated
and have time and money available. The work they do typically puts them
in contact with political and administrative figures, and they usually bene-
fit from civic improvements (Lyson, Torres, & Welsh, 2001; Ryfe, 2002;
Tolbert, 1998; Tolbert, Irwin, Lyson, & Nucci, 2002). If this is so, there
appears to be a disconnect between what the literature reveals about
engaged citizens and how these people are being viewed, recruited, and
treated in actual public settings. Although many government mission
statements mention serving the public, and although numerous articles
696 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

mention citizen inclusion, mourn the lack of engagement, and outline

potential ways to encourage community collaboration with government,
what is revealed in the above citys agenda is a lack of trust in and
opportunity for involvement and in-depth citizen participation.
Similarly disturbing is that within the academic discourse of civic
engagement there is a rarely discussed assumption and bias concerning
citizen identity. After years of postmodern scholarship, we have learned to
question and challenge dichotomous thinking, and yet we continue to use
it in conversations about citizen participation. Who do we think of when
we are discussing citizens? When we begin to talk about deliberative
democracy and the notions of productive discourse (Fox & Miller, 1997;
Gutman & Thompson, 1996; McSwite, 1997), we are using the same lan-
guage as is found in rationalist, entrepreneurial, and modernist models. As
McSwite (1997) highlights, Fox and Miller (1997) maintain that partici-
pants must be willing and able to make substantive contributions: No free
riders or fools allowed (McSwite, 1997, p. 178). We in public adminis-
tration too often discredit and disqualify localized or specialized forms of
knowledge when they do not fit into our model of deliberative democracy
of citizen engagement. What becomes clear here is that the current discus-
sions and propositions for discourse-based democracy are still not totally
inclusive. Instead, they are built and sustained upon the familiar model of
the rational, good citizen we typically envision when discussing participa-
tory strategies. Our status quo version of inclusion is composed of like-
minded individuals, or, if they possess differences, they are rational and
able to discuss their diverse perspectives in a calm and insightful manner.
These citizens have an understanding of the policy process or else are
quick learners who are willing to play by the rules to insure a smooth run
of the deliberative process. The good citizen is able to clearly articulate his
or her positions on matters with the supplemental information we provide.
What is unfortunate for this model is that citizens can be messy, and their
problems can be complicated. They can be angry, confused, demanding,
and uncooperative. Even so, they are still citizens and members of our
community to whom we are obligated, by the very nature of public
service, to address and include.
The majority of organizations or governing bodies that make efforts to
utilize deliberative and participatory mechanisms rely on citizen self-
selection or appointment. The citizens who sit on planning boards, policy
committees, and the like are most often the ones who cared enough to take
the initiative to get involved. As Ryfe (2002) states,
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 697

Implicit in the preference for self-selection is the notion that deliberation

requires civic-minded, participatory kinds of individuals. Put simply, orga-
nization members believe that people have to want to participate and delib-
erate . . . . Citizenship is defined by involvement, by caring enough about
political issues and the state of ones community to participate in commu-
nity deliberations. If individuals do not personally care enough to take the
initiative, generally they do not make an appearance in deliberative groups.
(p. 364)

As Ryfes (2002) work suggests, we remain heavily reliant on and

influenced by the discourse of subjectivity and self-authorship. Self-
determination equals success, and therefore a lack of success must then
equal a lack of effort or concern on the part of the individual. Within this
framework, those who are absent from public deliberation or engagement
are viewed as uncaring and unproductive. Their disengagement is never
explored further. We look at those who get involved and those who do not
without investigating the reasons behind action or inaction and what could
be done to shift and change that. We write off those who are absent and
concentrate our effort on the self-selected individuals who are already
engaged, which in turn perpetuates and sustains the status quo. Although
this may not initially seem problematic, Over time, a static pool of citizen
participants tends to lose touch with the values of the average citizen
(Glaser & Bryan, 2003, p. 28).
Unfortunately, our assumptions and biases about citizens are often
present even after comprehensive attempts to include traditionally disen-
gaged populations are made. When looking at the demographics of delib-
erative organizations, Ryfe (2002) notes that the organizations that appear
to be the most inclusive (went beyond self-selection to involve some who
traditionally do not participate) are heavily dependent on rules and regula-
tions outlining the way in which deliberation is to take place. This is the
tone that is sensed in the previously examined citys agenda and is very
telling about the lack of trust we have in the self-sufficiency and capabili-
ties of those whom we are asking to participate. If this lack of trust is evi-
dent at the beginning, what is being lost in the translation from what some-
ones (who may not have traditionally been involved) initial or primary
way of participating would have been to the rule-bound, strict form of
deliberation? Is the fact that the most inclusive organizations are also the
most tightly rule bound, based on a presumption that those with less edu-
cation and a lower socioeconomic status need more rules and structures
because they are not inclined to deliberate in a thoughtful, rational
698 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

manner? From this viewpoint, we are imposing identities on traditionally

disengaged citizens before they even begin. As a result, we reinforce dis-
crimination and ultimately perpetuate the assumptions and stereotypes
that the act of inclusive participation attempts to rectify.

PUBLIC SPACES AND ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT

As mentioned, deliberative democracy and discourse theorists have to

date focused solely on public policy as the site for citizen involvement and
inclusion. This can be seen in Fox and Millers (1995) warrants for dis-
course, DeLeons (1997) participatory policy analysis, and the oft-cited
Habermass normative ideal of a public sphere based upon rational-
critical debates, which construes the liberal public sphere as the single
comprehensive arena for the formation of rational public opinion
(Ikegami, 2000, p. 993). Although there is value in recognizing the policy
side of engagement, we need to begin looking at the multiple sites within
which citizens and public administrators can work to foster more inclu-
sive and transformative participatory opportunities. In other words, there
is a need to shake up the current categories of participation to make room
for multiple levels and degrees of engagement and citizenship.
People embody a multiplicity of locales and identities. We are mem-
bers of families, affiliates of organizations, and citizens of municipalities,
states, and nations. We are born into relationships, and, through our
locationally contingent interactions, we expand our relational networks.
Moreover, with the increasing sophistication and ubiquity of communica-
tion technology, networks of association can be created and sustained
without the traditional confines of immediate proximity. As Hall, Coffey,
and Williamson (1999) state,

Each of these locales is space shared with others, and in this sense questions
of identity and locale are questions about shared identity and possible
community. To be from somewhere is to be implicated in a certain
indexicalitya body of shared understandings and assumptions premised
on a sharing of the same (cultural and physical) space. (p. 509)

Each of these locations provides unique opportunities for involvement

and interaction with others.
Several theorists have begun looking at what is more often being
referred to as associational public space. According to Seyla Benhabib
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 699

(1994), the public space is the location for the mediation between the
institutions of democracy and the private sphere (p. 112). One example
of this broadening of public spaces as locations for engagement is seen in
Putnams (2000) well-known work Bowling Alone, where we are intro-
duced to the idea of social capital and the importance of fostering social
networks through which we develop the norms of reciprocity and trust-
worthiness (p. 19). Although his recommendations for action are vague,
and although he relies on very traditional notions of participation (voting,
formal, membership-based organizations, and church attendance), he
does identify six spheres to which those wishing to bring about change
should give their attention: youths and schools; the workplace; urban and
metropolitan design; religion; arts and culture; and politics and
government.
One of the things Putnam (2000) neglects to address in detail is the
notion that each member of a community experiences overlap between
these spheres. This results in his lamenting the decline of social capital
while overlooking the ways in which, due to the more fractured and fluid
nature of todays society, politics is still thriving, but political engage-
ment may be closer to home, less conventionally organized, and more
likely to be defined in terms of struggles over evolving notions of rights,
morals, and lifestyle values (Bennett, 2000, p. 308). It is imperative that
we begin to identify and utilize what Wuthnow (1998) calls our loose con-
nections. Although the actions we take in our families, neighborhoods,
and community organizations may be smaller and less formal than tradi-
tional participatory means, we are developing our civic capacity through
them and in turn opening up alternative spaces for the expression of our
citizenshipness. Even so, as we broaden our conceptualization of engage-
ment, it is important to discuss the interconnectedness between the gov-
ernmental and more localized, nonformal public spaces for engagement
and to form links and partnerships between the two. This is important
because, as Delli Carpini (2000) states,

The fact remains, however, that government plays a central (even growing)
role in the lives of Americans, and many of the nations most pressing prob-
lems cannot be effectively addressed without a healthy public sector that
includes the regular participation of citizens. (p. 344)

Recognizing and utilizing this interconnectedness brings the process

of participation full circle.
700 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

CULTIVATING THE PUBLICLY ENGAGED SELF

Kantor (1972) claims,

Although establishing a sense of community may be possible without the

involvement of government, a democratic government committed to active
citizenship can aid considerably in establishing conditions and opportuni-
ties for citizen action that both encourages community and responds to its
needs. (p. 68)

There are several ways in which those of us working within govern-

mental settings can foster the development of publicly engaged citizens.
As public administrators, our role is to provide institutional support as
well as to facilitate and sustain the efforts of engagement between and
among citizens and government. We need to begin by talking with and lis-
tening to citizens about their concerns as expressed in their own language.
How can we expect citizen engagement if we do not engage with them in
all of their complexity? Although it will take time, patience, and a signifi-
cant amount of energy on the part of administrators to build this civic
capacity, we must keep in mind that

Citizens have shown time after time that they are willing to be involved
when they think they can make a difference. By providing the opportunity
for citizens to make a difference and by providing the tools and strategies
appropriate to making a difference in todays society, government can take
important steps toward building the kind of civic culture that supports both
the mediating structures of community and the integrative role of the politi-
cal system. (Denhardt, 2002, p. 75)

It is important that we provide opportunities for exchange and a safe

place for these occasions to take place while guarding from any attempts
to unduly influence, direct, or control the outcomes. Engagement and par-
ticipation as a location for identity construction and/or transformation is
contingent upon a vigilant watch over those who might utilize the process
for manipulation. The goal is that through these exchanges people trans-
form themselves, and for this reason public administrators must be cogni-
zant of issues of power and control that arise when facilitating interactions
between and engaging with citizens. In formal policy settings, attention
should be paid to who is defining the problem, which alternatives are
being considered, and who is determining obligations for imple-
mentation.
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 701

MEASURING SUCCESS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

There are also several opportunities for those of us working within

public administration academia to address the issues raised in this article.
Initially, we should recognize that positivist social scientific methods
have those of us attempting to justify civic engagement efforts in an
empirical stranglehold. Traditionally and most often, public administra-
tors determine engagements substantive worth in terms of measurable
outcomes. However, this article posits that the real issue is what those in
discourse discover about themselves (Hummell, 2002, p. 105). How do
we measure the aforementioned transformation of citizens identities and
well-being and other nonquantifiable benefits of discourse, participation,
deliberation, and engagement? We need to begin exploring that which
cannot and does not result in measurable policies or outcomes as we
reevaluate how we determine whether something is substantive. Although
there are numerous ways to build social capital, foster trust (Putnam,
2000), and develop reciprocity (Gutman & Thompson, 1996), those
attempts that exist outside of the deliberative democracy and formal pol-
icy framework are difficult to measure and are often overlooked, under-
funded, or dismissed because they are not that to which we are accus-
tomed. These efforts do not fit the model with which administrators are
comfortable, that which we can quantify and measure. To rectify this
problem, we need to open up the ways in which we conduct our research to
include the qualitative accounts of citizens experiences and the meanings
they assign to their involvement. By doing so, we are able to supplement
the quantitative and to provide a more rounded and full picture of the
benefits of civic engagement.
One of the ways to support the argument made regarding the linkages
between participation and identity transformation would be to expand
Teskes (1997) identity construction model to incorporate a broader range
of civic involvement. Teske interviewed a very specific population of
political activists and lobbyists to develop his model that posits an under-
standing of the self as a moral but not heroic actor; activists engage in poli-
tics because through politics broadly understood they develop certain
identities for themselves and instantiate certain qualities they value
(Wood, 1999, pp. 1236-1237). Although Teske argues that people get
involved in activism because of a conscious desire to transform them-
selves into particular types of people, it would be interesting to see
whether those without such a thought-out desire can receive the same
transformational benefits. To determine whether participation possesses a
702 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

transformational potential on the identities of those who are minimally

involved, one could interview citizens engaged on multiple levels in vari-
ous locations and inquire about both the self-perceived changes in identity
and other difficult-to-quantify benefits of involvement.
Ryfe (2002) provides an introduction to another area ripe for interroga-
tion. By looking at 16 deliberative organizations, he attempts to paint a
picture of deliberative theory in action. His criteria for inclusion in his
study were that the organizations were nationally focused, that they per-
ceived discourse as a tool and outcome of activities, and that they were
used in the public sphere. Important to this discussion and research is that
of the 16 organizations he looked at, only one was connected in some way
to government. As argued above, if authentic participation is conceptual-
ized and commonly assumed to take place in the formal policy arena, it is
important for us to begin exploring how those efforts are taking shape. It is
critical that we, as public administrators concerned with the implementa-
tion of inclusive, deliberative, and discourse-based engagement efforts,
must examine the ways in which these theories are being carried out.
Future studies would help answer the question of the successes and chal-
lenges facing citizens and governments in attempting to foster civic
engagement and more democratic participatory opportunities.
In a similar vein, more research needs to be done to identify and exam-
ine alternative spaces for engagement. One of the more interesting and
undertheorized areas where civic engagement is being developed is in the
nonprofit sector. Specifically, as Camilla Stivers (2002) points out, At
present, the conversation about the policy role of nonprofit organizations
centers almost totally on making them more businesslike and efficient in
order that they be better equipped to take on responsibilities being off-
loaded by governments (p. 118). Instead, what is needed is an explora-
tion of the capabilities and capacities of associations and organizations
like nonprofits to bolster civic capacity. Although many people get
involved in nonprofits through volunteer work or because of a personal
interest and concern for an issue, what happens as a result of their partici-
pation? Many nonprofits provide training and opportunities for education
that could have far-reaching effects beyond the organizational bound-
aries. For example, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence
(AzCADV) is a nonprofit organization that has numerous volunteers.
Some became involved as a result of personal experience and others as a
result of a concern to be of assistance to those in need. Volunteers partici-
pate in an advocacy training that explains the legislative process and ways
to get involved through public speaking and letter writing, and they are
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 703

encouraged to meet their congressional representatives and attend public

meetings. Likewise, volunteers have the opportunity to gain information
regarding the criminal justice system and to observe court proceedings.
Also, volunteers can assist with the legal advocacy hotline, which directs
people seeking assistance with local resources and aid. It is likely, and it
could be determined through future research, that these skills are transfer-
able to other locations and could ultimately increase an individuals civic
capacity. By conducting research on organizations such as AzCADV, we
could have a clearer picture of the ways nontraditional locations for civic
involvement work to transform individuals and volunteers into
empowered and engaged citizens.
Finally, Elsbach and Bhattacharyas (2001) notions of organizational
identification and disidentification could have interesting implications if
expanded beyond the organizational to the governance level of analysis.
As Elsbach and Bhattacharya argue, peoples identities are shaped in rela-
tionship to their identification or disidentification with particular groups,
and they act accordingly. In an era marked by increased skepticism and
distrust of government, this type of study could provide tremendous
insight into the reasons for and rationale behind citizens participatory
efforts (or lack thereof).

CONCLUSION

Within the last few years, there has been an increase in the attention
being focused on increasing citizen involvement and participation in gov-
ernance. Administration & Society recently published Constructing Civil
Space: A Dialogue. This issue depicted a dialogue among several leading
public administration scholars addressing many of the aforementioned
issues of public space. In the last 3 years, the American Society for Public
Administration National Conference has had an increasing number of ple-
nary and panel discussions on topics related to civic engagement and
social equity. The New Public Service, a book by Denhardt and Denhardt
(2003), draws attention to the nobility of public service and to the unique
and privileged opportunity we have to engage with citizens to develop the
skills necessary for improving both our communities and ourselves.
Numerous public administration theorists (Box, 1998; DeLeon, 1997;
Denhardt, 2002; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Fox & Miller, 1995, 1997;
Hummel, 2002; King, 2000; King & Kensen, 2002; King & Stivers, 1998;
McSwite, 1997; Scott, 2000; Stivers, 2002) have done much to raise
awareness by continually investigating and interrogating these issues.
704 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / January 2005

And because of this, I feel confident in raising the bar to challenge the
ways in which we may inadvertently be sustaining the very problems we
are hoping to rectify. By exploring the linkages between participation and
identity, and by problematizing current engagement efforts, the need for
reflective action will hopefully become more apparent and urgent.

REFERENCES

Benhabib, S. (1994). Hannah Arendt and the redemptive power of narrative. In L. P.

Hinchmen & S. K. Hinchmen (Eds.), Hannah Arendt: Critical essays (pp. 111-142).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bennett, L. W. (2000). Introduction: Communication and civic engagement in comparative
perspective. Political Communication, 17, 301-312.
Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading Americas communities into the 21st cen-
tury. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of
Sociology, 23, 385-409.
City of Tempe Council Meeting Agenda. (2002). Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://
www.tempe.gov/clerk/Agendas_02/regular.htm
Cooke, M. (2000). Five arguments for deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48, 947-
969.
DeLeon, P. (1997). Democracy and the policy sciences. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information
environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349.
Denhardt, R. B. (2002). Trust as capacity: The role of integrity and responsiveness. Public
Organization Review, 2, 65-75.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving not steering. New
York: M. E. Sharpe.
Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what youre not:
Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Sci-
ence, 12(4), 393-413.
Fox, C., & Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fox, C., & Miller, H. T. (1997). The depreciating public policy discourse. American Behav-
ioral Scientist, 41(1), 64-120.
Glaser, M. A., & Bryan, D. J. (2003, March). The essential nature of the community agenda
and citizen engagement: Responsiveness v. community. Paper presented at the 64th
National Conference of the American Society for Public Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap.
Hall, T., Coffey, A., & Williamson, H. (1999). Self, space, and place: Youth identities and cit-
izenship. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(4), 501-513.
 Campbell / THEORIZING THE AUTHENTIC 705

Herr, K. (1999). The symbolic uses of participation: Co-opting change. Theory Into Practice,
38(4), 235-239.
Hummel, R. (2002). Critique of public space. Administration & Society, 34(1), 102-107.
Ikegami, E. (2000). A sociological theory of publics: Identity and culture as emergent proper-
ties in networks. Social Research, 67(4), 989-1029.
Kantor, R. M. (1972). Commitment and community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
King, C. S. (2000). Talking beyond the rational. American Review of Public Administration,
30(3), 271-291.
King, C. S., & Kensen, S. (2002). Associational public space. Administration & Society,
34(1), 108-113.
King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-
government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lando, T. (2003). The public hearing process: A tool for citizen participation or a path
towards citizen alienation? National Civic Review, 92(1), 73-82.
Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Brigham, S. (2002). Taking democracy to scale: Creating a town hall
meeting for the twenty-first century. National Civic Review, 91(4), 351-366.
Lyson, T. A., Torres, R. J., & Welsh, R. (2001). Scale of agricultural production, civic engage-
ment, and community welfare. Social Forces, 80(1), 311-327.
McSwite, O. C. (1997). Postmodernism and public administrations identity crisis. Public
Administration Review, 57(2), 174-181.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative orga-
nizations. Political Communication, 19, 359-377.
Scott, F. E. (2000). Participative democracy and the transformation of the citizen. American
Review of Public Administration, 30(3), 252-270.
Stivers, C. (2002). Toward administrative public space. Hannah Arendt meets the municipal
housekeepers. Administration & Society, 34(1), 98-101.
Teske, N. (1997). Political activists in America. The identity construction model of political
participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tolbert, C. M. (1998). Local capitalism, civic engagement, and socioeconomic well being.
Social Forces, 77(2), 410-429.
Tolbert, C. M., Irwin, M. D., Lyson, T. A., & Nucci, A. R. (2002). Civic community in small-
town America, How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism and civic engage-
ment. Rural Sociology, 67(1), 90-114.
Wagle, U. (2000). The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen
participation. Policy Sciences, 33, 207-223.
Wood, R. L. (1999). Political activists in America: The identity construction model of politi-
cal participation. American Journal of Sociology, 104(4), 1236-1237.
Wuthnow, R. (1998). Loose connections: Joining together in Americas fragmented commu-
nities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kelly B. Campbell is a faculty associate and a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Public
Affairs at Arizona State University. Her research interests include civic engagement,
democratic governance, organizational behavior, the nonprofit sector, and
leadership.