virtue ethics (discussed in Bowman et al., 2004). Although each point of the triangle provides a lens to clarify and reframe different aspects of an issue, a narrow, overreaching application of a single approach at the expense of the other philosophies produces an insufficient evaluation. Although a synthesis developed from triangulation analysis may not supply a definitive judgment, it does tease out the underlying logic by which decisions are justified and provides the satisfaction that the problem has been fully examined. The employment-at-will doctrine was scrutinized, accordingly, using the three perspectives (Bowman and West, 2007b).
7.3.8 CAPSTONE: JOURNAL ANDBOOKCOLLECTIONS
In the midst of the research program discussed here, Bowman and West sought to encourage work in civil service reform in other state governments by developing a journal symposium and a subsequent anthology. The guiding question was,‘‘What is happening in other jurisdictions?’’To address this concern, an agreement was made with a periodical, and national call for papers, inviting the use of any methodology, was issued in 2004. Approximately two dozen proposals were received and 12 authors commissioned by the guest editors; 11 papers were submitted and refereed. In the interim, the journal changed editors and the new individual refused to accept the terms of the agreement. Through the course of telephone calls and correspondence, it became evident that the obligation made in the name of the publication would not be fulfilled.
Discussing the problem with the person’s immediate superior, the journal’s sponsors and relevant professional associations were contemplated, but not pursued. Despite obvious professional misconduct, success was not guaranteed as appeals likely would have been time consuming and delay publication in the journal (or some other outlet if the appeals failed). Forgiveness was granted believing that the editor’s behavior would nonetheless have consequences: a group of well-known scholars, and perhaps their colleagues, would not submit work to the journal in the future, thereby possibly hastening a change in editorship.
With the articles in hand, the pressing issue was how to make the best of an untoward situation—viz., the challenge was to find ways to fulfill the guest editors’promises to the contri- butors. One of the editors discussed this turn of events with an editor of another journal. Not only was useful advice received, but also, after review of the materials, a commitment was made to publish one-half of the manuscripts as a special symposium (Bowman and West, 2006a). Because an obligation remained with the authors of the remaining papers, a different outlet was contacted and it also agreed to use them in a second symposium (Bowman and West, in press).
During this process, the editors continued to seek commercial publishers who might be interested in the symposia papers. Proposals were sent to five companies, serious consideration was received from several, and a contract would be signed with one firm (Bowman and West, 2006b). In short, although the initial plans for the work were thwarted in an ethically dubious manner, the guest editors were able to find periodical and book outlets for the contributors.
Serendipity, present at various times during this research, seemed to be notably present in producing the edited collections.
1. Have a compelling research topic. There are many questions to study, but only those that are desirable (carrying social weight), feasible (doable within given constraints), and scientific (grounded in the literature) are worthy of attention. In the present case, only the most naive, uncaring, or foolish think that people, and how they are treated at work, are unimportant. This is especially true for government, given the critical role the public service performs in American governance. Indeed, having a fascinating subject matter will attract attention from conference organizers, the press, journals, and book publishers.
2. Divine different ways to think about the topic and the most productive research strategies to explore it. To do this effectively, as discussed in this chapter, it is evident that one must be well- versed in the subject, and be pragmatic about it. Every issue has methodological as well as substantive components, but one should resist getting locked into a fixed position. What is important for improving understanding of a problem is not the result of any particular investi- gation, but the accumulation of evidence from different studies. A key part of inquiry is to consult others, as intellectually exciting ideas are the lifeblood of a scholar. The result will not only be sage advice but could also produce a fruitful coauthor relationship.
3. Make your own luck in working with colleagues engaged in research. That is, the present writer was asked to coauthor as much as he asked others to work with him. Whether through graceful providence or good fortune, opportunities will arise for an active, visible investigator.
If multiauthorship results, then clear understandings about who will do what and when should reduce any misconceptions that might otherwise develop.
In the research enterprise described here, lead authorship was generally assumed by the individual who originated the idea for the paper, had ready access to local source material, or took responsibility for preparing the first complete draft manuscript. More importantly, all contributors seemed to operate under the assumption that more would be accomplished if no one worried about getting credit (or blame). Indeed, ordering of authors’names for the articles, chapters, and books was seldom discussed.
4. Do not be surprised if the subject matter continues to generate new research ideas. A truly enticing issue will spawn additional work, as answers to research questions are never complete or certain; knowledge is provisional, in principle problematic, and therefore subject to further investigation. The topic at hand, for instance, may be of particular interest in the wake of the next gubernatorial election. A 10th anniversary study of Service First in 2011 might be attractive for the authors, to say nothing (assuming dramatic advances in medicine) of the 100th anniversary of the program in 2101.
5. Seek diverse journal outlets. Other things being equal and for a number of reasons, it is better to publish, say, three articles in three periodicals than three articles in one. Although ultimately deciding where to submit work may be an educated guess, it should be informed by such oft- used factors as the periodical’s mission statement, audience, rigor, the contents of past issues, and advice from peers. Sending manuscripts out with only a causal consideration of such concerns, or mailing them to the‘‘best’’outlet no matter what, is dubious strategy and a potential waste of the profession’s resources. The choice of journals for the research discussed here was guided by the need to seek those with a demonstrated interest in human resource management or state government. Much of this work was not seen as apropos for highly theoretical or general public administration periodicals.
6. Do not assume that book publishers are interested in edited collections. Many are simply not attracted unless substantial sales are expected from very large classes. This is even more so when the material is previously published journal articles. If a publisher is found who can reach a relatively small, and still profitable, audience, thefinished book manuscript may not necessarily be handled in a timely manner, competitively priced, or well marketed. Experiences by the author and others suggest that some presses are extraordinarily slow in production, set high prices on books, or engage in only minimal advertising.
7. Stay humble and beflexible. Whatever successes were recorded during this research project, the unexpected can and does occur. Journals that arguably should be interested in a subject may not be, editors can be capricious, referees can be demanding, and book publishers may have different concerns than authors. In such circumstances, rejections are inevitable, even desirable. Exert control over the things that are within one’s control, and the odds on the uncontrollable factors will be improved.
In sum, an engrossing topic, one that lends itself to multiple research strategies, likely will attract others, yield additional research, and be suitable for diverse publication outlets. An old proverb says,‘‘Man plans, God laughs.’’It follows that it is useful to retain perspective on these
‘‘lessons,’’as little is guaranteed in academic research.
To conclude the chapter, several problems in the conduct of inquiry are offered (Exhibit 2) as well as an instructor’s class discussion guide (Exhibit 3). The problems are provided to apply the material from the case study narrative above and to build upon its lessons; ways to address the issues involved
Exhibit 2
Problems in the Conduct of Inquiry
To apply the chapter material, two research problems are shown below (see endnotes 5 and 6 for possible solutions). Thefirst is a difficulty in gaining entree to sources, a concern of all students, but initially encountered in professional degree programs, if not before. The second illustrates the linkage between the research question, study design, and investigatory method, a concern of particular importance for doctoral students.
Problem One: Information Access
In qualitative research, rich data sources frequently prove to be interview sources. A problem arose in the course of the work on Service First wherein sources either refused to consent to an interview or agreed to participate but were reluctant to be forthcoming in their responses.
In the 2003, empirical study discussed in the text of chapter, an architect of Service First in the governor’s office informed one of the authors that he was not available‘‘before, during, or after’’ the legislature session for an interview. There seemed to be a view among some Administration officials that information was a proprietary asset, and that secrecy was prized and transparency frowned upon.
The followup 2006 case study experienced difficulties with rank-and-file employees and one department executive. Specifically, selected staffs were concerned about the purpose of the study, whether the agency and their universities authorized it, and if the interview was confidential (and whether they would be quoted). Many stated that they had to close their door before continuing. Several others said that the investigators had to obtain permission from their superior for a confidential interview. One person agreed to participate only after reviewing one of the author’s published articles on a related subject. Although a number of interviewees were relatively at ease, cautious answers to some queries, such as‘‘I’d rather not say’’or‘‘No comment,’’were common. In addition, a key executive, who had promised to participate, later declined because of an agency leadership change.
Question: What should be done to cope with such problems?
Problem Two: Research Question=Design=Method Nexus
Certainly the most difficult part of any project is defining the problem to be examined. Once that is accomplished, then research design can be developed, and an appropriate methodo- logical tool utilized to implement the design. Perhaps the single most useful lesson from the chapter is the need to consult with others. The student then can test her ideas against their views on the issue and then accept or reject them as warranted. The point is that much of the work
(continued)
are found in thefinal endnotes.5,6Thefirst exercise identifies a practical issue in gaining access to sources, and is perhaps most useful for professional degree students. The second conundrum illustrates the nexus between the research question, design, and method, a concern of particular importance for doctoral students. In dealing with these two cases, be encouraged by Einstein’s quip:
‘‘The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.’’A problem, whether described in the text would not have been undertaken without the assistance of colleagues in generating possible research strategies. The same likely will prove true as students discuss issues with his or her Ph.D. committee and fellow students. It is understood that a solo researcher can create valuable work, but eventually it will be reviewed by someone, a faculty committee or journal referees. It seems prudent to get feedback on one’s efforts sooner rather than later.
In any case, it will be assumed here that the challenging task of problem definition has been accomplished (considerations in developing a manageable research topic can be found in any
‘‘how to write a dissertation’’guidebook). Formulating the proposed work involves a variety of crucial design issues (e.g., research site, time frame, the nature of source material, and so forth).
A critical question as part of research design is the selection of the most appropriate technique to explore the topic (this may not be immediately apparent, especially if other parts of the proposal do not address design issues in some depth).
Consistent with the thrust of this book, a key concern is theuseof an appropriate method.
That is, it will be assumed that the student and his or her confidants have indeed selected a specific tool which will be the most efficacious in conducting the research. The next, critical step is to ensure that its utilization is fully realized.
Question: Using survey research as an example of an appropriate methodology for the subject of the dissertation, how can one ensure that it is employed in the most effective manner?
Exhibit 2 (Continued)
Problems in the Conduct of Inquiry
Exhibit 3
Instructor’s Guide
For those desiring to use this chapter in classroom discussion, a number of concerns can be highlighted. Einstein was once quoted saying,‘‘The perfection of means and the confusion of ends characterize our age.’’ Technologically savvy students may find methods at least as interesting as the substance of research. The chapter is a reminder that such a focus is a mistake, as methods, no matter how seductive, are merely tools to understand a subject.
With that in mind, students should be encouraged to tackle any topic of professional relevance that will sustain their interest. Indeed, lacking a well-grounded understanding of the problem inhibits the choice of a method to investigate it. The issue explored in this chapter was an on-going one, a selection not without risk as the researcher is at the mercy of events.
Still, such a topic likely will be attractive to journals and their audiences.
A second matter to note is that students should join the community of scholars. At a minimum, this means sharing ideas and draft papers, but whenever coauthorship is feasible it should be pursued. Not only will this likely result in work superior to solo-authored pieces, but also it may produce opportunities for future collaboration. Coauthorship (like studying con- temporary issues) is not without risk, but when skillfully handled the benefits exceed the drawbacks.
found in the exhibit or in one’s own work, is a chance to do your best.‘‘The greater danger is not that our aim is too high and we miss it,’’said Michelangelo,‘‘but that it is too low and we achieve it.’’
ENDNOTES
1. Small parts of this paper, as well as selected examples, are adapted from the author’s coproduced work cited in the references.
2. By the turn of the century, a variety of federal departments (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration, Internal Revenue Service, General Accountability Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration) had received full or partial waivers from Title 5 of the U.S. Code defining the merit system. In the wake of September 11, 2001, the Transportation Security Agency established at-will employment for its personnel, and subsequently the departments of Homeland Security and Defense were authorized to create new human resource management systems. The Bush Administration is seeking congressional approval to use these approaches as templates for government wide change.
At the state level, major reform examples also exist. In 1996, Georgia law mandated that all new civil servants be hired on an at-will basis, and in 2001 Florida eliminated job tenure for most incumbent middle managers (and made it easier to discipline remaining career employees and harder to appeal adverse actions). South Carolina and Arkansas recently abolished their merit systems; less dramatically, a number of states (e.g., Indiana, Delaware, Kansas) are reclassifying career service positions to unclassified ones as a consequence of reorganizations, reductions-in-force, or retirements.
3. Perhaps more proactive ‘‘pracademic’’ work could have been undertaken, such as testifying before legislative committees or doing pro bono research for public interest groups. Regarding the former, the way the Service First bill was handled in the legislature produced charges of stacked committees, one-sided hearings, and limitations on amendments and floor debates, thereby constraining opportunities to be involved in that arena.
Concerning the latter, the state chapter of a prominent good government group was contacted. The author was unsuccessful in demonstrating that a proto-Spoils System program like Service First was directly germane to their objectives. The sense seemed to be it was an‘‘inside baseball’’employment issue that its membership would see an obscure matter. A well-known trainer of state employees, for instance, also downplayed the reform, in a conversation with the author, in light of more immediate issues confronting Florida.
4. A particularly worrisome instance occurred when an executive agreed to participate, but withdrew because of a change of agency leadership. Two strategies were used after it became apparent that the individual
A third concern worthy of mention is that as a topic develops and as drafts are written, students should be strategic in their choice of publishing outlets. A keen familiarity with a diversity of journals, supplemented by advice from others, will enhance the probability of receiving acceptance letters. Sending manuscripts to editors on the grounds of expediency (e.g.,
‘‘It will be accepted quickly because it is a minor periodical’’) or simply to get ideas (i.e.,‘‘I know that this quarterly will reject the paper, but I will get some good comments’’) are not recommended. There are other ways to get feedback on one’s work and being published promptly in a third-tier outlet may be self-defeating.
Finally, students should be prepared not only for acceptance letters but also for untoward surprises. One’s very best work may not be so recognized by referees or editors. Assuming that reviewer critiques and editor letters provide sound reasons for rejection, a lot can be learned from anonymous comments on papers. This may be an even more reliable source for a‘‘revise- and-resubmit’’ decision, which might be seen as a conditional acceptance pending improve- ments in the paper. Either way, what appears to be a stumbling block may simply be a stepping stone to success.
Exhibit 3 (Continued) Instructor’s Guide
definitely would not consent to a confidential interview. First, because the study design included respond- ents from both the capital area and the Miami district, one of the investigators was successful in accessing the district counterpart of the central office manager. Second, the authors identified a recently retired official from the department who not only explained why the person refused to participate (the new secretary
‘‘locked things down as much as possible’’and‘‘was known to be vindictive, so why take any chances
granting interviews with outsiders?’’), but also proved to be a very revealing source. More broadly, the Law of Large Numbers offers some confidence that the information gained from multiple, numerous sources may be accurate. In addition, and despite the above comments, many interviewees were, in fact, expansive in their responses.
5. Response to Problem One (Exhibit 2). There are at least four strategies to be considered in dealing with access-to-informant problems. First, in design of the project there should be an effort, such as a pilot project, to ascertain the extent to which respondents are likely to participate. Second, and most important, the investigator must consult a representative sample of stakeholders concerned with the issue (e.g., employees, supervisors, legislators, interest groups, union representatives, citizens), to obtain diverse perspectives and provide an opportunity to cross-checkfindings. Third, when some sources are not forthcoming, prepared follow-up probes are needed to prompt replies. Fourth, because these may not always be successful in eliciting additional information, large jurisdictions typically are populated by many knowledgeable people.
Substitute participants may be located through such techniques as the‘‘snowball’’reputational method.
6. Response to Problem Two (Exhibit 2). The easy reply to the question posed in the Exhibit is that one’s textbook from a general methods course should be sufficient in doing a survey, especially if supplemented by advice from others. It is startling, however, the number of times that a landmark survey research resource is not identified at the outset as a source of proven designs, and to thereby keep opportunity costs in line with available resources. Too many proposals, for example, do not recognize the significance of: a carefully crafted cover letter, a reader-friendly questionnaire, an appropriate number of follow-ups, tests for nonrespondents, and other seemingly basic requirements. As well, the advantages and drawbacks of a postal questionnaire versus an online survey may not be fully considered.
Fortunately, there is a valuable book, based on empirical data, which demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches. Consulting this work reduces apprehensions, avoids as much guess- work, wishful thinking, and idiosyncratic preferences as possible, and provides some confidence that the investigation will be successfully conducted. The volume in question is Dillman’s (2000) second edition of his 1974 survey research classic. Although there are other useful methods books, it would be a mistake not to peruse this one.
REFERENCES
Blalock, H. (1964). Casual Inferences in Non-Experimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Bowman, J. (2002). Employment at will in Florida government: A naked formula to corrupt the public service.
Working USA, 6, 90–102.
Bowman, J. and Hoffman, A. (2001). Reforming state government point-counterpoint: Sizing up state workers, Tallahassee Democrat, 1E, February 25.
Bowman, J. and West, J., Eds. (2006a). Symposium: Civil service reform today.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 2 (entire issue).
Bowman, J. and West, J., Eds. (2006b).American Public Service: Radical Reform and the Merit System.
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Bowman, J. and West, J. (2006c). Ending civil service protections in Florida government: Experiences in state agencies.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 139–157.
Bowman, J. and West, J. (2007a). Removing employee protections: A‘‘see no evil’’approach to civil service reform. In J. Maesschalck, L. Huberts, and C. Jurkiewicz (Eds.),Ethics and Integrity in Governance, pp. 000–000. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Bowman, J. and West, J. (2007b). Lord Acton and employment doctrines: Absolute power and the spread of at-will employment.Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 000–000.
Bowman, J. and West, J., Eds. (in press). Symposium: American civil service reform.International Journal of Public Administration.