From Galaxy to Universe
A Multidisciplinary Meta-Analysis of Publications on Public Values from 1969 to 2012
Gjalt de Graaf (VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse University, USA)
Zeger van der Wal (VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Introduction
The study and discussion of public values (PVs) has generated growing interest in public
administration and public management in recent years. The popularity of the topic is evidenced
in several ways. There are a relatively large number of scholarly publications with public values
as its central focus, with nearly 150 academic publications on the topic since 2006. The Public
Values Consortium, founded in 2008, is hosting its third biennial workshop. Public values panels
at prominent public administration and management conferences such as PMRC in 2011 and
IRSPM in 2012 have also generated a lot of attention and drawn large audiences. In fact, the two
public values tracks at IRSPM in April 2012 were the most popular at the conference. With a
combined total of 72 paper submissions and 61 paper presentations, these two tracks accounted
for almost ten percent of the presentations at this 48-track conference.
Despite the popularity of the topic, however, there remains tremendous conceptual
confusion among scholars. ‘Public values’ and its contents (whose values the concept contains)
differ widely among scholars, and both parts of the concept – ‘public’ and ‘values’ – are
interpreted and used in many different ways (Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman 2007; Bozeman 2007).
Consequently, examples of PVs mentioned in the literature vary widely. For example, one study
in public administration identified more than 100 fundamental values as being important public
values (Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman 2007), whereas a broader review of the public
administration literature identified over 400 different public values (van der Wal et al. 2006).
Moreover, there is little (perhaps no) agreement about what PVs are, which values are ‘public’
and why, how PVs should be defined and measured, or how the many perspectives, approaches,
and angles to the study of PVs should be reconciled and weighted, let alone be integrated (cf.
Rutgers 2008). Part of the problem for the study of public values seems to be the different
conceptual and theoretical starting points of research, leading to a ‘dialogue of the deaf’ among
scholars. As de Bruijn and Dicke (2006: 718) note, “An immense landscape of theories and
terminologies can be unfolded, especially when we incorporate perspectives used in institutional
economics, law and public administration.” In short, to quote Gallie’s (1955) famous phrase,
public values are essentially “contested concepts,” and like many other concepts, they “are not
waiting for us ready-made, like heavenly bodies. There is no heaven for concepts. They must be
invented, fabricated, or rather created and would be nothing without their creator’s signature”
(Deleuze & Guattari 1994: 5).
Despite the numerous challenges, many scholars seem to agree that “if researchers can
advance, even incrementally, the study of public values beyond its current ambiguous and
unbounded status, then those advances could serve many different theory developments and even
practical purposes” (Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman 2007: 355). In their pursuit of greater clarity
and to address these and other challenges, scholars have attempted to clarify and classify public
values (e.g., Rutgers 2008), and some have even claimed to lay out the universe of public values
(e.g., Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman 2007; Nabatchi 2011). However, the existing literature
reviews, classifications, and conceptual maps are based on rather narrow reviews of the topic;
thus, it is more accurate to say that scholars have touched upon a galaxy of public values rather
than the entire universe.
We agree that “There is no more important topic in public administration and policy than
public values” (Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman 2007: 355) and see every reason to continue to
examine the topic – to move from galaxies to the universe. However, because the concept has so
many shapes and forms, and because the literature is so diffuse, it is hard to know how to move
forward. Progress requires making explicit all the shapes and forms currently present in the PVs
literature, unraveling existing patterns that may exist, and analyzing how PVs are studied and
why scholars do so in such divergent ways. This paper is a first step in that direction.
Specifically, we conducted an extensive and rigorous search of the scholarly literature on
public values, identifying 399 publications (articles, book chapters, books) from over fifteen
academic disciplines and dating back to 1969 that focus on or mention PVs. We then entered
each publication into a database, and categorized all publications using nineteen criteria, such as
the academic discipline or field of the research, the definition and conceptualization of PVs used,
and the number of times the publication has been cited, among others. This paper presents the
results of our initial analysis of our database. We begin with a very brief review of some of the
existing literature reviews on the topic, identifying some of the problems in the public values
research streams. Next, we discuss our methods for conducting the literature search and
constructing our database. We then present some initial findings, concentrating, at this point, on
general descriptions of the publications in the database. We conclude with a discussion about our
findings and our next steps for the meta-analysis.
A Brief Review of Existing Literature Reviews
As noted above, PVs research currently faces a conceptual muddle. While there are many
dimensions to this muddle, we only briefly touch on a few related aspects. First, the term ‘public
values’ has many different meanings in research; studies that claim public values as their central
focus might, in reality, be examining very different phenomena. For example, some authors
discuss safeguarding PVs in a time of privatization (de Bruijn & Dicke 2006) or dominant
economic individualism (Bozeman 2007), while others appeal to reconciling PVs in a time of
businesslike public management philosophies (Frederickson 2005). Some, addressing public
values in general, propose sets of PVs (Gregory 1999; Tait 1997) or criticize and further expand
the concept by emphasizing forgotten dimensions, such as ‘the public’ and ‘democracy’
(Nabatchi 2010, 2011, 2012). Others derive sets of specific PVs (e.g., equity or lawfulness)
through empirical research (Beck Jørgensen 2006; Beck Jørgensen & Rutgers 2011; van der Wal
2011; van der Wal, de Graaf, & Lasthuizen 2008). This and other research is not unified by a
single definition of PVs, though many scholars use or cite similar definitions and reference
overlapping literature.
A second dimension of the current conceptual muddle concerns the continuing debate
about whether and how to distinguish ‘public’ values from other types of values. In particular, a
dominant theme in previous literature reviews on public values (Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman
2007; Rutgers 2008) or values in public administration and business administration (Schreurs
2005; van der Wal et al. 2006) pertains to examining values in the context of public and private
sector organizations. Following this dichotomous perspective, some scholars suggest
distinguishing between specific public sector values (public values) and specific private sector
values (private values) (e.g., Jacobs 1992; van der Wal and Huberts 2008). This view
stereotypically associates values such as equity, solidarity, the public interest, social goals,
stability, legislation, political influence, and democratic processes with the public sector, and
values such as entrepreneurship, efficiency, financial interest, competition, business risks, and
the realization of corporate goals with the private sector (Osborne & Gaebler 1992; Reijniers
1994; Rosenau 2000). However, this dichotomy between public and private values is
problematic. Most obviously, it is increasingly difficult to draw a clear boundary between the
two sectors (Bozeman 1987; Bozeman & Bretschneider 1994; Drewry, Greve, & Tanquerel
2005). Moreover, the suggestion that PVs only belong to the public sphere and private values to
the private sphere does not hold empirically. For example, de Bruijn and Dicke (2006)
demonstrate that public values are not solely owned or acted upon by public officials. Instead,
PVs also serve as guides for, and are protected by, private action. Thus, it is unclear whether
public and private values are (empirically) different or should be (normatively) different.
Third, to address this problem of labeling values as being ‘public’ or ‘private’, some
scholars have attempted to categorize or classify PVs. For example, some scholars have
classified public values by focusing on core values, chronological ordering, or some kind of
bifurcation or dimensional distinction (see Rutgers 2008). Other classifications are derived from
an analysis of the public administration and political science literatures (Beck Jørgensen &
Bozeman 2007). Still other classifications are based on “hard” and “soft” values (Steenhuisen,
Dicke, & de Bruijn 2009); individual, professional, organizational, legal, and public-interest
values (Van Wart 1998); ethical, democratic, professional, and people values (Kernaghan 2003);
political, legal, organizational, and market values (Nabatchi 2011), or on values related to
administrative rationality, democratic morality, and political survival (Buchanan & Millstone
1979).
However, the breadth and diversity of these classifications systems present additional
conceptual problems. For example, the concept of PVs is used in reference to concrete goals
such as the reliability and safety of public transport (de Bruijn & Dicke 2006; Steenhuisen 2009;
Weihe 2008), to procedural- and process-related rules such as accountability and transparency
(Weihe 2008), and to moral precepts of right and wrong that (should) guide public action (van
der Wal 2008). But these referents are related; for example, transparency can be a concrete goal,
a procedural value, and a moral precept. Moreover, in the public sphere, PVs as concrete goals,
procedural rules, and moral precepts always interact. According to Walzer (1973), in the process
of governance a public actor can choose a course of action that is perfectly justified on utilitarian
grounds, but still leaves the actor guilty of a moral wrong. So there are moral rules of the game:
the ‘means’ (or process values) specific to public governance can conflict with the ends public
actors pursue. For example, “Because transparency is an obligation resting on democratic
government, there is a permanent danger that, in those areas of policy requiring secrecy as a
necessary condition for successful execution (notably, foreign affairs), this obligation will be
violated” (Nieuwenburg 2004: 685).
As a result of these and other issues, the examples of PVs mentioned in the literature vary
widely. One particularly useful attempt at generating clarity is Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman’s
(2007) construction of the ‘public values universe’, which contains 72 public values that are
classified among seven constellations based on which aspects of public administration or public
organization the value affects. This study has been used by a number of authors (Google Scholar
reports that it has been cited over 120 times) in both empirical studies on public values (e.g.,
Andersen et al. 2012) and conceptual exercises (e.g., Nabatchi 2011). However, despite its value,
and as suggested in the introduction, this article (like others) may be better considered as
presenting a galaxy of public values rather than the entire universe.
Specifically, the article relies on a relatively narrow review of the literature, using only
publications in US, UK, and Scandinavian public administration journals from 1990-2003.
Moreover, Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) simply inventory the PVs that appear in the
public administration literature, and distinguish and name the different constellations of heavenly
bodies – to keep with the metaphor – to which these PVs belong. Their study does not look at the
meanings and usage of the PVs in context. The authors explain that taking PVs out of context
allows for easier contemplation: “values are set free from partial understandings and from
deadlocked, polarized debate, making it possible to construct new perceptions and judgments”
(Jørgensen & Bozeman 2007: 357-358). However, they also acknowledge a disadvantage in
doing so, namely that values are “robbed of their specific meaning” and “historical background
is lost” (2007: 257).
In contrast, our study seeks to examine the different conceptualizations and meanings of
PVs in their intended context. That is, instead of asking “what PVs exist” as Beck Jørgensen and
Bozeman (2007) did, we intend to ask, “what PVs are used where, when, why, and how.” Our
logic is that for the study of public values to progress, we need to understand how different
scholars conceptualize, interpret, use the concept of PVs, which approaches to PVs dominate
different disciplines, and how and where such approaches differ and overlap. The need for such
research is especially obvious when we move outside the boundaries of public administration
and include other disciplines and fields such as law and economics. In essence, we are in need of
a Public Values String Theory that accounts for and can be used to compare, contrast, and
integrate different theories, approaches, and streams of knowledge from across disciplines – we
need to move from galaxies to the universe.
Before we can generate this type of understanding, however, we must begin with the
basics and answer questions that have not yet been asked, let alone answered. For example, is the
concept of PVs a primary focus in research or is it simply mentioned in relation to other topics
and issues? What kinds of publications – journal articles, books, book chapters, etc. – exist? In
what year did the concept of PVs first appear? How was it used, and in which disciplinary
context? What has been the interest in PVs research over time? Do most publications on PVs
indeed stem from public administration and public management scholars, or can we detect
serious scholarship on PVs within fields and disciplines? Do scholars tend to use self-created
definitions of public values or do they rely on others’ definitions? Do they distinguish between
the concepts of public value and public values? What type of literature is being published, that is,
are publications empirical, normative, or theoretical in nature? These are among the questions we
seek to answer in our preliminary analysis of the PVs literature.
Methodology: A Meta-Analysis of 399 Publications on Public Values
Rationale
Our overall purpose in conducting a meta-analysis of public values publications is to establish a
genealogy of ‘public values’, that is, to study the definition of the term and the contexts in which
it has been used. To begin this meta-analysis, we needed to find publications and conduct a
literature review. Traditional literature reviews use generic methodological applications “to find
out what is already known about the intended research topic” by identifying existing knowledge
and gaps and developing a concomitant research agenda (Robinson & Reed 1998: 58). However,
our (ultimate) objective in this research is to identify the overarching narrative and evolution of
the PVs concept. Thus, rather than simply presenting a ‘tour’ of the literature, we (eventually)
aim to map themes and develop a general narrative of how the overall concept of PVs is
conceptualized and represented. Accordingly, as we move through analysis of our database on
the public values literature, we will conduct a thematic, integrative literature review where we
identify themes and patterns in various areas of research, and discuss those themes with general
reference to the studies and contexts from which they came (Creswell 2008). We are just
beginning this analysis. Here, we present some initial and preliminary findings about the nature
of the literature on PVs we have found. First, however, we discuss the basics of our literature
search and database construction.
Sample and selection criteria
To gain an overview of the multidisciplinary approach towards PVs, the first search was
generated using Google Scholar. This search was conceptualized as the initial ‘broad web search’
that would be followed by cross-checking and other searches using more academically renowned
systems. Essentially, Google Scholar scans content in peer-reviewed and open access journals,
books, dissertations, preprint repositories, academic society papers (if available on the Web),
technical reports, and other materials, thus allowing for a wide, interdisciplinary, and
international search of academic literature. To conduct this search, we used the keywords “public
values”1 in conjunction (i.e., by using quotation marks), included citations (i.e., not only
1
We did not include the term “public value” in our searches for two reasons. First, although many scholars do not
explicitly distinguish between public values and public value (cf. Alford & O’Flynn 2009; O’Flynn 2009), we
believe that these are distinct, though related concepts (cf. Nabatchi 2011, 2012; for discussions about public value,
see Moore 1995 and Bennington & Moore 2011). Second, Williams and Shearer (2011) recently released a content
analysis and categorization of 74 scholarly publications on public values.
materials with links), and limited the dates to 1945-2012. This initial search led to 320
publications.
Although Google Scholar ranks documents based on citations, hits are not listed
hierarchically, that is, with the most frequently cited documents appearing first. Rather, “Google
Scholar aims to rank documents the way researchers do, weighing the full text of each document,
where it was published, who it was written by, as well as how often and how recently it has been
cited in other scholarly literature.”2 As Burright (2006) states, however:
“Its lack of authority control for basic data elements such as author names and
publication titles greatly limits its ability to sustain a serious scientific and
technical research audience as an exclusive source of literature. Its speedy search
engine and voluminous output are tradeoffs that a researcher must consider
weighing against accuracy and thoroughness in a literature search.”
For this reason, additional searches were carried out using the ISI ‘Web of Knowledge’3 search
engine (using “public values” in the ‘topic’ category) and ProQuest4 (using “public values” in the
‘abstract’ category). After these searches, the initial Google Scholar database was crossreferenced and any ‘missing’ articles were input.
In the end, these three search engines identified 399 scholarly publications. Information
for each item was entered into the database, including author(s), title, document type, and other
relevant publication data. In addition to entering the items in the database, materials were
downloaded or checked out of libraries for future analysis. It should be noted, however, that we
do not currently have access (online or through libraries) to 67 publications. Thus, at present the
database for analysis consists of 332 publications.
2
http://scholar.google.nl/intl/en/scholar/about.html
http://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=
4BJmJ4nP6jngi9dEfnF&preferencesSaved=
4
http://www.proquest.co.uk/en-UK
3
Coding and Classification
Once the articles were entered into the database, we began the process of coding. First, we
opened each downloaded publication and scanned it using a keyword search for “public values.”
(Books and book chapters were scanned using the ‘Google Books’ search engine.) We
designated publications as either having a “focus” on public values or having a “mention” of
public values. Publications that focus on PVs have the concept as their central topic of discussion
or analysis (and mention the concept in their titles and/or abstracts). Publications that have a
mention of PVs use the concept somewhere in the text but primarily focus on different topics and
issues.
Second, we asked several questions about each publication and recorded the answers in
the database:
1. Do the authors use an explicit/concrete definition of public values? Yes/No
2. If no, how do the authors approach/conceptualize public values, and in what context?
3. If yes, what definition do they use?
4. Is this definition ‘self-created’ or are they using someone else’s definition? If so, who are
they citing?
5. Do the authors distinguish between ‘public value’ and ‘public values’?
Third, we added a category for ‘literature type’ based on classifications adapted from
Williams and Shearer (2011), including:

Research/Empirical – defined by the presence of an empirical ‘case study’ or analysis

Theoretical Development/Debate – defined by the presence of conceptual arguments

Normative Approach (generic) – defined as focusing not on what is, but what should be,
with no specific or particular reference to a discipline or context

Normative Approach (domain specific) – defined as focusing not on what is, but what
should be, combined with a particular discipline or context

Other (such as government and commission reports)
Additional codes are used in the database, including, for example, document type and
citation numbers, among others. Thus, all publications in the database to which we had access
are coded for the following nineteen categories or criteria:
1. Author(s)
2. Title
3. Document type (e.g., journal article,
book, book chapter, etc.)
4. Publication name
5. Volume and issue number
6. Year
7. Pages
8. Abstract
9. PVs focus or mention
10. Academic discipline/field
11. Distinction between public value and
public values
12. Explicit definition
13. External definition (i.e., citation to
other research)
14. Self definition
15. Context in which the term is used
16. Conceptualization of concept
17. Literature type
18. Number of Google Scholar citations
19. Number of Web of Science citations
We are currently in the process of reviewing, discussing, and revising all of the coding
for subjective categories and criteria to ensure inter-coder reliability.
Preliminary Analyses
As noted above, we found a total of 399 publications in our search; however, we do not have
access to 67 publications or approximately 17% of the total documents identified. Thus, the
following analyses are largely limited to the 332 publications to which we have access.
Of these 332 accessible publications, 252 (76%) have public values as a ‘focus’ and 80
(24%) simply ‘mention’ public values. The overwhelming majority (293 or 88% percent) are
journal articles. Book chapters (9) and book reviews (10) each represent about 3% of the
accessible publications. Discussion papers and research reports (6), journal commentaries and
editorials (5), and conference papers (5) each represent about 2% of the accessible documents.
Finally, theses and dissertations (2) and other types of documents (2) each represent less than 1%
of the accessible documents.
Of the inaccessible publications, the majority (32 or 48%) are journal articles. Books (23)
represent about 34% of the inaccessible publications, and book chapters (7) represent about 10%
of the inaccessible publications. In addition, we are unable to access 3 research reports and 2
conference papers, which respectively represent 4% and 3% of the inaccessible publications.
In looking at all of the publications, including those for which we have no access, the first
finding of the term ‘public values’ dates back to 1969 in a book chapter titled, “The Public
Values of the Private Association” (McConnell 1969). Interestingly, this publication (best
situated within the scholarly domain of political science) is also the first time a distinction
between public and private values is made. In the chapter, the author writes, “What I wish to do
in this paper … is to look at the list of virtues attributed to the private association and then to ask
what are the public values that ought reasonably to be expected from it” (p. 148). Further in his
analysis, McConnell (1969: 160) asserts,
The preeminent public values of the private associations … are order and
stability. Perhaps to some degree the values of community, human warmth, and
fellowship are also present in the private association. In the sense that order,
stability, and mutual respect at a very minimal level are preconditions for liberty,
this also is a value of the private association.... At the same time, however, the
contribution to order and stability has come at a large cost. This cost has been
paid, and is continuing to be paid in limitations on liberty, equality, and numerous
other public values. The private association serves private as well as public values
and it is proper that the right of men to associate should be protected. This is an
aspect of individual liberty, and it is accordingly unnecessary to credit the
association with virtues that are not its own. It has virtues that are real and some
of these are public, but it is important to recall that these involve the payment of a
price, and a large one.
Since this first publication in 1969, the term PVs increasingly has made an appearance in
the academic literature. Figure One shows the number of accessible publications that focus on or
mention PVs between 1969 and 2012. There were only three years (1970, 1972, 1979) when this
term did not appear in publications; however, it was not until the late 1990s that we see
publication numbers in the double digits. Moreover, it is also interesting to note that almost 66%
of the total publications on public values have been released since the year 2000.
Figure One: Number of Publications that Focus On or Mention “Public Values”, 1969-2012
Although we are still in the process of revising and refining disciplinary categorizations,
it is important to note that public values research is being conducted in numerous disciplines. As
expected, the most publications (114) are in the field of public administration and management;
however, unexpectedly, we also found significant numbers of publications in environmental
studies (56) and law (51). There are also several publications in education, public health, and
economics, among others. In total, we found publications on PVs within 41 academic subfields,
including unexpected domains such as bioethics, environmental risk management, marketing and
information studies, and librarianship, belonging to 18 recognized academic ‘disciplines’ such as
law, political science, philosophy, public administration, and medicine.
As noted earlier, we also coded the publications in our database in terms of whether an
explicit definition is given, and if so, whether this definition is ‘self-created’ or given in
reference to another publication. Shockingly, our preliminary review of the data shows that 245
(74%) of the publications do not provide an explicit definition of the concept. Of the remaining
publications, 78 (24%) provide a single explicit definition, and 7 (2%) of the publications
provide multiple definitions. We are currently in the process of analyzing the various definitions
provided in these publications to identify common references and citations, ideas, and themes. In
doing so, we hope to see patterns emerge in the overall narrative and overall evolution of PVs
research (including details on ‘who cites whom’).
A complicating matter in PVs research, is that many scholars do not explicitly distinguish
between public values and public value (cf. Alford & O’Flynn 2009; Nabatchi 2011, 2012;
O’Flynn 2009), while both concepts are only in some ways related and concern different debates
and approaches (see Moore 1995, 2000 for a description of the concept ‘public value’). We
therefore coded the accessible publications in terms of whether they distinguish between public
values, and public value. Figure Two shows that 287 (86%) of the accessible documents have a
distinct focus on public values, 35 (11%) focus on public value, and only 10 (3%) reference both
concepts. This suggests that scholars are attending to the distinct meanings of these concepts.
Figure Two: Distinction between Public Values and Public Value
We also coded the accessible publications in terms of the literature type, using the
categories defined by Williams and Shearer (2011): Research/Empirical, Theoretical
Development/Debate, Normative Approach (generic), Normative Approach (domain specific),
and Other. Table One shows our initial classifications of the literature type.
Table One: Classification of Literature Type
Research Empirical
116
Theoretical Development/Debate
95
Normative Approach (domain specific)
70
Normative Approach (generic)
46
Other
5
Total
332
35%
29%
21%
14%
2%
100%
It is important to note that the Williams and Shearer (2011) classification scheme does
not seem to work as well for the PVs literature as it did for the public value literature. More
specifically, in attempting to classify publications, we found that few fit neatly into these existing
categories, and that more often than not, publications overlapped categories. Table Two shows
the overlapping classifications of the literature type. The issue of overlapping classifications is
further evidence of the current conceptual muddle in public values research, and suggests that
many authors are not clear about their aims, for example, whether the purpose of their
publication is to develop theory or display a normative stance. We are currently in the process of
refining the classification system for literature type.
Table Two: Overlapping Classifications of Literature Type
Research/Empirical (generic)
80
Research/Empirical & Normative Approach (domain specific)
15
Research/Empirical & Normative Approach (generic)
1
Research/Empirical & Theoretical Development/Debate
16
Research/ Empirical & Other
4
Theoretical Development/Debate
75
Theoretical Development/Debate & Research/Empirical
5
Theoretical Development/Debate & Normative Approach (generic)
15
Normative Approach (domain specific)
70
Normative Approach (generic)
46
Other/Unclassified
5
Total
332
24%
5%
>1%
5%
1%
23%
2%
5%
21%
14%
2%
100%
Finally, we conducted a citation search to find out which publications are cited most (the
next step will be to find out ‘who cites whom’ so we can develop clusters of literature). Thus far,
we have completed citation searches for 213 of the 399 publications in the database. We did a
quick review of these numbers to determine which publications are most frequently cited
according to Google Scholar. Four journal articles have over 300 citations, and three journal
articles have between 200-299 citations. Interestingly, despite the majority of total publications
coming from public administration and management, none of these publications fit squarely
within that field/discipline. Instead, of the seven publications with more than 200 citations, four
are from law (with 386, 304, 230, 229 citations), and one each is from health policy (310),
economics (301), and environmental policy (210). Although the environmental policy article is
published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, its focus is on conflict in
environmental planning issues. With 175 citations each, the most frequently cited articles that
fall squarely within public administration and management are “Public value management: A
new narrative for networked governance?” (Stoker 2006) and “Public value failure: When
efficient markets may not do” (Bozeman 2002). Table Three shows the number of publications
that fall within various ranges of citation numbers.
Table Three: Citation Analysis of Publications
# of citations
# of publications
Over 300
4
200-299
3
100-199
10
75-99
6
50-74
14
25-49
30
1-24
131
0
15
Total
213
In sum, our preliminary analysis of the public values literature reveals some interesting
findings. First, of the 332 accessible publications, more than three-quarters have PVs as a focus,
as opposed to simply mentioning the concept in relation to other topics. Second and perhaps not
surprisingly given the nature of academia, over 80% of the 399 total publications we found (both
accessible and inaccessible) are journal articles. Books and book chapters represent less than
10% of the total publications.
Third, according to our search, the term PVs first appeared in a 1969 book chapter, which
interestingly enough, articulated a distinction between public and private values in the two
sectors. It is heartening (or perhaps disheartening depending on one’s view) to know that this
historic debate has deep roots. Fourth, and related, since its appearance in 1969, the term PVs has
received growing attention in publications, as evidenced by the steady increase in publications
that focus on or mention the concept. Moreover, it is interesting to note that two-thirds of the
publications we found were released since 2000.
Fifth, although public administration and management are responsible for a large part of
the public values research, we discovered significant publications on the topic in other
disciplines such as environmental studies, law, education, public health, and economics, among
others.
Sixth, although this finding is extremely preliminary, we surprisingly found that nearly
three-quarters of the publications do not explicitly define the term PVs – this is certainly
problematic for the development of theory and research. Seventh, the literature about ‘public
value’ seldom overlaps with the PVs literature. The two concepts are almost homonyms, but
public value and public values are generally given clear and distinct meanings in the literature.
Eight, our analysis indicates that there is wide variety in terms of the types of
publications on PVs, with scholars examining, empirical, theoretical, and normative aspects of
the concept. Finally, a preliminary citation analysis shows that the most frequently cited articles
are in fields outside of public administration and management.
Certainly more work needs to be done before we can make any strong claims about the
nature of publications about PVs, and while useful, this preliminary analysis needs further
development before we can being to understand the overarching narrative and evolution of the
PVs concept. We discuss our next steps for this meta-analysis project in the conclusion of this
paper.
Conclusion
We have only recently finished constructing the database of PVs publications, and only just
begun very simple, preliminary analyses of the data. We have several ideas about moving
forward with our meta-analysis.
1. We need to revise and refine various categorizations and classifications in the database
and test for inter-coder reliability.
2. We need to more closely examine the categories of ‘focus’ and ‘mention’ to determine
the varieties of foci and mentions out there. Moreover, we need to conduct this
examination in light of the contexts and disciplines of the various publications.
3. We need to more closely assess the disciplinary approaches to the study of public values.
Even though public administration and management are responsible for a large part of the
publications, we need to examine other disciplines so that we can see what their
approaches to the topic have to offer to our field.
4. We need to examine the definitions used and conduct citation analysis to identify
common references, ideas, and themes, and to examine which groups of scholars cite
each other and why. In doing so, we hope to see patterns emerge in the overall narrative
and overall evolution of public values research.
In conducting these and other analyses, we hope to go beyond simply identifying and
naming approaches and perspectives; rather, we seek to distinguish, cluster, and map various
‘schools of thought.’ Doing so will (hopefully) help us develop better mutual understanding and
integration among these schools. Finally, by doing this research, we hope to generate an overall
narrative of the PVs research that shows its evolution over time.
References
Alford, J. and O'Flynn, J. 2009. Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent
meanings. International Journal of Public Adminsitration, 32, 71-91.
Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Torben Beck Jørgensen, Anne Mette Kjeldsen, Lene Holm Pedersen and
Vrangbaek, K. (2012). Public Values and Public Service Motivation: Conceptual and
Empirical Relationships. The American Review of Public Administration published online 28
March 2012
Beck Jørgensen, T. 2006. Public values, their nature, stability and change: The case of Denmark.
Public Administration Quarterly, 30(3): 365-398.
Beck Jørgensen, T., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values. An Inventory. Administration &
Society, 39(3), 354-381.
Beck Jørgensen, T. & Rutgers, M.R. 2011. Value dynamics in the public sector: A historical
comparative analysis of changes in selection criteria for civil servants. Paper presented at the
2011 Public Management Research Association Annual Conference, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, NY.
Bennington, J. and Moore, M. (eds.) 2011. Public value: Theory and Practice. Basingstoke:
MacMillan.
Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational
theories: Jossey-Bass.
Bozeman, B. 2002. Public value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public
Administration Review 62(2): 145-161.
Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values and Public Interest. Washington: Georgetown University
Press.
Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test
of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal
of public administration research and theory, 4(2), 197.
Bruijn, H. d., & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for Safeguarding Public Values in Liberalized
Utility Sectors. Public Administration, 84(3), 717-735.
Buchanan, B. and Millstone, J. (1979). Public organizations: A value-conflict view. International
Journal of Public Administration, 1(3): 261-305.
Burright, Marian (2006) “Database Reviews and Reports Google Scholar -- Science &
Technology”, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (Accessed 1/5/12:
http://www.istl.org/06-winter/databases2.html)
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
De Bruijn, H. D., & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized
utility sectors. Public Administration, 84(3), 717-735.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is Philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press.
Drewry, G., Greve, C., & Tanquerel, T. (2005). The Implications of Public Service Reform for
Accountability and Audit—Recent Developments in the UK. Contracts, performance
measurement and accountability in the public sector, 59.
Frederickson, H. G. (2005). Public Ethics and the New Public Managerialism: An Axiomatic
Theory. In H. G. Frederickson & R. K. Ghere (Eds.), Ethics in Public Management (pp. 165183). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Gallie, W.B. (1955). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56:
167-198.
Gregory, R. J. (1999). Social Capital Theory and Administrative Reform: Maintaining Ethical
Probity in Public Service. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 63-76.
Jacobs, J. (1992). Systems of Survival: a Dialogue on the Moral Faundations of Comerce and
Politics: Random House.
Kernaghan, K. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as
centerpiece. Public Administration Review, 63(6): 711-719.
McConnell, G. 1969.The public values of the private association. In J.R. Pincock and J.W.
Chapman (eds.), Voluntary Associations, 147-160. New York: Atherton Press.
Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Nabatchi, T. 2010. Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: Exploring the Potential
of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration. American Review of Public
Administration, 40(4): 376-399.
Nabatchi, T. 2011. Exploring the Public Values Universe: Four Frames for Understanding
Values in Public Administration. Paper presented at the 2011 Public Management Research
Association (PRMA) Annual Conference, Syracuse, NY.
Nabatchi, T. forthcoming 2012. Putting the ‘Public’ Back in Public Values Research: Designing
Public Participation to Identify and Respond to Public Values. Public Administration
Review, _(_): __-__.
Nieuwenburg, P. (2004). The Agony of Choice: Isaiah Berlin and the Phenomenology of
Conflict. Administration & Society, 35(6), 683-700.
O’Flynn, J. (2009) The Public Value Debate: Emerging Ethical Issues. Public Leadership
Workshop, 26-27 November, The Australian National University, Canberra.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector; Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Reijniers, J. (1994). Organization of public-private partnership projects:: The timely prevention
of pitfalls. International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), 137-142.
Robinson & Reed (1998). The A-Z of Social Research Jargon. Ashgate Publishing.
Rosenau, P. V. (2000). The strengths and weaknesses of public-private policy partnerships.
Public-private policy partnerships, 217-242.
Rutgers, M. R. (2008). Sorting out public values? On the contingency of value classifications in
public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30(1): 92-113.
Schreurs, P. (2005). ‘The Value(s) of Public Administration.’ Administrative Theory & Praxis 27
(2): 301-310.
Shapiro, M. (1992). Reading the Postmodern Polity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Steenhuisen, B. (2009). Competing public values. Coping strategies in heavily regulated utility
industries, Next Generation Infrastructures dissertation, Delft.
Steenhuisen, B., W. Dicke, and H. de Bruijn (2009). “Soft” public values in jeopardy: Reflecting
on the institutionally fragmented situation in utility sectors. International Journal of Public
Administration, 32(6): 491-507.
Stoker, G. 2006. Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?
American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 41-57.
Tait, J. (1997). A Strong Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and
Ethics (A Summary). Canadian Public Administration, 40(1), 1-22.
Van der Wal, Z. (2011). The Content and Context of Organizational Ethics. Public
Administration 89 (2): 644-660.
Van der Wal, Z., L.W.J.C. Huberts, J.H.J. van den Heuvel & E.W. Kolthoff (2006). Central
Values of Government and Business: differences, similarities, and conflicts. Public
Administration Quarterly 30 (3): 314-364.
Van der Wal, Z. & L.W.J.C. Huberts (2008). Value Solidity in Government and Business.
Results of an Empirical Study on Public and Private Sector Organizational Values.
American Review of Public Administration 38 (3): 264-285.
Van der Wal, Z. (2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the
organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465482.
Van Wart, M. (1998). Changing public sector values. New York: Garland Publishing.
Walzer, M. (1973). Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs,
2(2), 160-180.
Weihe, G. (2008). Public-Private Partnerships and Public-Private Value Trade-Offs. Public
Money & Management, 28(3), 153-158.
Williams, I. and Shearer, H. 2011. Appraising public value: Past, present, and futures. Public
Administration, 89(4): 1367-1384.