Does Citizen Engagement/Participation Affect Attitude Toward Government?

7/29/2019 Does Citizen Engagement/Participation Affect Attitude Toward Government?

1/28

DOES CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT/PARTICIPATION AFFECT 1

Does Citizen Engagement/Participation Affect Attitude Toward Government?

Bethany J. Royer

Florida Institute of Technology


2/28


Abstract

In spring 2012, the City of Piqua, Ohio, with a population over 20,000, welcomed 24

participants to the first ever Government Academy. The desire of city leaders and

department heads was both to educate local citizens to the workings of the dozen-plus

governing departments that consisted of accounting to engineering, with an emphasis on

civic engagement. An ideal of not only those proposing the endeavor within this small

community but one of historical significance to the United States and many other

countries around the world who endorse a democratic process of policy-making that is

inclusive of all citizens. As stated at a podium to dedicate the Soldiers National

Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, by then President of the United States Abraham

Lincoln who spoke of a government that was of the people, by the people, for the

people, (Abraham, 1863). It was 1863 and while the Civil War would not officially end

for another two years, the ideals of democracy had endured. However, that ideal in not

only the United States, but other democratic governing bodies, one resting upon

participation and decisions being made at the hands of the public has waned. Local

governments are struggling to acquire participation in the U.S. since well before World

War II and the reasons include decline of trust with government, pre-formed attitudes,

lack of knowledge, costs of participation outweighing benefits, and the context of the

decisions needing to be made. Issues that will be addressed in the following pages so as

to answer the question of whether or not citizen engagement/participation affects attitude

toward government with a method of survey to the participates of the 11-week Piqua

Government Academy. The hypothesis will maintain that civic education at a minimal

cost and in a neutral context can garner more participation in proceeding city-wide


3/28


related programs and ultimately positive support for a governing body by its citizens.

That, in the end, will solidify civic engagement/participation as having an effect on

attitude towards government.


4/28


Does Citizen Engagement/Participation Affect Attitude Toward Government?

Upon the arrival of new city manager Gary Huff in December 2011, the City of

Piqua, Ohio, set upon a path to ultimately encourage citizen participation in a variety of

government entities. Whether it was through Adopt-a-Program (A play of words on

adopt-a-park but broadly including a number of city-related landscapes and visages well

beyond parks and similar departments or facilities), INVOLVE (Interested Neighbors

Volunteering Valuable Energy) or a seemingly local favorite due to consistent

participation numbers over the course of a single year, the Government Academy (Royer,

2012b).

However, the hard work and persistence of city leaders and department heads to

engage and educate the residents of the 20,000 plus populace in local government is not

new. In fact, the United States was founded upon and has taken great pride in its

exclamation that it is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, as

expressed by Abraham Lincoln at his Gettysburg Address (1863).

Participation of citizens in their local government, or government as a whole, has

been a historical objective. It is a symbol of inclusion of one and all and not just a

particular minority but the majority across a wide band of political engagements such as

voting and more. As stated by scholars, public participation is an integral part of public

decision making in general, both in the United States and around the world (Jin, 2013, p.

12). The ultimate premise is that the government rests on the authority of the people.

Unfortunately, keeping the dream of an inclusive government via citizen

partnership in policymaking not only in the United States but around the globe in


5/28


emerging democracies has proven to be anything but easy. History and present day

numbers show a general decline in not only participation but an overall lack of

knowledge in legislature by citizens (Kurtz, 1997) and a growing mistrust in city leaders

(Jin, 2013), to name but a few of many potential obstacles, that keeps citizens from

engaging in larger numbers in the democratic process. Which leaves a startling question

as to why? What are the exact or the largest of obstacles keeping citizens from

participating in the democratic process of decision-making? Is the issue trust between

peers or lack of trust and cynicism with city leaders and policies? Perhaps the definition

of participation is too vague or wide? Or is it the general attitude of citizens? If the latter,

would stronger emphasis on participation by city leaders upon its citizens to partake in

civic engagement ultimately effect trust and thus a citizens attitude? Does participation

equate to more support for the governing body?

The hypothesis is that yes, attitude can be shaped by participation in government,

but precisely as to what attitude, negative or positive, will remain in question as we

review and define some of the following obstacles.

Trust

A number of researchers have tried to answer the former questions, particularly

on how to garner more participation and whether or not civic engagement/participation

affects attitude. From seemingly the beginning theyve been unable to determine exact

causes to dwindling participation numbers in decision-making policies beginning with a

decline in trust by citizens in government as early as World War II (Wang & Wan Wart,

2007). It may very well begin with the initial difficulty of defining key terms related to

citizen participation in the democratic process as Scholars generally agree that trust is a


6/28


complex concept (Jin, 2013). Thus the necessity of breaking trust down to two key

concepts, one being trust from peer-to-peer (Citizen to citizen) and another of trust

between citizens and the governing body (City leaders) during decision-making

processes.

Peer-to-peer trust

In terms of peer-to-peer trust, we look at Risner & Bergans study The Perils of

Participation that specifically dealt with public transportation policy-making and the

attitudes of public participation during the process. What they discovered is that attitudes

were shaped towards both the collaborative process and the policy in question according

to who participated when researchers disclosed like-citizens (peer-to-peer) had taken part.

This had a bias effect on individual attitude and support for the policy to the point of

creating a dissonance. Some citizens did not like other citizens, people just like them,

making policy decisions (2012). Certainly an issue when considering the decision-

making process on a governmental level requires collective activism.

A similar issue of discord was found by John H. Strange in his study of minority

participation in public administration.

Strange found whites were notably distrusting of programs that emphasized

minority participation and their taking part in the decision making process (1972).

While Stranges primary focus was on the Community Action programs and

Model Cities activities of HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), two

major federal programs in urban areas in which participation is a big issue (1972) the

researcher was witnessed to a paradox. First, one obstacle in his study showcased how

difficult it was to get minority/poor citizens to participate in a program created


7/28


specifically for their demographic. Second, there was controversy surrounding the

requirement of minority participation in the program, the latter a key element that not

only gave Strange trouble in his research, but other studies when it came to defining civic

engagement that will be later addressed.

Trust between peers was also measured in a UK study by Pattie, Seyd, &

Whiteley who discovered in their face-to-face interviews and survey results that people

are relatively, but not overwhelmingly, trusting of their fellow citizens (2003, p.455)

posing yet more difficulty in terms of defining trust in the democratic process.

Citizens and city leader trust

Trust between citizens and government was likewise discovered to be complex,

not only in the definition of trust between the two but its historical paradox.

It was noted in Wang and Wan WartsEssays on Citizen Participation and

Governance (2007) an increase in cynicism from knowledge over scandals, an

educational element to be discussed further. This contribution of scandals may very well

be relative to the media that plays what the researchers construe as a large, negative part

in the lackluster relations between the government and her citizens. At issue, researchers

stated the tendency for the media to write more about the character of political leaders as

opposed to the legislation being discussed and debated, this unbalanced tendency to shine

the spotlight on the person rather than the issue resulting in tabloid sensationalism (Kurtz,

1997).

Yet, Wang and Wan Wart made one outstanding proposal after using several

different methods of measurement in terms of participation in civic engagement


8/28


according to trust. They used a gauge across a wide survey of functions to discover that,

public participation tends to enhance public trust (2007).

However, is this always the case? Does participation lead to trust between citizens

and other citizens, especially between citizens and city leaders?

No, as we shall soon see.

Defining participation

A collaborative result of a UK study defined civic engagement as what the

researchers called; relatively wide (Pattie, et al., 2003, p.447) meaning action could be

across a plethora of potentials. The most popular response from their face-to-face 1,200

participants and some 10,000 mailed surveys was monetary donations being made to

various causes, while others took part in civic engagement by raising funds, boycotting

products, contacting a solicitor, or even participating in a strike.

In short, a definition of civic engagement can be very broad from contributions as

simple as donating money towards a cause, signing a petition, wearing a badge of

support, contacting a politician ((Pattie, et al., 2003) which does little to simplify

participation in the democratic process.

However, no matter how expansive the definition, participation on any given level

does contribute to ones attitude that can lead to trust in the governing body, as pointed

out by the aforementioned Wang and Wan Wart study but with limitations. As it does

seem simple enough, that to participate will breed familiarity with city workings in

government and city leaders which would seem to equate to trust and in effect, support

for the regime. Thus the circle should widen until there are more participating than not

participating, but it is not so relatively simple per literature review and former studies.


9/28


As previously noted, Strange and many other researchers had difficulty defining

participation, along with determining a number of seemingly simple important definitions

related to it. In his emphasis on minority programs, Strange was unable to simply define

who was a minority and even who was considered a citizen which one would think

should not pose a problem. One is either a minority or not and one is either a citizen of a

community/city or not.

These obstacles in terms of definitions were not only noted in Stranges research

but across a number of studies on the decline of citizen participation and how to improve

it, given not only the value of participation but the fragile relationship between city

leaders/government and citizens. A relationship that left many researchers likewise

asking, does citizen engagement/participation affect attitude toward government?

If citizen participation in the democratic process is so important, why are so few

attending policy making opportunities and when they do, does their attitude shift to a

positive, negative or neutral stance regarding their leaders if they participate or is this

attitude pre-formed?

Attitudes

Hero & Tolbert discovered in their studies an already pre-determined attitude of

negativity towards government by minority groups, which left part of their hypothetical

question unanswered as to why? (2004) as additional results showed participation in

direct democracy for minorities did not improve efficacy.

The strength in their study was the years of data they were able to collect, the pooling

of post-election survey results from the field over a span of 10 years across the U.S. with

a narrow focus on the state of California. Their emphasis on measuring political efficacy


10/28


amongst both whites and minorities with variables broken down to citizen attitudes in

direct democracy, state racial diversity, and whether the individual was a resident of

California.

What they found is that states with more direct democracy had citizens that felt

government was more responsive to their needs, but that external efficacy in government

was not shaped according to higher or lower diversity. In other words, the data they

pooled did not support their hypothesis which was that social context affects confidence

in government (Hero & Tolbert, 2004). Their inability to answer the larger question as

to why these attitudes are pre-formed skewered the information they were seeking and

created a weakness that left more questions than answers.

What also comes into play in terms of trust are the perceived shortcomings of leaders

to the disappointed and overblown expectations by citizens, with the overall assumption

that when participation does take place public trust or positive association towards city

leaders will thus ensue.

Unfortunately, this is too simplistic as pointed out by researchers who stipulate

participation is not always done effectively, and that invitation is not always done in good

faith, meaning the invitation can be superficial.

An example of ineffectiveness is in the case of the Reign of Terror, where citizens

chose other citizens to be executed (Civic engagement!) only to end up victims in the

execution process, too. This participation, for lack of a better word, resulted in absolute

chaos during the French Revolution when purported enemies of the state were guillotined

by the thousands (History, n.d.).


11/28


This wasnt participation in policy-making at its worse, however, as in good faith

consists of the public being invited to what is essentially a smoke and mirrors policy-

making process. The citizens attend, assist in making a decision, but the decision has,

unbeknownst to them, already been made by the city leaders.

Historically, in the United States, being able to contribute in the policy-making

has not always been as openly inviting, easily assembled, or as ideal as a President gave

speech to in a war-torn cemetery 150 years ago which may explain pre-formed attitudes

in the negative. As noted in Stranges study (1972) where he looked into the broad role

of citizen engagement with government, one that boasted of being inclusive when, in

reality, many individuals were excluded according to gender, race, and in many cases

age. Examples would be those who were lacking of property, being a woman, and a black

minority all were unable to vote, as well as, the poor and illiterate.

Another issue related to pre-formed attitude is that of city leaders who held a

negative view of citizens taking part in the democratic process as found by Wang & Wan

Wart (2007).

Context

Declining trust and confidence in governing bodies is also dependent on the

context of the policy being decided upon such as in the case of an environmental policy

study. The topic was such an extraordinarily passionate one that researchers discovered

that, Increasing the trust level in government is not a panacea to advancing democratic

governance (Jin, 2013, p. 20).

This meant that participation was no guarantee of a positive association by

citizens. This statement was mirrored by the National Conference of State Legislatures or


12/28


NCSL who advocated knowledge and education as part of a checklist for governing

bodies to elicit more public participation. This included making legislative buildings open

and accessible, with access to records of meetings available to the public. But even they

stated that Taking all (these) steps will not by any means guarantee that legislatures will

rank well in the public eye (Kurtz, 1997).

Other reasons have included the economic standing of an individual within a

community, allocated time to participate (free time) or lack of education in how a

legislative body functions, to views shaped according to internal and external efficacy

(Hero & Tolbert, 2004). Education being especially significant according to the NCSL

who states it is the key to support as, Knowledge gives confidence to citizens, both

internal and external with leaders and their departments. Which equates to more

participation and thus more support for the regime (Kurtz, 2007).

So how does a governing body win? Even as conferences were held in Europe to

pool information across a number of countries from the creation of hundreds of civic

programs to determine what works and what doesnt in citizen participation in the

democratic process, their vision contributing to the production of, Citizen Participation

Handbook. It states citizen participation is a, a key ingredient in the recipe for

democracy, and the importance of an increase in transparency in the decision-making

process (Holdar, Gilbreath, & Olha, 2002,p. 8) between citizens and city leaders.

Or the IMB Center for the Business of Government who performed their own

similar study and subsequent publication of,Public Deliberation: A manager's guide to

citizen engagement, to elicit more contributions from the locals. Who emphasized it

boosts citizen competency, and builds trust between the two.


13/28


The answer may reside, and where the hypothesis for this paper is significantly

drawn, in a study performed by Mohammadi, Norazizan, and Ahmad who surveyed 400

citizens in Torbat Hedarich, a city located north-east of Iran, chosen randomly, with their

responses measured according to their level of participation in local government and their

attitude. Their hypothesis, if local people have positive attitudes toward local

government; it is more likely that they support local government, (2010, p. 575). And

their results seemed conclusive to this as they made a determination that those who held a

positive attitude towards government tended to be more participatory.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis posed in this paper would agree with the Mohammadi, Norazizan,

and Ahmad study (2010) but within reason. As attitude can be shaped by participation in

government, but precisely as to what attitude, negative or positive, will remain in

question and will more than likely match many of the other researcher findings. As there

is the inability to precisely measure and properly define participation, along with the

addition of biasness surrounding the participants in the democratic process. This is

another obstacle to be continued in detail in the final discussion.

Method

To determine whether or not participation in the democratic process affects

attitude toward government a similar approach as predecessors will be taken here.

However, rather than either observing or surveying those who took part, or did not, in a

policy making procedure, survey questions [SEE APPENDIX] will be sent to those who

have been educated by and of the government body, at a minimal cost of involvement to


14/28


participants and in a neutral, non-decision/non-policy making context, that will still have

some benefit to the participants.

The reason behind minimal cost is in association with the study by Pattie, et al.,

who found that civic engagement occurs where the costs of involvement are low

(2003). While education is directed towards the conclusions by the NCSL who states,

Civic education is a vital strategy for strengthening public participation (Kurtz, 1997)

and last the context by Hero & Tolbert who determined political efficacy, how much

control a citizen has over the decision-making process being implemented, determines

engagement (2004).

Participants

The preceding three elements will be brought together through a survey to the

academicians of the City of Piqua who participated in the first and second Government

Academy and thus constituted 48 graduates-to-date to determine how their attitude

towards city leaders has been affected, among other inquires. While this will include a

number of biasness, as aforementioned and posed in final discussions, these beginning

steps toward the hypothesis will help to determine the shaping of attitudes when a citizen

has had an exceedingly unique opportunity to spend one night per week over the course

of 11-weeks with city leaders. Learning in an average 3 to 4 hour time span of each class

how each city department functions, the work that entails its assured function and the

checks and balances put in place to make sure citizen needs, and their tax dollars, are

being met and utilized proficiently (Royer, 2012a).

Again this is being employed at a minimal cost to the participants for civic

education and in a neutral context of the Government Academy. It consisted of 24


15/28


participants in both the spring session and the fall session for a total of 48 participants,

citizens of the City of Piqua or in the surrounding area. These participants became

graduates at the end of the 11-weeks that included a behind-the-scenes look at the

following departments: Police and fire, parks and streets, engineering, water, storm water,

wastewater, and underground utilities, power systems, health, finance, development,

planning and zoning.

Each participant was given a series of brief lectures from leaders of those

departments, along with assistants, and given tours of associated facilities and offices.

Some of the classes included hands-on opportunities, such as riding in fire engines

alongside firefighters (Non-emergency basis), making signs in the streets department and

more.

Design

The reason for participation will be varied among the academicians and will not

be obtained via this questionnaire. The determination of the 1 to 5 scale will be to gauge

their confidence both before and after participation, to determine if participation in future

civic-related opportunities and processes will occur, their confidence in the knowledge of

their peers. The validity of the results will be measured against (anonymous) surveys

given to participants after the end of each class session as a final percentage against

percentage comparison.

The hypothesis is that attitudes will be overall positive, (thus civic

participation/engagement affecting attitude towards government) considering those who

attended the academy made an effort to be at every class, stay for the full class, and

attend graduation.


16/28


While there is a high potential for biasness towards a positive attitude already

being held by the participants for the simple fact they made such an exuberant effort over

11 weeks to attend such classes (As noted by previous literature review) the fact they are

not actually making any decisions part of a contributing factor. As is the fact they have

minimal cost to attend but the benefit of knowledge gained.

An example as to why a simple questionnaire following non-decision making

government participation may be a good starting point is to compare it to the extensive

correlational and field study performed by Risner, Genevive, and Bergan. The 2012

study consisted of (first) 600 registered voters taking part in two separate survey phases,

followed by focus groups, then a third phase with 10 input sessions. This was followed

by yet another phase driven by community organizations and the local media, with a final

phase that consisted of follow-up phone surveys of both citizens and leaders. Only for the

researchers to conclude a no-win after a year-long participatory process that people do

not want other, average citizens, just like them, developing policies on issues.

Overall, researchers across a number of studies have concluded that many people

are not trusting of their fellow peers in the democratic process. A troubling aspect given

civic engagement tends to include peers, and that more individuals are likely to

participate when family or friends are on board (Pattie, et al., 2003). Also, they tend to

lack knowledge (Kurtz, 1997) and have preformed attitudes about government (Hero &

Tolbert, 2004). This study will showcase whether or not peer relations can be improved

via a non-decision making, educated experience, and the attitude towards city leaders and

eventual inclusion of more civic engagement can be forged via the minimal costs of a

government academy. If the hypothesis proves correct the statement provided by Wang


17/28


and Wan Wart, public participation tends to enhance public trust (2007) will be correct.

In conjunction with Hero & Tolberts emphasis that social context affects confidence in

government since this will be neutral engagement at the Academy. As will the inclusion

of Pattie, et al., who found that civic engagement occurs where the costs of involvement

are low (2003).

While using a government academy to survey potential methods of improving

civic engagement may seem simplistic, it may its greatest strength. That simplification of

what researchers around the world have attempted to answer in terms of dwindling

participatory numbers may very well reside in simplicity.


18/28


Discussion

The ideals of an inclusive government overseen by the steady hand and

participation of its citizens have not been an easy endeavor, historically speaking.

Whether at the bias of those implementing it or those who should be participating, trust,

context, definitions and more have all played a part in the decline of citizens in the

democratic process.

The hypothesis that civic engagement/participation will affect attitude towards

government is not one that can be easily determined due to those factors. Not with the

inclusion of three definitive requirements when it comes to the public: Minimal cost to

participate, education, and neutral context.

For starters, those with a tendency to partake in the democratic process tend to

already have more education, a higher income, and generally a higher status that those

who do not participate (Strange, 1972). And those who already have a positive attitude

toward local government are more likely to support or participate (Mohammadi, et al.,

2010) but it is not a complete circle.

In short, those less active with their local government or government as a whole

tend to be less likely to respond to questionnaires so sending likewise to Government

Academy graduates will more than likely be responded to and more than likely responded

to in the positive as opposed to in the negative.

Another issue that must be noted regarding this study will be the lack of diversity,

specifically that of minorities, in the participants in the City of Piqua Government

Academy.


19/28


These are not the ideals originally set out by the founders of the United States, not

when many researchers concluded that people are not trusting of their fellow peers in the

democratic process, and that their trust varies according to institutions, (political versus

non-political) and that they cannot fully account as to what influences participation.

When even the aforementioned specific demographics such as high education or high

economic standing within the community are met, there is still no guarantee of

participation. Even citizens with plenty of time on their hands do not necessarily

participate in civic duties or political engagement (Pattie, et al., 2003).

However, it is the very latter researchers who offer the most striking potential as

to incurring more participation amongst citizens. One conclusion that may be the answer

for many suffering governments around the world and that is civic action was more

prevalent when participants were asked to join or, as the researchers stated, If you dont

ask, you dont get (Pattie, et al., 2003, p. 466), a potential that was neverdirectly

broached in other literature reviews.

Asking for support appeared to pay in dividends, according to Pattie, et al., for

those seeking voter support, and if such is the case, for governing bodies across the

United States and beyond, participation may in fact come down to one simple phrase,

Please, help.


20/28


Appendix

BEFORE your participation with the Government Academy, how would you rate

your level of confidence for city leaders?

Excellent Good Fair Poor Neutral

1 2 3 4 5

BEFORE your participation with the Government Academy, how would you rate

your level of confidence for city leaders decision making?


1 2 3 4 5

DURING your participation with the Government Academy, how would you rate

your level of understanding with the Police Department?


1 2 3 4 5


your level of understanding with the Fire Department?


1 2 3 4 5


your level of understanding with the Parks Department?


1 2 3 4 5


21/28



your level of understanding with the Water and Stormwater Department?


1 2 3 4 5


your level of understanding with the Wastewater and Underground Utilities

Departments?


1 2 3 4 5


your level of understanding with the Power Systems Department?


1 2 3 4 5


your level of understanding with the Health Department?


1 2 3 4 5


22/28



your level of understanding with the Finance Department?


1 2 3 4 5


your level of understanding with the Development, Planning and Zoning

Departments?


1 2 3 4 5


your experience in the Mock City Commission Meeting?


1 2 3 4 5


your level of participation with your fellow academicians?


1 2 3 4 5


23/28


How would you rate your OVERALL experience with the Government Academy?


1 2 3 4 5

AFTER attending the Government Academy how would you rate your level of

confidence for city leaders decision making?


1 2 3 4 5

AFTER your participation with the Government Academy, how would you rate your

level of confidence for city leaders?


1 2 3 4 5


level of knowledge pertaining to city leaders and their subsequent job duties?


1 2 3 4 5


level of knowledge pertaining to city departments?


1 2 3 4 5


24/28



ability to participate in city policy-making decisions?


1 2 3 4 5

AFTER your participation with the Government Academy, how would you rate the

knowledge of your fellow academicians concerning city policy-making decisions?


1 2 3 4 5

AFTER your participation with the Government Academy, how likely are you to

participate in a city board or committee?


1 2 3 4 5


attend a city commission meeting?


1 2 3 4 5


25/28


AFTER your participation with the Government Academy, how likely are you to run

for a board or committee position such as president or secretary?


1 2 3 4 5


assist a city department, board or committee if a member of said were to ask for your

help?


1 2 3 4 5


26/28


References

Abraham , L. (1863). The Gettysburg Address. Retrieved from

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm.

Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. (2004). Minority voices and citizen attitudes about government

responsiveness in the American states: Do social and institutional context

matter?Political Science Publications. Retrieved from http://tllg.net/9Zb9.

History.com. (Producer). (n.d.).Reign of Terror. Retrieved from

http://www.history.com/topics/reign-of-terror.

Holdar, G.G., & Zakharchenko, O. (2002). People's voice project: International centre for

policy studies. Citizen Participation Handbook. Retrieved from

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTBELARUS/Resources/eng.pdf.

Jin, M. (2013). Citizen participation, trust, and literacy on government legitimacy: The

case of environmental governance.Journal of Social Change, 5 (1), 11-25. Retrieved

from http://tllg.net/iq4x.

Kurtz, K. T. (1997). Legislatures and citizens: Public participation and confidence in the

legislature.National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Retrieved from
http://www.history.com/topics/reign-of-terrorhttp://www.history.com/topics/reign-of-terrorhttp://www.history.com/topics/reign-of-terror


27/28


http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/trust/public-participation-and-confidence-

in-the-leg541.aspx.

Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2006). Public deliberation: A manager's guide to

citizen engagement.IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/opengov_inbox/ibmpubdelib.pdf.

Mohammadi, S.H., Norazizan, S., & Ahmad, N. (2010). Citizens attitude towards local

government and citizens participation in local government.Journal of American

Science, 6 (11), 575-583. Retrieved from

http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-

sci/am0611/67_3944am0611_575_583.pdf.

Pattie, C., Seyd, P., & Whiteley, P. (2003). Citizenship and civic engagement: Attitudes

and behavior in Britain.Political Studies Association, 51, 443-468. Retrieved from

http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/pattie.pdf.

Risner, G. & Bergan, D. (2012). The Perils of participation: The effect of participation

messages on citizens policy support. The Journal of Public Transportation, 15(2),

137-156. Retrieved from http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2012/07/JPT15.2Risner.pdf.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/opengov_inbox/ibmpubdelib.pdfhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/opengov_inbox/ibmpubdelib.pdf


28/28


Royer, B.J. (2012a, April 6). Academy gives look at city government: Session covers

wide variety of topics.Piqua Daily Call. Retrieved from

http://dailycall.com/main.asp?

Search=1&ArticleID=179051&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=268&S=1.

Royer, B.J. (2012b, December 30). A successful year for the city of Piqua: From

programs to development 2012 was productive, rewarding.Piqua Daily Call.

Retrieved from http://dailycall.com/main.asp?

Search=1&ArticleID=185061&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=407&S=1.

Strange, J. H. (1972). The impact of citizen participation on public administration.Public

Administration Review, 32, 457-470. Retrieved from

http://www.centerforurbanstudies.com/documents/electronic_library/neighborhoods/t

he_impact_of_public_participation.pdf.

Wang, X., & Wan Wart, M. (2007). When public participation in administration leads to

trust: An empirical assessment of managers perceptions.Essays on Citizen

Participation and Governance, 265-278. Retrieved from

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shulockn/Executive%20Fellows%20PDF

%20readings/PAR-citizen%20part%20and%20trust.pdf.
http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=179051&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=268&S=1http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=179051&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=268&S=1http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=185061&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=407&S=1http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=185061&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=407&S=1http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=179051&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=268&S=1http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=179051&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=268&S=1http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=185061&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=407&S=1http://dailycall.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=185061&SectionID=5&SubSectionID=407&S=1

Does Citizen Engagement/Participation Affect Attitude Toward Government?

Documents

Transcript of Does Citizen Engagement/Participation Affect Attitude Toward Government?