Case Study 3 Planning, Negotiation, & Implementation

Evidence in Public Administration

Thomas J. Catlaw is the Frank

and June Sackton Professor of Public

Administration and associate professor of

public affairs in the School of Public Affairs

at Arizona State University.

E-mail: [email protected]

Margaret Stout is associate professor

of public administration at West Virginia

University. Her research explores the role

of public and nonprofi t practitioners in

achieving democratic social and economic

justice, with specifi c interests in administra-

tive theory and sustainable community

development. She comes to these topics

from a career as a community development

practitioner, now coordinating a master of

public administration degree concentra-

tion in local governance and community

development.

E-mail: [email protected]

Governing Small-Town America Today: The Promise and Dilemma of Dense Networks 225

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 76, Iss. 2, pp. 225–229. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12520.

dynamics that lend a unique quality to governing that deserves more attention from researchers.

In this sense, Trautman’s article is particularly wel- come in this new section of Public Administration Review. First, while the United States is an increas- ingly urbanized society, 1 in 10 Americans still lives in a small town; yet small-town government is one of the least researched arenas of governance. Second, the intertwined issues that she raises point to the chal- lenge of mobilizing evidence in a straightforward, instrumental manner to address governance dilemmas. Th is confi rms that we do need practitioner stories to guide both what we research and how we teach (Hummel 1991).

Responding to the complexity of issues that con- front leaders in small-town government is like a game of pick-up sticks.2 Myriad issues overlap; pull on one and another shifts place, and getting that winning black stick out of the pile can seem nearly impossible. Small-town government is complicated because it is where nearly every issue of society comes home to roost, often in one-on-one “public encoun- ters” (Bartels 2015) that are magnifi ed and quite personalized.

In this response, we comment on some of the “sticks” in the pile. We want to emphasize, however, that there is great variation in the political, economic, and historical specifi cs of each small town, and we do not know much about Trautman’s town and its context. Th us, we off er relevant evidence from social research

Abstract: Th is essay examines the governance of small towns in the United States. Small towns have received little attention in the public administration literature to date, yet 1 in 10 Americans still lives in one, representing roughly 75 percent of all municipalities in the United States and some 33 million people. Small towns are characterized as dense, multiplex networks that lend unique dynamics to local politics. However, they face signifi cant social, economic, technological, and demographic trends that compromise towns’ prevailing frame of reference, fracture their networks, and alter the traditional setting of small-town governance. In the face of these issues, “thicker,” more active ways of engaging the public are needed to reknit community bonds and build civic capacity. Service learning for master of public administration students is proposed as a way to develop the emotional intelligence necessary to make sense of the complex social dynamics of small towns and to facilitate the hard work of building enabling relationships.

Governing Small-Town America Today: Th e Promise and Dilemma of Dense Networks

Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W. Head, and Gary VanLandingham, Editors

Thomas J. Catlaw Arizona State University

Margaret Stout West Virginia University

Small towns occupy an ambiguous place in the American political imagination. Th ink, for example, about the 1998 fi lm Pleasantville. In Pleasantville, life is orderly, predictable, and, as many of the characters confi rm, downright pleasant. Neighbors know one another and seem to treat one another with care and concern. But there is a dark underbelly. Th e residents are also closed-minded and unwelcoming of change and diff erence. In his recent study, sociologist Robert Wuthnow writes that a similar duality characterizes media coverage of small towns. On the one side, there are “wouldn’t it be nice?” nostalgia pieces, and on the other, portray- als of a “sorry remnant of an America that has been left behind . . . [home] of hapless, poorly educated Americans who have little better to do than watch the grass grow” (2013, xii).

In contrast to these stereotypical portrayals in fi lm and the media, Rhonda Riherd Trautman off ers an on-the-ground view of the challenges of governing in a real small town today in her article “Small-Town Policy Makers.”1 She shows that these towns share many of the same issues as large cities: how to encour- age broader public involvement, work with conten- tious residents and overcome factionalism, and make the most of new information technologies. Other research indicates that small towns also deal with “big city” issues such as racial polarization, drugs, poverty, immigration, and increasing diversity (Carr, Lichter, and Kefals 2012; Lichter and Brown 2011). But, as Trautman writes, small towns do remain distinctive: their social and geographic scale can create particular

226 Public Administration Review • March | April 2016

(Stout, Dougherty, and Dudley, forthcoming). Th ird, they can lead to incivility among factions that do not engage with one another personally or through business dealings. Fourth, just as in any other instance of pressure politics, they lead to preferential policy deci- sions based on social and business ties. Th us, small towns can vacil- late between “rancorous confl ict” and “superfi cial harmony”—both of which hamper eff ective policy making and implementation (Flora and Flora 1993, 51).

The Changing Nature of American Small Towns For many residents of small towns, the town is its people. But many small towns today are changing rapidly and facing new stressors that push and pull on interpersonal relationships. In other words, “the people” are changing in important ways (Catlaw 2007), and this creates new challenges and opportunities for government.

For starters, over the last several decades, there has been consider- able out-migration of the more highly educated, human-capital-rich members of small towns. Th is “brain drain” (Lichter and Brown 2011; Weber et al. 2007) often leaves behind an aging population and an anemic economy. Yet this vacuum invites new migration trends.

While small towns have rarely been as homogeneous as Pleasantville (Macgregor 2010, especially chapters 4 and 5), small towns are more diverse than ever. For example, many are new destinations for predominantly poor Latino/a immigrants that bring with them new languages, norms, and transnational social ties (Lichter and Brown 2011). Th is can threaten people’s sense of “belonging” and alienate new arrivals from social and political engagement (Chavez 2009; McConnell and Miraftab 2009). Th ere can be strong social pressures to conform to dominant largely white, middle-class norms (Leitner 2012).

At the other end of the economic spectrum, small-town America is increasingly desirable as providing recreational, leisure, and retire- ment amenities for urban dwellers. Th ese “external” audiences shape gentrifi cation dynamics that can, for instance, pit economic devel- opment against environmental and agricultural protection. Th is can also entail an infl ux of newcomers—often affl uent and educated— with “urban” sensibilities and expectations. Th ese demographic changes generate new cleavages to bridge before communities can benefi t from the infusion of new kinds of human and social capital (Lichter and Brown 2011; Salamon 2003).

Finally, as Trautman notes, information technology is an ever more important part of government today (Mergel 2012; Zavattaro and Bryer 2016). While we can constructively use the Internet to build community (Castells 2015), technologies are shaping small-town life in complex ways. First, information technologies can further unsettle the boundedness of small-town networks. Even residents in remote areas now access infi nite news, media, and information sources from around the globe. Th is complicates “the local” as the prevailing frame of reference at the same time that it opens com- munities to new ideas and information. Second, the anonymity of many online platforms can cut against the power of visibility and familiarity in small-town networks (Borah 2013). For example, one of the more toxic platforms is Topix.com, which ostensibly exists to bring to light “Your Town. Your News. Your Take.” While laudable

and Margaret Stout’s own experience doing community develop- ment work in small-town Appalachia that, we hope, speaks to issues in both small-town America generally and Trautman’s experience in particular.

Small Towns as Dense Networks One way to understand small towns and their dynamics is to view them as dense, multiplex networks of relationships; as the saying goes, “everyone knows everyone.” It is rarely the case, of course, that everyone really knows everyone. But this phrase works as shorthand to describe a situation in which “enough interaction does occur over suffi ciently extended periods that people gain familiarity with one another, become visible in the community, and share background information with each other” (Wuthnow 2013, xv). In other words, even if everyone does not know you, “everyone knows your business” (Macgregor 2010, 3). To say these networks are multiplex is just to give a technical name to the reality that Trautman captures when she writes that elected offi cials may also be bankers, lawyers, doctors, business owners, teachers, pas- tors, and so on: people in small towns encounter one another across multiple roles.

As in the case Trautman describes, research shows that dense networks and multiplex relations have their upsides and downsides (Portes 1998). Advantageously, dense networks can be eff ective at enforcing and maintaining social norms. Th is can help produce solidarity and the kind of “we’re in it together” community spirit that small-town life conjures. Dense, overlapping networks can also help the fl ow of information and increase the likelihood that people hear the same information from more than one source. Th is, in turn, can speed diff usion of information and actually encourage behavior change (Centola and Macy 2007). Well-known areas of research on these kinds of benefi ts are immigrant enclaves in cities. In these communities, various kinds of social, human, and fi nancial capital fl ow through the networks, enabled by regulating norms. In theory, small towns’ dense, multiplex relations can create norms that are empowering and community oriented.

However, these same dense relationships and norms can be exclu- sionary and constraining. For example, one of the typical expec- tations in small-town America is self-suffi ciency and “not to be burden on the community . . . unless you are in desperate straits” (Wuthnow 2013, 120). Sherman’s (2006) study of a small town in Northern California demonstrates how relational pressures encour- aged poor residents to develop “socially acceptable” coping strategies outside the welfare system. Th is can create unique diffi culties for poorer members of small towns.

Trautman’s commentary attributes similar social norms and politi- cal dynamics to “proximity.” Her depictions of small-town politics are substantiated in other studies, where a thicket of interpersonal dynamics complicates attempts at collaborative governance between residents and formal groups (Stout 2015; Stout and Kunz 2015). First, small-town norms of civility and conviviality (Wuthnow 2013) may discourage direct confrontation and open confl ict, thereby encouraging backroom dealings that may break open meeting laws and generating gossip and rumors that quickly spread across town. Second, these dense relations may discourage people from public service in both elected and formal volunteer positions

Governing Small-Town America Today: The Promise and Dilemma of Dense Networks 227

States in large cities, experiences in Latin America and Canada show it can be done in small towns. Indeed Clarkson, Georgia (popula- tion about 7,500), launched its fi rst participatory budgeting eff ort in July 2015. It is critical, though, that public managers be clear about the purpose of these eff orts, and thoughtful in the design and implementation of them. Disingenuous, poorly planned, or half- hearted eff orts to involve the public can do more harm than good (Bryer 2011).

“The Blame Game” Understandably, Trautman might fi nd some of these suggestions unworkable. If people do not read informational fl yers, how can we expect them to come to participatory meetings? She attributes the public’s lack of participation in governance to “indiff erence, lack of time, or information.” However, the story is more complicated. “Apathy” is often attributable to repeated experiences of ineff ectual participation (Stout 2010). Other research generally confi rms that there is an increasingly strong class infl ection in American political participation (Leighley and Nagler 2013; Gilens and Page 2014). Institutional experiences at home, work, and school also can con- tribute to whether people engage in political and civic life (Kupchik and Catlaw 2015; Rawlings and Catlaw 2011).

Clearly, government cannot control all the factors that shape whether people participate. But it needs to shoulder its share of the blame for a lack of constructive public engagement and limited suc- cess in including its full community. A much more active, informed, and committed eff ort from government is needed to strengthen civic capacity.

Getting Administrators Ready to Go In closing, we want to echo Trautman’s concerns about the edu- cation of master of public administration (MPA) students. One fruitful response to the limited public management literature on small-town governance is fi eld-based experiential learning. Indeed, the inability of theory to meet the complexities of real world prac- tice is one motivation for service learning through MPA capstone courses, applied research assignments, and internships (Stout and Holmes 2013). It also speaks to the importance of “pracademics” (Posner 2009), clinical professors, and professors of practice.

Service learning is designed to produce curriculum-driven learning outcomes and applied research knowledge (Stout 2013). Analytical refl ection on those experiences fosters the linkage of theory and practice (Collier and Williams 2005; Cunningham 1997; Imperial, Perry, and Katula 2007; Stout and Holmes 2013). Th ese pedago- gies prepare students for real-world expectations of self-direction, teamwork, and interorganizational confl ict and collaboration (Abel 2009; Bushouse and Morrison 2001; Dicke, Dowden, and Torres 2004; Imperial, Perry, and Katula 2007; Killian 2004; Lambright and Lu 2009; Waldner and Hunter 2008; Whitaker and Berner 2004). Perhaps of greatest interest here is the opportunity to develop the emotional intelligence (Kramer 2007) necessary to make sense of the complex social dynamics of small towns and to facilitate the hard work of building enabling relationships.

In the end, we suggest that the unique interpersonal dynamics of small towns are under great strain, making it ever more challeng- ing to govern and build community. In the face of new challenges,

in theory, posts often contain diatribes and misinformation about anyone who dares step into a community leadership role. However, it may be possible to moderate such online forums in ways that encourage civil, productive exchanges without censoring criticism (Lampe et al. 2014).

In short, to varying degrees American small towns are being shaped by economic and demographic forces that complicate the potential of dense networks to stage positive change. But the opportunities aff orded by the small scale and multiplex relationships of small towns remain.

Rebuilding Civic Infrastructure though Thicker Participation To make the most of this potential, small-town governments need to think broadly about the importance of building and strengthen- ing community capacity (Chaskin et al. 2001). Trautman seems to support this idea when she writes of “building a strong community base.” While they often get the most attention, fi nancial, techni- cal, and physical resources are not always the missing ingredient. Paradoxically, while community members frequently laud “the people” of their towns as their most treasured asset, dysfunctional relationships among them hinder their ability to collaborate—even when ample opportunities for economic growth and revitalization are at hand (Stout 2015). Th us, the challenge is to build bridges across diff erence through relational attitudes, cooperative inter- personal styles, and participatory modes of association that enable integrative approaches to collective action (Stout and Love 2015). Th is work can leverage the potential of the social and geographic scale of small towns.

Indeed, fl ourishing communities provide the civic infrastructure necessary to build robust bridging networks (National Civic League 1999), enabling other resources to be mobilized. Flora and Flora’s (1993) extensive fi eldwork on social infrastructure in rural commu- nities confi rms this. Stout’s (2015) preliminary study of Appalachian towns explores specifi c barriers to the development of eff ective social and civic infrastructure that are similar to the challenges Trautman describes. Without question, strengthening these networks requires patience and the ability to engage diff erence and confl ict as a crea- tive opportunity. But it can be done. Th e work emphasizes process rather than winning or losing; depersonalizing politics; cultivating a broad, diversifi ed sense of who “we” are in community; and sharing leadership and decision-making roles beyond established civic and political leaders (Flora and Flora 1993).

Unfortunately, traditional public engagement typically constrains dialogue to serial one-way statements between the public and deci- sion makers. Building civic infrastructure requires robust, face-to- face public encounters and “thick” forms of public engagement (Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015). Th ese participatory practices aim to foster mutual understanding and meaningful policy infl uence (see, e.g., King 2011; King, Feltey, and Susel 1998; Roberts 2004). Well-known examples include citizen assemblies, citizen juries, and study circles. In the context of small towns, participatory budgeting may hold promise because it involves opening up both the decision- making and resource-allocation process for specifi c portions of the local budget (see http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/). While participatory budgeting has been used only selectively in the United

228 Public Administration Review • March | April 2016

Dicke, Lisa, Sara Dowden, and Jodi Torres. 2004. Successful Service Learning: A Matter of Ideology. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 10(3): 199–208.

Flora, Cornelia, and Jan L. Flora. 1993. Entrepreneurial Social Infrastructure: A Necessary Ingredient. Annals of the Ame rican Academy of Political and Social Science 529: 48–58.

Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. 2014. Testing Th eories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–81.

Hummel, Ralph P. 1991. Stories Managers Tell: Why Th ey Are as Valid as Science. Public Administration Review 51(1): 31–41.

Imperial, Mark T., James L. Perry, and Michael C. Katula. 2007. Incorporating Service Learning into Public Aff airs Programs: Lessons from the Literature. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 13(2): 243–64.

Killian, Jerri. 2004. Pedagogical Experimentation: Combining Traditional, Distance, and Service Learning Techniques. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 10(3): 209–24.

King, Cheryl Simrell, ed. 2011. Government Is Us 2.0. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. King, Cheryl Simrell, Kathryn M. Feltey, and Bridget O’Neill Susel. 1998.

Th e Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 58(4): 317–26.

Kramer, Robert. 2007. How Might Action Learning Be Used to Develop the Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Capacity of Public Administrators? Journal of Public Aff airs Education 13(2): 205–42.

Kupchik, Aaron, and Th omas J. Catlaw. 2015. Discipline and Participation: Th e Long-Term Eff ects of Suspension and School Security on the Political and Civic Engagement of Youth. Youth & Society 47(1): 95–124.

Lambright, Kristina T., and Yi Lu. 2009. What Impacts the Learning in Service Learning? An Examination of Project Structure and Student Characteristics. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 15(4): 425–44.

Lampe, Cliff , Paul Zube, Jusil Lee, Chul Hyun Park, and Erik Johnston. 2014. Crowdsourcing Civility: A Natural Experiment Examining the Eff ects of Distributed Moderation in Online Forums. Government Information Quarterly 31(2): 317–26.

Leighley, Jan E., and Jonathan Nagler. 2013. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Leitner, Helga. 2012. Spaces of Encounter: Immigration, Race, Class, and the Politics of Belonging in Small-Town America. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 12(4): 828–46.

Lichter, Daniel T., and David L. Brown. 2011. Rural America in an Urban Society: Changing Spatial and Social Boundaries. Annual Review of Sociology 37: 565–92.

Macgregor, Lyn C. 2010. Habits of the Heartland: Small-Town Life in Modern America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

McConnell, Eileen Diaz, and Faranak Miraftab. 2009. Sundown Town to “Little Mexico”: Old-Timers and Newcomers in an American Small Town. Rural Sociology 74(4): 605–26.

Mergel, Ines. 2012. Social Media in the Public Sector: A Guide to Participation, Collaboration and Transparency in the Networked World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nabatchi, Tina, and Matt Leighninger. 2015. Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Civic League. 1999. Th e Civic Index: Measuring Your Community’s Civic Health. Denver, CO: National Civic League.

Portes, Alejando. 1998. Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.

Posner, Paul L. 2009. Th e Pracademic: An Agenda for Re-Engaging Practitioners and Academics. Public Budgeting and Finance 29(1): 12–26.

Rawlings, Kelly Campbell, and Th omas J. Catlaw. 2011. “Democracy as a Way of Life”: Rethinking the Place and Practices of Public Administration. In

“thicker,” more active ways of engaging the public are needed to reknit community bonds and build civic capacity.

Notes 1. It is hard to defi ne “small town” in a single way that is satisfying for all purposes.

Population, population density, commuting rates to a central metropolis, and levels of “urbanization” are used. Th e issue has become even more diffi cult as the line between urban and rural blurs (Lichter and Brown 2011). For purposes of this article, we follow Wuthnow (2013, 8) and loosely defi ne “small towns” as jurisdictions of fewer than 25,000 residents that are not considered part of an “urban fringe.” Th is represents roughly 75 percent of all towns and cities in the United States and includes some 33 million people.

2. In the game of pick-up sticks, also called jackstraws or spillikins, a bundle of multicolored sticks is held vertically on a fl at surface and then released. Th e sticks fall at random, creating a jumbled, disordered fi eld or pile of sticks. Players remove as many sticks as possible without disturbing the other sticks. Th e goal is to remove a single black stick.

Acknowledgments Th e authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the follow- ing colleagues in the preparation of this article: Spiro Maroulis, Staci Zavattaro, Daniel Schugurensky, Josh Lerner, Erik Johnston, Ines Mergel, and Linda Williams. Xuefan Zhang provided valuable research assistance. Responsibility for the fi nal content of the article belongs to the authors.

References Abel, Charles F. 2009. Toward a Signature Pedagogy for Public Administration.

Journal of Public Aff airs Education 15(2): 145–60. Bartels, Koen P. R. 2015. Communicative Capacity: Public Encounters in Participatory

Th eory and Practice. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Borah, Porismita. 2013. Interactions of News Frames and Incivility in the Political

Blogosphere: Examining Perceptual Outcomes. Political Communications 30(3): 456–73.

Bryer, Th omas A. 2011. Th e Costs of Democratization: Social Media Adaptation Challenges within Government Agencies. Administrative Th eory and Praxis 33(3): 341–61.

Bushouse, Brenda K., and Sara Morrison. 2001. Applying Service Learning in Master of Public Aff airs Programs. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 7(1): 9–17.

Carr, Patrick J., Daniel T. Lichter, and Maria J. Kefals. 2012. Can Immigration Save Small-Town America? Hispanic Boomtowns and the Uneasy Path to Renewal. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 641: 38–57.

Castells, Manuel. 2015. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Catlaw, Th omas J. 2007. Fabricating the People: Politics and Administration in the Biopolitical State. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Centola, Damon, and Michael Macy. 2007. Complex Contagion and the Weakness of Long Ties. American Journal of Sociology 113(3): 702–34.

Chaskin, Robert J., Prudence Brown, Sudhir Venkatesh, and Avis Vidal. 2001. Building Community Capacity. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Chavez, Sergio. 2009. Community, Ethnicity, and Class in a Changing Rural California Town. Rural Sociology 70(3): 314–35.

Collier, Peter J., and Dilafruz R. Williams. 2005. Refl ection in Action: Th e Learning- Doing Relationship. In Learning through Serving: A Student Guidebook for Service-Learning across the Disciplines, edited by Christine M. Cress, Peter J. Collier, and Vicki L. Reitenauer, 83–97. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Cunningham, Bob. 1997. Experential Learning in Public Administration Education. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 3(2): 219–27.

Governing Small-Town America Today: The Promise and Dilemma of Dense Networks 229

Stout, Margaret, and Maja Husar Holmes. 2013. From Th eory to Practice: Utilizing Integrative Seminars as Bookends to the Master of Public Administration Program of Study. Teaching Public Administration 31(2): 186–203.

Stout, Margaret, and Karen Kunz. 2015. Service Learning and Outreach as Community Revitalization Catalysts in Rural Appalachia. Paper presented at the Community Development Society Conference, Lexington, KY, July 20.

Stout, Margaret, and Jeannine M. Love. 2015. Integrative Process: Follettian Th inking from Ontology to Administration. Claremont, CA: Process Century Press.

Waldner, Leora S., and Debra Hunter. 2008. Client-Based Courses: Variations in Service Learning. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 14(2): 219–39.

Weber, Bruce, Alexander Marre, Monica Fisher, Robert Gibbs, and John Cromartie. 2007. Education’s Eff ect on Poverty: Th e Role of Migration. Review of Agricultural Economics 29(3): 437–45.

Whitaker, Gordon E., and Maureen Berner. 2004. Learning through Action: How MPA Public Service Team Projects Help Students Learn Research and Management Skills. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 10(4): 279–94.

Wuthnow, Robert. 2013. Small-Town America: Finding Community, Shaping the Future. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Zavattaro, Staci, and Th omas Bryer, eds. 2016. Social Media for Government: Th eory and Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Government Is Us 2.0, edited by Cheryl Simrell King, 31–58. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Roberts, Nancy. 2004. Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation. American Review of Public Administration 34(4): 315–53.

Salamon, Sonya. 2003. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization of the Heartland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, Jennifer. 2006. Coping with Rural Poverty: Economic Survival and Moral Capital in Rural America. Social Forces 85(2): 891–913.

Stout, Margaret. 2010. Climbing the Ladder of Participation: Establishing Local Policies for Participatory Practice. Public Administration and Management 15(1): 46–97.

———. 2013. Delivering an MPA Emphasis in Local Governance and Community Development through Service Learning and Action Research. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 19(2): 217–38.

———. 2015. Th e People Paradox in Rural Community Development. Working paper, Department of Public Administration, West Viriginia University.

Stout, Margaret, George W. Dougherty, and Larkin Dudley. Forthcoming. Citizen Advisory Bodies: New Wine in Old Bottles? In Beyond Reform: Leadership and Change in Public Sector Organizations, edited by James D. Ward. London: Routledge.

If there is an area of Public Administration process or practice where you feel there is a mismatch

between the accumulated evidence and its use, and the substantive content is salient to today’s

political or institutional environment, please contact one of the editors of Evidence in

Public Administration with a proposal for consideration: Kim Isett ([email protected]),

Gary VanLandingham ([email protected]), or Brian Head ([email protected]).