Grounded theory of knowledge process on public ecosystem managers in Seoul

• Pages: 175-190
• Date: 04 March 2019
• Published date: 04 March 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2018-0036
• Author: Jeongseok Lee
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

Grounded theory of knowledge

process on public ecosystem

managers in Seoul

Jeongseok Lee

Department of Environmental Policy Research, Korea Environment Institute,

Sejong, Korea

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore the utility of employing knowledge management (KM) as a

framework for understanding how public managers perform ecosystem management. The question of how

public managers in Seoul acquire, utilize and share knowledge in managing their ecosystems has been

responded to by offering a particular conceptual model.

Design/methodology/approach –This study applies the grounded theory method to build a conceptual

model. The model is generated by applying the concept of knowledge process to an investigation of how the

urban ecosystem is publicly managed by civil servants in various offices within the municipality of Seoul,

Korea. The case study encompasses the management of the 12 regions of Seoul designated as Eco-scenery

Preservation Regions (ESPRs) by the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Findings –The knowledge process of public managers in managing the ESPRs can be explained by

understanding the conceptual model of “learning-by-doing,”which means public managers cannot count

much on their knowledge gained previously through their past experience or education and training. Instead,

they learn individually in the process of discharging their duties on a daily basis.

Research limitations/implications –Although the focus is on the knowledge process of public managers,

there is no escaping the fact that managerial activities are not performed in a vacuum. Rather, they take place

in a complex policy and government context that is not easily captured as the important variables that

influence the knowledge process. Thus, it would be worthwhile to extend this study with group, intra-, and

extra-organizational-level analyses.

Practical implications –Usually different contexts lead to different interpretations on the concept of

learning-by-doing. This study supplies such an interpretation that diverse ecosystems in Seoul have been

managed by the learning-by-doing of public managers, which is characterized specifically as their reactive

response, tinkering and limited personal network.

Social implications –There has not been a definite consensus on the question of what ecosystem

managementis. Scientists,policymakersand citizens all havedifferent viewpointson that question.Nonetheless,

this study provides a useful perspective on the issue of how various ecosystems have been managed by public

managers,who must be acentral entity of ecosystem managementparticularlyunder the contextof municipality.

Originality/value –Even though KM has been a popular subject of study in business management rather

than public management, KM as a framework of study is promising as a means of understanding and

potentially supporting the further development of effective ecosystem management by public managers.

Keywords Grounded theory,Public management, Knowledge management, Seoul, Ecosystemmanagement,

Public manager

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

To date, four theoretical perspectives have dominated in the scholarly discussion of

ecosystem management. First, the legal perspective that accentuates the viewpoint that a

variety of laws involved with managing ecosystems should be orchestrated to make

effective ecosystem management possible (Keiter, 1998; Wonkka et al., 2015). Accordingly,

an important question of the legal perspective is how ecosystem managers can effectively

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 32 No. 2, 2018

pp. 175-190

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-02-2018-0036

Received 23 February 2018

Revised 19 May 2018

Accepted 3 July 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

The author is always grateful to his academic advisor, Professor Robert Agranoff. The author

appreciates the helpful advices from two anonymous reviewers and thanks for the valuable assistances

from the Korea Environment Institute (KEI) and the Center for Korean Studies (CKS) in the University

of Hawai’i at Manoa.

175

Grounded

theory of

knowledge

process

apply diverse laws, which are sometimes conflicting with one another, to their managerial

activities. Second, the science-based perspective that focuses on the importance of using

scientific evidences in managing ecosystems (Holling and Meffe, 1996; Kessler et al., 1992).

In this perspective, an essential question is how conflicting scientific advices, based on

diverse scientific evidences generated by various fields of natural sciences, are interpreted

or synthesized as a practical viewpoint that provides consistent action guidelines to public

managers. Third, the intergovernmental relations perspective that concentrates on the

importance of cooperation among various governmental units in managing ecosystems

(May et al., 1996; Wise and O’Leary, 1997). In general, the administrative jurisdiction of

government does not correspond with the boundaries of ecosystems. Thus, a key question

of the intergovernmental relations perspective is how functional integration, which can

ensure consistent action among numerous public managers in managing ecosystems, can be

secured in complex vertical or horizontal intergovernmental relations (Agranoff and

McGuire, 2003). Fourth, the local governance perspective that focuses on the importance of

collaboration between local governments and local communities in managing ecosystems

(Koontz et al., 2004; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000). A notable characteristic of the

twenty-first century is that local governments are increasingly pressured to reflect the

diverse needs of local communities in their decision making. Thus, ecosystem management

by public managers cannot be successful unless public managers consider or facilitate the

participation of local partners (those who have stakes in managing ecosystems).

Drawing on all those four perspectives, it can be said that to manage ecosystems

effectively, it is essential for public managers to have the knowledge of laws, of sciences, of

intergovernmental relations and of local governance. To understand the ecosystem

management by public managers, this study postulates that the four perspectives can be

integrated into a more useful explanatory framework, which is a knowledge management

(KM) framework. Although KM has been a popular subject of study in business

management rather than public management (Agranoff, 2007; Wiig, 1997), KM as a

framework of study is promising as a means of understanding and potentially supporting

the further development of effective ecosystem management by public managers because

whatever the components of knowledge it considers, KM deals with knowledge itself as its

key subject of study. Reviewing relevant literature about KM has led to the establishment of

an appropriate research question, which may contribute to the knowledge base of ecosystem

management. The question is how do public managers acquire, utilize and share their

knowledge in managing ecosystems –so called the knowledge process of public ecosystem

managers? Finding a plausible answer to that question is the goal of this study.

Section 2 reviews the definitions, processes and strategies of KM as it has been

considered particularly by the scholars of public management. Section 3 focuses on

methodology. The research procedure of grounded theory is introduced. Its application to

the investigation of ecosystem management by the public managers of the 12 Eco-scenery

Preservation Regions (ESPRs) of Seoul is explained. Section 4 proposes and elucidates a

generated model for understanding knowledge process by and among public ecosystem

managers. The concluding Section 5 identifies the directions of further research and

discusses KM as a framework of study.

2. KM reviewed

Why should KM be highlighted especially in the twenty-first century? A proper answer to

this question is that the twenty-first century can be characterized as knowledge-oriented

societies. This means that knowledge is needed in all kinds of organizations as a key

resource (Moustaghfir and Schiuma, 2013) and every organization needs “knowledge

workers”who have the capability to contribute to promoting organizational learning and

innovation by converting their individual knowledge into organizational knowledge

176

IJPSM

32,2