Jos C. N.

Raadschelders
Ohio State University

And in The Future of the Study of Public Administration:

Conclusion . . .
Embedding Research Object and
Methodology in Epistemology and Ontology

Jos C. N. Raadschelders is a professor

in the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at
the Ohio State University and has served as
PAR’s managing editor since the summer
of 2005. His research interests include com-
parative government, civil service systems,
and the nature of the study. With regard to
the last, his book on public administration’s
epistemology was published this fall by
Oxford University Press.
E-mail: Raadschelders.1@osu.edu
What should be done to advance the study of public —John Dewey, Logic: The
administration? A strong argument is advanced by Theory of
outgoing PAR managing editor Jos C. N. Raadschelders Inquiry, 1938
that the field benefits significantly from greater
A disciplinary field can hardly attain the sophisticated
attention to ontology and epistemology. To be sure,
level of scholarship which is worthy of graduate
empirical, evidence-based research has its place, but its
education if it is not capable of critically developing from
basis and
within itself its epistemological foundations.
the meaning of findings seldom are questioned. Why?
Many public administration scholars seek “scientificness”
—Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, The New
through a disciplinary type of methodology. However,
Science of Organizations, 1981
working within an inherently interdisciplinary field,

public administration scholars cannot reduce the
complex, wicked problems of society and government
to mere empirical measurement. The author lays
out five critical challenges confronting today’s public
administration—both its study and research—
requiring the field’s urgent attention in order to meet
the comprehensive and rapidly expanding needs of
specialists and generalists, practitioners and
academicians, as well as the general public.
Education has two purposes: on the one hand to
form the mind, on the other to train the citizen. The
Athenians concentrated on the former, the Spartans
on the latter. The Spartans won, but the Athenians
were remembered.
—Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook,
1931
[The] materialistic basis [of science] has directed
attention to things as opposed to values.
A
s in many social sciences, scholars within
the interdisciplinary field of public
administration in the past, in the present, and
in the future
continue to ponder its academic nature. Partly, the
ever-changing role and purpose of government
makes “it” an elusive target. Concepts and theories
of and in public administration are the products of
the time and context in which they are developed
(Fry and Raad- schelders 2008). Pondering the
field’s nature, though,
also results from a nineteenth-century belief that
legitimate to suggest that
there is an urgent need
for
breaking down these
conceptual barriers so as to
promote cross-fertilization
of ideas.

—Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the

Modern World, 1925
One of the chief practical obstacles to the
development of social inquiry is the existing division
of social phenomena into a number of
compartmentalized and supposedly independent non-
interacting fields, as in the different provinces
assigned, for example to economics, politics,
jurisprudence, morals, anthropology, etc. . . . It is
916 Public Administration Review • November | December 2011
academic disciplines can and ought to be, as sciences, clearly demarcated from
nonscience (Popper 1963). The great example of successful demarcation is
phys- ics. Yet physicists, and natural scientists in general, have found in the
past 50 years or so that clear demar- cation no longer makes sense. Many key
questions in physics today are answerable only through interdis- ciplinary
research.1 Ironically, scholars in the social sciences have been moving in the
opposite direction, namely, toward disciplinarity. The desire to mimic the
scientific status enjoyed by natural scientists is evident in the increased use of
quantitative-statistical methods and mathematical modeling.

Twenty-first-century social sciences are largely univer- sity based and research
oriented and seek to establish
a science that is replicable, objective, and generaliz- able, on the assumption
that this is possible through “quants” and math. This “scientific” thrust within
the study of public administration is stymied by a lack of consensus about
what constitutes its science and what the nature of the study is. All disciplines
and studies
in the three branches of knowledge (natural science,

The Future of the Study of Public Administration 917

social science, humanities) have experienced periodic identity
crises since the 1950s as a function of mushrooming
specializations, theories, and concepts. Naturally, the identity
crisis also may have prompted new specializations in the effort
to bolster scientificness (think, for instance, of the emergence of
public choice theory and the use of game theory).
The identity crisis in public administration also reflects an expres-
sion of doubts about its nature and status in academe. Is it a
science, and/or craft, and/or profession, and/or art? Is
research findings need to be probed for their deeper meaning.
That, however, requires attention to epistemology and ontology,
which
is, as far as this author can discern, missing from the literature
and from the graduate training we provide students.
In the past century, scholars in the “hard” sciences not only
continued to advance their understanding and explanation of the
natural world through experimental research, but also they
increas- ingly used thought experiments to demonstrate potential
different
realities (Isaacson 2007, 122–26). This led to
the knowledge generated sufficiently rigor- The identity crisis in public surprising discoveries, and the implications
ous and cumulative? Can the study of public stemming from, say, quantum mechanics
administration be “disciplined” as an administration . . . reflects an required careful probing of their meaning
interdis- cipline? Or should it strive to be a expression of doubts about its for science and for society. Thus,
traditional discipline defined by clear nature and status in academe. philosophers
boundaries and methods of its own? Or can of science who started out as physicists
public administra- tion be disciplinary when Is it a science, and/or craft, (e.g., Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn,
studying relatively simple problems, and and/ Stephen Toulmin), mathematicians (e.g.,
interdisciplinary when addressing wicked or profession, and/or art? Is the Carl Hem- pel, Imre Lakatos, Bertrand
problems (such as respond- ing to such a knowledge generated Russell, Alfred North Whitehead), chemists
multifaceted event as Hurricane Katrina)? (e.g., Michael Polanyi), and psychologists
sufficiently rigorous and (e.g., Karl Popper) found it important to
An answer to these questions largely is cumulative? reflect on the nature
neglect- ed in the scholarly literature. Is the Can the study of public and meaning of their knowledge (see Lov-
focus on such questions missing because ing 1991). Especially mathematicians and
administration be physicists have turned to abstract quantifica-
scholars prefer to concentrate on empirical “disciplined” as an tion and symbolic language, as the age-old
and evidence- based research? For instance,
talking about
interdiscipline? Or should it language (literally, words) available to
strive to be a traditional describe the world of probabilistic quantum
the identity of public management mechanics proved to be insufficient. While
research, Hal Rainey admonished 18 years discipline defined by clear social science research may not shatter
ago, “One boundaries and methods of worldviews to the
its own?
wonders whether public administration scholars might do bet- same extent as the natural sciences, the deeper meaning of “soft”
ter in advancing both the identity of the field and its research scientific research findings needs to be questioned repeatedly. Few,
and
theory if fewer of us ruminated on these topics hitherto, have done so (for exceptions, see
Lee
and more of us simply identified important 2011; Raadschelders 2011; Riccucci
theoretical research questions and worked on When thinking about the future 2010; Rutgers 2004).
providing answers to them” (1993, 9). Sure, of public administration, . . .
this type of research is important to advance it is imperative, first, to reflect When thinking about the future of public
knowledge and its implementation, but there administration, therefore, it is imperative,
should also be attention to, as Chester New-
on the nature of the study and,
next, how attention to research first, to reflect on the nature of the study
land once called it, “belly-button pieces” that
and, next, how attention to research object
are thoughtful reflections grounded in object and methodology and methodology should be embedded in
experi- ence.2 Pondering the nature of public should be embedded in
adminis- tration as a study is such a epis- temology and ontology. In this article,
reflection. epistemology and ontology. two different definitions of “science” are
discussed in the first section because they
are vital to
Is it reasonable or realistic to assume that a study’s identity can be recognizing the study’s predicament. Next, a few paragraphs will
determined and/or found on the basis of empirical research only? be spent characterizing current trends in the study in terms of a
Can empirical, evidence-based, research help us outline the future desire for “scientificness” based on an inappropriate “physics
of the study? Should the direction of research be determined only envy.” In the third section, an argument is advanced as to why
by whatever is the topical fashion of the day, or should public public administra- tion cannot be anything but an interdiscipline.
admin- istration research also be directed by questions about the In the fourth sec- tion, a brief discussion is provided about the
meaning need to reconnect the study to considerations of epistemological
of findings? How can we begin to answer these questions? In this and ontological nature.
author’s view, the answer to these basic questions rests on the In the final section, suggestions are outlined about the future
state- ment that public administration scholars have been putting direc- tion of the study.
the cart (methodology and methods) before the horse
(epistemology and ontology). While the tendency to focus on Today’s Approach to “Science”
quantitative-statistical methods is not as strong as it is in, for “Science” is understood and defined in the Anglo-American
instance, political science, there is an unmistakable bias in world as a branch of study that observes and classifies facts that
American administrative sciences to idolize a specific, positivist, not only describe but also seek to explain and predict natural
type of knowledge (Raadschelders and Lee 2011). Again, there is and—so it is hoped—social phenomena by means of “laws.”
nothing inherently wrong with pursuing evidence-based This definition of science dates back to the eighteenth-century
knowledge, but the argument in this paper is that Enlightenment, and
it is especially indebted to David Hume’s distinction between
facts (the object of science) and values (the object of politics and
public opinion). This definition of science is narrower than the
pre- eighteenth-century notion of science as a body of general
knowledge (cf. Wissenschaft in German), which strives to enhance
understand- ing of natural and social phenomena.3 Dwight Waldo
was cognizant of this distinction when he observed that science
could be defined as “a body of organized knowledge” in general
(i.e., Wissenschaft), or
as “a certain type and quality of knowledge and
procedure” (i.e., science) (1984, 182 n. 50).
e.g., Voegelin [1952]
1974, 4–5). Especially after World War II, they strove to
become more scientific by means of developing advanced
quantitative- statistical methods and complex mathematical
modeling in pursuit of becoming more exact and objective, as,
for instance, the system management scholar John Van Gigch
observed (1997, 386–87; see

In science broadly defined, the emphasis is on ontology and epis-

temology: What is the nature of the reality that we study? How
are knowledge claims justified? How do we define knowledge?
What are the sources of knowledge? What is the relation between
the object
of knowledge and the researcher? Science narrowly defined is
much more focused on methodology and methods, simply as a
function of believing that a positivist epistemology is the only
basis for knowl- edge. What methods of analysis can be used to
support knowledge claims? How are data collected and analyzed
in the effort to answer
a specific question? While ontology philosophizes about the nature
of reality, epistemology is focused on the philosophy of what we
can know. Methodology concerns the practice of how we can
know and thus focuses on methods. Positivist epistemology holds
that what we can know are observable facts; interpretivist
methodologies, instead, accept that we can know much more
(feelings, intuitions, under- standings; cf. Max Weber’s
Einfühlung, i.e., the intuitive under- standing of inner feeling; see
Fry and Raadschelders 2008, 25).

In science narrowly defined, it is important to establish boundar-

ies. This “boundary work,” as Thomas Gieryn called it (1983), is
the instrument through which knowledge in a particular
discipline is maintained, enforced, expanded, and protected.
Boundary work is very much dependent on the notion that
reality “out there” can be studied from a particular angle.
Authors, however, do not often clarify how they perceive that
reality (on this, see Raadschelders
2010, 141). Whether people can fully access the “reality” out
there (what Kant called the material object) or can observe only
that part of reality that is perceived through the senses (sight,
smell, touch, hearing, taste) (Locke, Kant) and/or through
rationality (Descartes, Kant) is a question that we may never be
able to answer.4 However, is it not vital to at least think about this
issue, as positivist social sci- entists generally study that part of
reality that is accessible through the concepts and theories (what
Kant called the formal object) developed on the basis of a
combination of sensory perception and (a priori) rationality?

The Misapplication of the Natural Science Model

Impressed, possibly awed, by the revolutionary leaps made by
Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein in physics, by Joseph Priestly
and Antoine Lavoisier in chemistry, by Charles Darwin and
Gregor Mendel in biology, and so many others, public
administration scholars since Herbert Simon have tried hard to
emulate the natural sciences (with regard to political science see,
also Ramos 1981, 40). Going one step further, in his Nobel evaluated in terms of usable knowledge that involves career civil
lecture, the economist Freidrich von Hayek (1974) suggested servants, executive and legislative political office- holders,
that what is treated as important in the social sciences is that corporate executives, lobbyists, citizens, and representatives of
“which happens interest groups. Indeed, scholars of public administration do not
to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the “own” their object of research. They are no different in this
point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated respect from colleagues in, for instance, law, medicine,
in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.” engineering, and business administration. Furthermore, unlike the
Granted, splendid sophistication was achieved, but “quants” and natural sciences,
math are not the only means to advance the social sciences. For
instance, William Starbuck, former editor of the Administrative
Science Quarterly, recalled that, in a class on mathematical social
science taught by
Alan Newell, Herbert Simon advised doctoral students always to
use passive verbs in their essays because that indicated sufficient
distance between researcher and object (Starbuck 2006, 7, 40).

What prevents any social science from becoming more

scientific in the natural science sense is that its arsenal of
methods allows for studying material causes only, that is,
mainly focusing on the
here and now and answering questions about how it works
(Vanelli
2001, 53–55).5 This is mostly done from an ontology that assumes
reality to be static and immanent, and that translates into the idea
that the object of study can be measured, accessed, and assessed at
one moment in time. In other words, the majority of social scientists
focus on the particle rather than the wave (the former being the static
element, the latter more dynamic). One could argue that “why”
questions are raised in the social sciences, but the difference with
the natural sciences is that agreement about the “why” of social
phenomena very much depends on the interpretation of individual
researchers who lack the nomological framework (a system of
inter-
related generalizations about a particular set of objects; i.e.,
Kuhn’s
paradigm) that the various disciplines in the natural sciences have
(D’Andrade 1986, 28). So, positivist social scientists study that
which “is” and pay much less attention to that which is “becom-
ing.” The latter can and has been done, but it can be done only in
a qualitative or figurational (see note 5), descriptive way, as in the
work of Max Weber, Mary Parker Follett, and Norbert Elias, and
that of anyone who studies development over time (e.g., historical
institutionalism).

The Interdisciplinary Nature of the Study of Public

Administration
Public administration’s object of knowledge—government in its
multiple relationships with society—attracts interest from
scholars across the social sciences. The unprecedented rapid
growth of gov- ernment and its ever-increasing penetration of
society is the most pervasive and sustained social phenomenon of
the past century, and no social science can afford to overlook it.
Hence, what constitutes quality of knowledge (in terms of content
and method) about government is determined by a rather
dispersed group of scholars (public administrationists, political
scientists, economists, anthro- pologists, sociologists, etc.). Now,
academicians tend to assess qual- ity in terms of theoretical rigor,
methodological sophistication, and empirical evidence, but in the
study of public administration, qual- ity of research also is
there is no paradigm either at the level of the study as a whole or The first, public administration as subfield of political science,
in its various specializations. At the same time, it is important to he felt would not work because the study tackles so much
realize that boundaries that create a “discipline” do not in and of broader a
them- selves guarantee quality and utility of knowledge.

Two other aspects hinder a substantively acceptable identification

of boundaries for the study. First, while public administration is a
global phenomenon in terms of structure, the study remains very
much rooted in the local context of the national state (where the
administrative sciences originated), and government is thus a vari-
able phenomenon in terms of its functioning (i.e., culture).
Second, the boundaries of government, and thus of its study, vary
with the extent of government intervention in society. Thus, a
study of public administration in a night-watch state is distinctly
more limited in focus (e.g., maintenance of public order and
safety, provisions of basic services) than studies of government in
a welfare state. Also, governments deal with wicked and complex
rather than with simple problems (Rittel and Webber 1973, 160).
Natural scientists can reduce a natural phenomenon to a definable
and separable problem so that “it” can be analyzed. Social
scientists and policy makers do not have this luxury of reductive
simplification. There is no basis on which they can decide which
aspect of the problem they choose to analyze. Furthermore, no
model of social reality (whether in figu- rational,6 quantitative, or
mathematical expression) captures reality
as encompassing as quantum mechanics so far captures the
physical reality of the universe.

Auguste Comte pointed out in the nineteenth century that the

social sciences were far more complex than, for instance, pure
logi- cal disciplines (mathematics, theoretical physics) and
experimental studies (physics, chemistry, biology) (Levine 1995,
164; see also Meier 2005, 655). The “soft” sciences are more
challenging because they deal with phenomena that are
inherently unstable, variable, and irregular (Kaplan 1964, 348).
For that reason alone, several scholars have argued that the
standards of the so-called hard sci- ences cannot be, yet are
today inappropriately, applied to the social sciences (D’Andrade
1986, 39; Hall 1989, 33; Kaplan 1964, 398; Secord 1986, 199).

Generally, these natural science standards (replicability,

objectivity, generalizability) are implicitly invoked in the study of
public admin- istration. This misapplication is especially visible in
the debate about its identity crisis and in judgments about the
quality of its research. What, exactly, this identity crisis entails
remains unclear, but there are at least three different ways in
which scholars have proposed to resolve it.

First, the identity crisis has been defined in terms of lacking a

specific and unique theoretical and methodological core. In
this approach, administrative science generally is cast in a
narrow perspective of knowledge, as acquired through the
application of the scientific method. Herbert Simon is an
excellent example of a
scholar who embraced such a positivist or empiricist stance (he
used both concepts as synonyms; see 1997, 68).

Second, arguing that values could not be separated from facts,

Dwight Waldo considered three solutions to the identity crisis.
subject matter than political science, and because political decision making (cf. Simon 1997; Van Braam and Bemelmans-
science’s attitude toward public administration is “at best one of Videc 1986), associa- tion (cf. Ostrom 1974, 106), political
indifference and is often one of undisguised contempt or economy (cf. Wamsley and Zald 1973), the shaping of public
hostility” (1968a, 8).7 affairs (Ventriss 1987, 26), the state (cf. Debbasch 1989),
The second option, to regard the study as a discipline, he publicness (cf. Lan and Anders 2000),
believed was equally unsatisfying: “It is too ambitious in or the public realm (cf. Raadschelders 2003). The question “what
believing . . . that it is possible to identify and develop a is public administration?” may never be answered on the basis of a
coherent body of system- atic theory which will be
substantially independent of other social sciences and will
concern itself only with public administration” (9). The study is
not ambitious enough because “[i]t looks inward
toward neat conceptual boundaries and outward chiefly toward
neat departmental boundaries. . . . As we cannot crowd into
subdiscipline the necessary range and variety of present concerns,
neither can we crowd them into a discipline” (9). What was left in
his view was adopting a professional perspective “without the
hope or intention of becoming [a profession] in any strict sense” (9).
Like medicine, public administration is “science and art, theory
and practice, and study
and application” and works not with one theory but with
many types of theory (10–11).

Finally, the identity crisis has been described by Vincent Ostrom

as a consequence of reforms in government and subsequent
changes
in the study that “drove” the United States away from the
original intentions of its founders and more and more toward
centralized and scientific government. Ostrom advocated a
return to a “demo- cratic administration” based on (local) self-
government, character- ized by polycentricity, and, thus,
overlapping jurisdictions (1974,
81, 88–89, 109). A move toward democratic self-government also
was proposed by Curt Ventriss (1991, 7). At first glance,
Ostrom’s identity crisis may appear to be a different “animal”
than that identi- fied by Simon and Waldo. Consider, though, that
the shift toward a more centralized and scientific government
since the early twentieth century involved increased emphasis on
efficiency, standardization, and performance (hence the
technocratic image of the American study of public
administration) at the price of less attention to the challenges of
democracy. Thus, the study’s identity is heavily biased
in favor of measurable qualities, influencing the choice of
methods and approaches that are considered “scientific” in the
narrow mean- ing identified earlier.

The study of public administration is not alone in its lament about

an identity crisis. In fact, even a superficial scan of studies and
dis- ciplines in the three main branches of knowledge (natural
science, social science, humanities) clearly shows that all
disciplines and studies report periodic identity crises beginning in
the 1950s. Public administration is no different in this respect
than political science, history, archaeology, anthropology,
sociology, international relations, chemistry, physics, psychology,
medicine, the languages, and so on (Raadschelders 2011, 25–35).

Embedding Empirical Research in Ontological and

Epistemological Reflections
The question “what is public administration?” cannot be
answered by simply saying that its core object is the study of
 Ontology Ontology
“correct” object of study because we may never agree on what
that object of study actually is. Nor can greater rigor of methods ↑↓
and, even better, a study-specific methodology (Gill and Meier (Epistemology) Epistemology
2000) be a route for discovery. Methodology can never define ↑ ↓
the formal ob- ject of knowledge because, again, there is no Methodology Methodology
agreement about what the object of study exactly is, that is, it
cannot be determined with the level of exactness that natural
scientists enjoy. Instead, answers drawn from ontological and
epistemological reflections can help identify the nature of the
study: What can we know? How can we know it? What are the
sources of our knowledge?

Most thinking about the identity of public administration focuses

on the relation between methodology and epistemology, with the
emphasis on the former (hence epistemology is placed between
parentheses in the left column of figure 1); the relation between
on- tology and epistemology is not systematically explored, if at
all. Can we obtain knowledge by focusing on methodology only?
Well, yes, but only knowledge of a very particular kind, namely,
that which is presented as objective “fact” and can be measured.
Little attention is directed at exploring the assumptions about the
nature of existence (i.e., ontology) within which all research
cannot be but embedded.

This is important, though, because ontology generates

theories about what can be known (epistemology), how
knowledge can be produced (methodology), and what
research practices can be
employed (methods). By way of clarification, consider the
following four possibilities (Stout 2007, forthcoming). Believing
in an exis- tence that is static and immanent, I can “know”
something about
a moment in time using methods of measurement (data analysis
of surveys, of experiments, etc.). This is the preferred approach to
research in public administration. An existence that is regarded as
static but transcendent would lead to a belief in knowledge
through faith (consider prayer) and/or contemplation (cf. Aurelius
2008). Also, we may start from a notion that existence is dynamic
and im- manent, thus enabling the use of both rational and
nonrational (i.e., relational) experiences accessed by means of
Weber’s Verstehen (i.e., contextualized understanding; see, e.g.,
Flyvbjerg, Landman, and Schram 2011), historical approaches,
critical theory, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and so forth.
Finally, when existence is regarded as dynamic and transcendent,
the divine and the self are completely fused (Buddha’s
Enlightenment), but a methodology with which
to access this is impossible to conceive. How attention to
ontology and epistemology leads to a richer understanding of
social realities is nicely illustrated in a recent article on
restorative justice (Stout and Salm 2011).

The majority of public administration scholars focus on a

reality that is considered objective, static, and immanent. Is this
the only

Figure1 The Position of Epistemology and Ontology in the Study of Public

Administration
What We Do What We Should Do
way that government can and should be studied? If so, has that
type of public administration study been read and used by
practitioners? Has that type of public administration research
made a difference
in citizens’ lives? Such questions cannot be answered in the
space of this article, but the administrative sciences will
continue to face challenges of old while always having to
search for new answers given that time and context remain in
flux.
Finally, all of the above requires that scholars of public
administra- tion continue to balance research and education.
Ideally, research feeds into education, and vice versa. While,
understandably, public administration research is often as
specialized as in other studies, public administration scholars
should not shy away from think-
ing about how to study big questions that can be addressed
only by drawing on widely dispersed sources of knowledge,
as well as

Which are these old/new challenges? First, and considering hand-

books, the study can be presented as a string of specializations, as
is the case in the United States, or from a more holistic
perspective on the basis of a meta-framework (e.g.,
Raadschelders 2003), as is com- mon in Continental Europe. The
American study, by contrast, is much more focused on
developing practical skills and on becoming
a science based on facts. Across the Atlantic, much more
emphasis is placed on Wissenschaft, with a focus on developing
worldviews and macro-perspectives on government’s role and
position in society.
To be sure, understanding of government and training of
future civil servants and researchers requires attention to both
skills and worldviews.

Flowing from this is a second challenge, namely, connecting

micro- (individual, group), meso- (organization), and macro-
level (society) analyses (Luhmann 1985; Mouzelis 1991, 107;
Merton 1967; Simon 1997), as only that will help probe big
questions of modern society. We cannot assume that analyses of
data sets collected at the micro level provide adequate
understanding of trends at the macro level (cf. “fallacy of the
wrong level”; in economics, this is known as the “fallacy of
composition”).

Third, big questions cannot be answered by means of

measurement and quantification alone. After all, we can measure
and quantify
only that which allows measurement and quantification. The
whole- hearted embrace of “quants” and math severely limited
government’s as well as the study’s ability to address complex
policy problems (Nabatchi, Goerdel, and Peffer 2011, i34).

Fourth, big questions cannot be answered through the outlook

or worldview of the specialist. Most people complete a
college education and start their careers as a specialist. Many
rise to middle management levels, and some reach higher
managerial positions. Specialist expertise is required at entry
level in knowl- edge organizations (and government is
composed of numerous groups of knowledge organizations),
but what is expected at the middle and certainly at higher
levels are generalist perspectives about any organization with
its relevant environment. The study of public administration
trains and educates specialists in generalist perspectives. This
requires that we continue to find contempo- rary “solutions”
to this old problem of how to present generalist perspectives
while, in the process, bridging practitioners’ and
academicians’ needs.
by using multiple methods of inquiry. Scholarship in our field
must “grow out of actual social tensions, needs, ‘troubles’ . . .
Any problem of scientific inquiry that does not grow out of
actual (or
‘practical’) social conditions is fictitious” (Dewey 1938, 499).
Once they do so, administrative scientists will be the “go-to-
guys and
gals” whom civil servants turn to first to untangle wicked practi-
cal problems. This continuous engagement between practice and
research immediately feeds into education and rises to the
challenge that Merriam, Simon, and Waldo laid before those
training the next generation of generalists in government:
It is to be presumed and desired that students of
government will play a larger role in the future than in the
past in shaping of the types of civic education; but this will
not be possible unless a broader view is taken of the relation
of government to the other social sciences, and the function of the
political in the social setting. (Merriam 1934, 97)
[T]he proper training of “administrators” lies not in the
nar- row field of administrative theory, but in the broader
field of the social sciences generally. (Simon 1997, 247)
[A]dministrative thought must establish a working
relation- ship with every major province in the realm of
human learn- ing. (Waldo 1984, 203)
These three quotations characterize the study of public
administra- tion as one that serves both practitioners and
academicians; as one that is interdisciplinary, drawing from
various knowledge sources inside and outside academe in order
to advance the understanding of government in society; and one
in which pedagogy is targeted to
develop civil servants’ sensitivity to comprehending and coping
with trends in their social environment. This is nothing new, but
the cur- ricula have not yet caught up.
Concluding Remarks: The Way
U.S. public administration curricula generally are organized
around core courses in the specializations. Similarly, the
introductory hand- books or textbooks present the study as a
string of specializations. Both training and texts show little
difference today than in the time of William Siffin (1956).
Research often is focused on a specialized area, as an author is
expected to show intimate familiarity with the literature in her or
his field of interest. That level of specialization gets articles
published. Wide-ranging articles, drawing on literatures from
across the social sciences, have less chance of being published
because reviewers are, first, generally not familiar with litera-
tures outside their own expertise and, second, often question the
academic contribution of such pieces to their field of study
(Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 20). Third, junior faculty are
not en- couraged to write such pieces given the time limitations of
a tenure and promotion system that encourages quantity of
publications in first-tier journals over qualitative work that
addresses “big questions” (Nesbitt et al. 2011, i24; Poteete,
Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 19). Also, empirical, evidence-based
pieces using quantitative meth-
ods are perceived as being more scientific and thus enjoy greater
academic status and prestige. However, it is appropriate to
question problems with empirical research (Lehrer 2010) and to
keep in mind that epistemology guides methodology (Morgan
2007), and
not the other way around. Consequentially, any sequence of
courses at the master’s and doctoral level of introductory,
intermediary, and advanced “stats” and methods should be
embedded in a course on epistemology of public administration
and ontology of existence. Obviously, no consensus can be
reached among scholars about what the nature of the study
actually is, but such a course should address widely different,
even opposing perspectives. A course addressing public
administration’s epistemology in relation to an ontology of
existence ideally should start (introduction to . . .) and conclude a
degree-program (advanced philosophy of public administration).8
In between these bookends, the training and learning provided for
future public administrators, whether as scholars or as civil
servants, must encourage a generalist’s perspective on
government’s role and
its overall position in society.
Forward
To say that interdisciplinary education
and research are important is
commonplace today (O’Toole 1995, 296;
Schroeder et al.
2004, 94), but actually quite challenging
to turn into reality. The prime example is
the extensive work done on common
pool resource management by Elinor
Ostrom and her many associates all over
the world, using, for instance, both game
theory and
thick description to capture, understand,
and interpret the thousands of cases that
now are archived at the Workshop in
Political Theory and Policy Analysis at
Indiana University
(for an excellent overview, see Toonen
2010). Her work involves multiple methods
and
uses interdisciplinary sources. Its
theoretical orientation is highly relevant to
scholars of various backgrounds, but at
the same time, its implications are useful
to common-pool resource managers and
(local) government
officials all over the world (see Ostrom
1992;
Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010).
The future of public
administration as a
study rests with
providing an
understanding of the
wicked, complex, societal
problems confronting civil
servants and political
officeholders.
Skills in, for instance, public
budgeting and finance,
program evaluation, and
human
resource management ought to
be complemented with and
embedded in courses on, at
least, disciplinary perspectives
about modern civilization, the
development of government
over time, and political
theories about the relation
between government and
citizen.
The future of public administration as a
study rests with providing an
understanding of the wicked, complex,
societal problems confronting civil
servants and political of- ficeholders.
Skills in, for instance, public budgeting
and finance, program evaluation, and
human resource management ought
to be complemented with and embedded in
courses on, at least, disciplinary per-
spectives about modern civilization, the
development of government over time, and
political theories about the relation
between government and citizen. Such a
curriculum should not shy away from
being grounded in, as Alberto Guerreiro
Ramos called it, a substantive theory of
human associated life (1981, 24–43), a
notion articulated earlier by Vincent
Ostrom. Thus, to paraphrase the
epigraph by Bertrand Russell cited at the
be- ginning of this article, we should not
only be Spartans who focus on training in
methods and
skills, but also Athenians who form the mind.
The minds of modern professionals should not be trained to
con- form to methodology, as Alfred North Whitehead advised
([1925]
1953, 200), but to roam the world in its physical, spiritual (in
the widest possible sense), and aesthetic manifestations.
Looking back at our six-year tenure as editor in chief and
managing editor of Public Administration Review, Richard Stillman
and I real- ize how much we have learned about the study, simply
by reading thousands of submissions and reviews on diverse
topics that public administration scholars find relevant and
important to their work. Public administration is currently a
broad-ranging study with many specializations. Nonetheless, as
Newland remarked 17 years ago, the study lacks “connectedness”
(1994, 488). This observation may refer to the linkages between
the study’s specializations, to the “outreach” of its scholars to
other disciplines, and to the use of public adminis- tration
research by scholars in other disciplines. Whether the study lacks
“connectedness” and, if so, the extent to which this is the case,
has not been investigated. Are the various specializations within
the study disconnected and, if so, to what extent? Nowadays, the
study draws on many sources of knowledge and thus is
interdisciplinary
by nature. However, while its scholars increasingly are
connecting
to a wider range of knowledge, the study must do better at being
an
interdisciplinary, umbrella discipline. So, to what extent do
public
administration scholars reach out to, and use knowledge
generated
in, other studies and disciplines? There is some evidence that this
is more limited than it should be (Wright 2011). Finally, to what
extent is public administration research used by scholars in other
studies and disciplines? Indeed, these three questions about the
study’s “connectedness” require further research.
Expanding on the statement that public administration is an
“inter-
thankful for the time that Kim Milton, a high-energy physicist at
the University of Oklahoma, took to discuss with the author the
various remarks made in the article about the nature of the natural
sciences in general and of physics in particular. Finally, David
Bivin, an economist at Indiana University–Purdue University
Indianapolis, provided thoughtful comments about paradigms and
identity crises. Any deficiencies in the understanding and use of
the comments of these colleagues is a reflection of this author’s
limitations and not of the quality of the reviewers’ observations.
Notes
1. For instance, the search to understand dark energy, which appears to make up
70 percent of the energy of the universe, requires collaboration between
astrono- mers, astrophysicists, and particle physicists; the study of quantum
mechanic forces involves collaboration between high-energy physicists,
mathematicians, atomic experimentalists, numerical analysts, and engineers.
2. This author learned of Chet’s phrase “belly-button pieces” from David
Rosen- bloom (e-mail, April 5, 2011). In an e-mail of May 26, 2011, Chet
Newland explained its meaning.
3. Wissenschaft, best translated as “branch of knowledge,” is the term used in the
Germanic languages (e.g., wetenschap in Dutch, vetenskap in Swedish).
“Science” in its broader pre-eighteenth-century meaning as “organized body
of knowledge” still is used in the Romanic languages (e.g., science in French,
sciencia in Spanish, scienza in Italian) (Raadschelders 2011, chap. 2).
4. As far as I know, the first scholar to observe that people perceive things both
through the use of their senses and (“outside their essence”) through their
ability to think was Ibn Khaldûn ([1366] 2005, 333).
5. Aristotle distinguished constitutive or intrinsic causes from active or extrinsic
causes.
The former include formal cause (what kind of thing is it?) and material cause
(what is it made of?); the latter are concerned with efficient causes (how did
the thing
come into being?) and final or ultimate causes (why did the thing come into
being?)
disciplinary applied field” (Hou et al. 2011, 6. Usually the contrast is between quantitative and
i45), interdisciplinarity in solutions offered qualitative work, but, while the concept of
“quan-
to social problems may well improve the Given that public titative work” adequately captures its content and
ap- plied quality of the study. Given that administration is art, a craft/ method, the concept of “qualitative work” is very
public administration is an art, a profession, and a science, unsatisfying. Thus, I prefer the concept of “figura-
craft/profession, and a science, only tion” by Norbert Elias, which emphasizes that we
interdisciplinarity can serve both generalist only can understand the world only when we consider
and specialist interests, on the one hand, interdisciplinarity can that so- cial reality is the product of planned and
and academician and prac- titioner serve unplanned forces and processes that stem “from the
interests, on the other hand. Public ways in which people [are] bound together and by
administration should focus as much on
both generalist and pressures that they place . . . on one another” (Elias
“real people who do real work” (Box 1992, specialist 1987, 166; see also Linklater and Mennell 2010,
66) as the study does on analyzing data interests, on the one hand, and 388).
sets. While the basic assumption that academician and 7. Whether the “hostility” that Waldo mentions is
interdisciplin- endemic or related to the specific time and
ary research is better in some sense deserves practitioner context in which he wrote (i.e., political science
further investigation, there can be little interests, on the other hand. was in its behavioral revolution) can be debated.
doubt that Elinor Ostrom’s pioneering work Public administration should 8. One could argue that the needs of master’s and
is an excellent example of how such
research can be
focus as much on “real
people
who do real work” as the
study
does on analyzing data
sets.
accomplished. Interdisciplinary research is problem driven, doctoral students are different, and, indeed, that is how many programs are
requires serious investment of time, and cannot be reported in the struc- tured. However, would it not facilitate the exchange of experience and
space of a few articles or one book. The challenges of serving knowledge if those who are in a public service career had the same training as
various academic and practitioner interests are old, but they those who pursue an academic career? Furthermore, both master’s and
warrant new answers in every decade. doctoral students
need that generalist’s perspective: the former because they need the skill to
Acknowledgments look beyond the responsibilities that come with their own position, the latter
The author is grateful for the careful comments made by Richard because they need the skill to assess the consequences of their work for
society at large.
Box, Anand Desai, Kwang-Hoon Lee, Tina Nabatchi, Chester
Newland, Elinor Ostrom, David Rosenbloom, and Margaret
References
Stout on an earlier and much longer version of this article. He is
Aurelius, Marcus. 2008. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Trans. A. S. L.
also
Farquharson and R. B. Rutherford. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Box, Richard C. 1992. An Examination of the Debate over Research in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 52(1): 62–69.
D’Andrade, Roy. 1986. Three Scientific World Views and the Covering Law Model. In Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities, edited by Donald W.
Fiske and Richard A. Shweder, 19–41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Debbasch, Charles. 1989. Science Administrative; Administration Publique. Paris:
Dalloz. Dewey, John. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Elias, Norbert. 1987. Het Civilisatieproces: Sociogenetische en Psychogenetische Onderzoekingen [The process of civilization: Socio-genetic and psycho-genetic investigations].
Utrecht: Aula.
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Todd Landman, and Sanford F. Schram, eds. 2011. Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. Fry, Brian R., and Jos C. N. Raadschelders. 2008. Mastering Public Administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American
Sociologi- cal Review 48(6): 781–95.
Gill, Jeff, and Kenneth J. Meier. 2000. Public Administration Research and Practice: A Methodological Manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
10(1):
157–99.
Hall, Edward T. 1989. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor.
Hou, Yilin, Anna Ya Ni, Ora-orn Poocharoen, Kaifeng Yang, and Zhirong J. Zhao. 2011. The Case for Public Administration with a Global Perspective. Special issue,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21: i45–51.
Isaacson. Walter. 2007. Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, Abraham. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler.
Ibn Khaldûn. [1366] 2005. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Trans. Franz Rosenthal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lan, Zhiyong, and Kathleen K. Anders. 2000. A Paradigmatic View of Contemporary Public Administration Research: An Empirical Test. Administration & Society 32(2):
138–65.
Lee, Kwang-Hoon. 2011. The Knowledge Evolution of American Public Administration: A Concept, Content, and Historical Analysis of Introductory Textbooks. PhD
diss., University of Oklahoma.
Lehrer, Jonah. 2010. The Truth Wears Off: Is There Something Wrong with the Scientific Method? The New Yorker, December 13.
Levine, Donald N. 1995. Visions of the Sociological Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Linklater, Andrew, and Stephen Menell. 2010. Retrospective: Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations—An Overview and
Assessment.
History and Theory 49(4): 384–411. (Originally published in 1987 in Theory, Culture and Society 4[2–3]: 223–47.)
Loving, Cathleen C. 1991. The Scientific Theory Profile: A Philosophy of Science Model for Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28(9): 823–
38. Luhmann, Niklas. 1985. The Theory of Social Systems and its Epistemology: Reply to Danilo Zolo’s Critical Comments. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 16(1):
129–34. Meier, Kenneth J. 2005. Public Administration and the Myth of Positivism: The AntiChrist’s View. Administrative Theory & Praxis 27(4): 650–68.
Merriam, Charles E. 1934. Civic Education in the United States. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons. Merton, Robert K. 1967. On Theoretical Sociology; Five Essays, Old and New. New York:
Free Press.
Morgan, David L. 2007. Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research 1(1): 48–76.
Mouzelis, Nicos P. 1991. Back to Sociological Theory. The Construction of Social Orders. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Nabatchi, Tina, Holly T. Goerdel, and Shelly Peffer. 2011. Public Administration in Dark Times: Some Questions for the Future of the Field. Special issue, Journal of
Public
Administration Research and Theory 21: i29–43.
Nesbitt, Rebecca, Stephanie Moulton, Scott Robinson, Craig Smith, Leisha DeHart-Davis, Mary K. Feeney, Beth Gazley, and Yilin Hou. 2011. Wrestling with
Intellectual Diversity in Public Administration: Avoiding Disconnectedness and Fragmentation While Seeking Rigor, Depth, and Relevance. Special issue, Journal
of Public Adminis- tration Research and Theory 21: i13–28.
Newland, Chester A. 1994. A Field of Strangers in Search of a Discipline: Separatism of Public Management Research from Public Administration. Public
Administration
Review 54(5): 486–88.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1992. Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. San Francisco: ICS Press.
Ostrom, Vincent. 1974. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. University: University of Alabama Press.
O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr. 1995. Diversity or Cacophony? The Research Enterprise in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 55(3):
293–97. Popper, Karl R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Poteete, Amy R., Marco A. Janssen, and Elinor Ostrom. 2010. Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Raadschelders, Jos C. N. 2003. Government. A Public Administration Perspective. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
———. 2010. Identity without Boundaries: Public Administration’s Canon(s) of Integration. Administration & Society 42(2): 131–59.
———. 2011. Public Administration: The Interdisciplinary Study of Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Raadschelders, Jos C. N., and Kwang-hoon Lee. 2011. Trends in the Study of Public Administration: Empirical Observations and Qualitative Observations from
Public Ad- ministration Review, 2000–2009. Public Administration Review 71(1): 19–33.
Rainey, Hal G. 1993. Important Research Questions. In Public Management: State of the Art, edited by Barry Bozeman, 9–12. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass. Ramos, Alberto Guerreiro. 1981. The New Science of Organizations: A Reconceptualization of the Wealth of Nations. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press. Riccucci, Norma M. 2010. Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press. Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4(1): 155–69.
Russell, Bertrand. [1931] 1962. The Scientific Outlook. New York: W. W. Norton.
Rutgers, Mark R. 2004. Grondslagen van de Bestuurskunde: Historie, Begripsvorming en Kennisintegratie. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Schroeder, Larry, Rosemary O’Leary, Dale Jones, and Ora-orn Poocharoen. 2004. Routes to Scholarly Success in Public Administration: Is There a Right Path? Public
Adminis- tration Review 64(1): 92–105.
Secord, Paul F. 1986. Explanation in the Social Sciences and in Life Situations. In Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralism and Subjectivities, edited by Donald W. Fiske
and
Richard A. Shweder, 197–222. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Siffin, William J. 1956. The New Public Administration: Its Study in the United States. Public Administration 34(4): 365–76.
Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. 4th ed. New York: Free
Press. Starbuck, William H. 2006. The Production of Knowledge: The Challenge of Social Science Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stout, Margaret. 2007. Bureaucrats, Entrepreneurs, and Stewards: Seeking Legitimacy in Contemporary Governance. PhD diss., Arizona State University.
———. Forthcoming. Competing Ontologies: A Primer for Public Administration. Public Administration Review.
Stout, Margaret, and Joao Salm. 2011. What Restorative Justice Might Learn from Administrative Theory. Contemporary Justice Review 14(2): 203–25.
Toonen, Theo A. J. 2010. Resilience in Public Administration: The Work of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom from a Public Administration Perspective. Public Administration
Review 70(2): 193–202.
Van Braam, A., with M. L. Bemelmans-Videc. 1986. Leerboek Bestuurskunde. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
Van Gigch, John P. 1997. The Design of an Epistemology for the Management Discipline Which Resolves Dilemmas among Ethical and Other Imperatives. Systems
Practice
10(4): 381–94.
Vanelli, Ron. 2001. Evolutionary Theory and Human Nature. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Ventriss, Curtis. 1987. Two Critical Issues of American Public Administration: Reflections of a Sympathetic Participant. Administration & Society 19(1): 25–47.
———. 1991. Contemporary Issues in American Public Administration Education: The Search for an Educational Focus. Public Administration Review 51(1):
4–14. Voegelin, Eric. [1952] 1974. The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Von Hayek, Friedrich A. 1974. The Pretence of Knowledge. Nobel Memorial Prize Lecture, December 11, Stockholm. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/
laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html [accessed July 25, 2011].
Waldo, Dwight. 1968a. Scope and Theory of Public Administration. In Theory and Practice of Public Administration: Scope, Objectives, and Methods, edited by James C.
Charlesworth, 1–26. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science.
———. 1968b. Comment, Conference Discussion on Methodology in the Theory of Public Administration. In Theory and Practice of Public Administration: Scope,
Objectives, and Methods, edited by James C. Charlesworth, 236–53. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science.
———. 1984. The Administrative State. A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. 2nd ed. New York: Holmes & Meier.
Wamsley, Gary L., and Mayer N. Zald. 1973. The Political Economy of Public Organizations: A Critique and Approach to the Study of Public Administration. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Whitehead, Alfred North. [1925] 1953. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press.
Wright, Bradley E. 2011. Public Administration as an Interdisciplinary Field: Assessing Its Relationship with the Fields of Law, Management, and Political Science.
Public
Administration Review 71(1): 96–101.