Conference Agenda

In response to the call for papers of the EGPA Study Group XI, our proposal addresses a relevant methodological challenge in public management research. While recent analytical technologies offer new possibilities (Franken, 2022; Gehman et al., 2018) their application can sometimes come at the expense of interpretive depth, especially via standardised protocols (Chaney & Séraphin, 2023; Thomann & Maggetti, 2020). We propose an "augmented thematic analysis", a methodological innovation that reconfigures the relationship between computational analysis and interpretive practice. Developed within the strategy-as-practice paradigm (Jarzabkowski, 2004; Kohtamäki et al., 2022), this approach represents more than an incremental improvement; it offers a paradigmatic shift in how researchers can conceptualise the interplay between qualitative and quantitative dimensions of textual analysis.

Extended thematic analysis advances methodological practice through three distinct, sequentially integrated processes. We begin with thematic analysis: a hybrid coding approach (combining data-driven and theory-driven methods) applied to a limited subset of data, following the methodological framework proposed by DeCuir-Gunby et al. (2011). This first step helps to structure our codebook. Secondly, we systematise this codebook in order to analyse our entire dataset. Finally, we use lexicometric analysis as an analytical extension to improve the analysis of previously coded data. This approach differs from conventional applications (Chaney & Séraphin, 2023), which position lexicometric analysis as a preliminary exploration.

We have rigorously validated this innovative methodology by applying it to an extensive corpus of data on rural area governance, a complex domain characterised by multiple stakeholder perspectives, institutional complexity, and evolving governance structures. We integrated multiple data sources: stakeholder interviews, observation notes, researcher journal entries, and institutional documentation related to the evolution of territorial health governance.

The results demonstrate three distinctive analytical capabilities that emerge from our methodological innovation. First, we transcend the artificial opposition between thematic and lexicometric approaches (Bernard et al., 2025) by demonstrating their profound complementarity when appropriately sequenced. Second, our contribution advances contemporary qualitative methods enhanced by analytical technologies without sacrificing the interpretive sensitivity essential for understanding public strategic dynamics. Third, our transparent analytical protocol contributes to what Turner et al. (2017) identify as a critical need for methodological transparency and procedural clarity in management research.

This methodological innovation provides a pragmatic response to the ongoing debate between computational efficiency and hermeneutic sensitivity in qualitative research (Bernard et al., 2025). We provide valuable guidance for researchers seeking to harness technological advances while maintaining interpretive depth, a balance that is increasingly important in complex public management contexts.

Open Government (OG) has gained international visibility in recent years, promoted by organizations such as the OECD as both a normative ideal and a practical tool for improving institutional effectiveness and democratic legitimacy (OECD, 2022). Often described as an umbrella concept encompassing a diverse set of values, reforms, and instruments, OG has inspired initiatives focused on transparency, participation, integrity and accountability (Wirtz & Birkmeyer, 2015). Yet, despite this diffusion, such efforts often remain fragmented, sector-specific and weakly connected to long-term governance strategies (OECD, 2016).

This disconnection reveals a persistent and multidimensional gap—both practical and theoretical—between OG initiatives and their incorporation into broad national public OG strategies. Indeed, existing research highlights a recurring perception of openness as “mission-extrinsic”, a desirable yet peripheral value with limited integration into strategic and managerial processes (Piotrowski & Rosenbloom, 2002; Baehler et al., 2014).

This lack of convergence also reflects a deeper disconnection between the symbolic and operational dimensions of openness. While openness is frequently invoked in political and administrative discourse, its practical activation within strategic priorities, organizational mandates and managerial tools remains partial and uneven (Meijer et al., 2012). This gap can be addressed by not only integrating one or more OG principles within existing policies or initiatives, but also by defining broad and long-term OG strategies crosscutting all the main public policies and functions.

This paper aims to address the intersection between OG and strategic management in the public sector through a systematic literature review (SLR) (George et al., 2023). The study combines bibliometric mapping with qualitative content analysis (Bryson & George, 2024) to explore how OG principles have been conceptualized and operationalized within public strategic management frameworks and examines the extent to which they have been embedded in institutional design, planning processes and managerial practices.

By bringing these two streams of research into conversation, the SLR proposes a conceptual foundation for rethinking OG as a systemic and strategically embedded governance model (Joyce and Drumaux, 2014). Advancing from symbolic initiatives to transformative governance entails reframing OG not as a normative ideal but as a principle embedded in the strategic core of public administration. This contribution lays the foundation for a renewed research agenda that positions OG as a strategic and systemic governance approach to address current wicked problems—moving beyond a patchwork of participatory intentions toward a coherent and purpose-driven model of public administration (Johnsen, 2023).

Reconnecting these domains is not merely desirable but necessary. They often refer to similar concepts with different terms and share several theoretical antecedents, such as stakeholder management and their participation in the decision-making process. Indeed, openness cannot be effective and institutionally meaningful unless it is treated as an integral part of strategic governance—embedded in long-term planning and organizational priorities. The alignment between high-level principles of transparency and participation and their operational translation into policy, planning and performance remains a critical frontier for both research and practice. This also calls for a multidimensional understanding of how openness functions within and across institutions (Heald, 2006).