Public administration researchers face multiple competing paradigms, broadly defined, and they have to deal with this reality in their own research. These paradigms complement one another, providing both alternative and overlapping insights toward the phenomenon of interest. Together they constitute a substantial body of knowledge for public administration research. Public admini- stration students should take a‘‘both . . . and’’stance toward these paradigms rather than an‘‘either . . . or’’stance. The‘‘both . . . and’’stance, however, should not be taken at the extreme to mean a
‘‘hands off’’policy. It is not rare that students pay little attention to paradigmatic assumptions of published articles and their own work. They may justify this neglect by arguing that public administration does not really have a paradigm and such a paradigm may not be necessary. This chapter argues that paying attention to paradigmatic assumptions is important for theory advance- ment and practical problem solving. As Schultz and Hatch (1996) state, ‘‘it is impossible and illusionary to settle the paradigm issue once and for all . . . but it is equally naïve to think organiza- tion theorists are ready to transcend the need for paradigms completely. Rather, researchers need paradigms (or some other orienting device) to maintain and make use of the diversity that characterizes thefield of organization studies’’(pp. 552–553).
Kettl (2000) asserts that American public administration is struggling with three questions, one of which is how public administration can‘‘ensure the systematic testing of its theoretical proposi- tions and, therefore, advance the state of theory’’ (p. 30). Public administration has long been criticized for a lack of rigor in theory and research. Kettl argues that the question is difficult to solve partly because of conflicting theoretical approaches and partly because of the difficulty of providing rigorous practical advice on practical problems that ultimately depend on infinitely variable indi- vidual behavior. This chapter argues that a better understanding of multiparadigm inquiry may help us improve the theoretical and methodological rigor of public administration research.
END-OF-CHAPTER QUESTIONS
1. Select an empirical article from a major public administration journal, such asPublic Adminis- tration Reviewand Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. After reading the article, please answer the following questions: (1) Is the theoretical framework clearly stated in
the article? What is it? (2) Are hypotheses derived naturally from the theoretical framework?
Would other theories or approaches lead to the same hypotheses? Can other theories or approaches lead to additional hypotheses that complement the current ones? (3) What method- ology is employed by the author? Can alternative methodologies enrich the understanding of the topic? (4) Are thefindings and implications consistent with the data and results? Is it possible to interpret the results in different, even opposite, ways?
2. Find and read the Morgan (1980) article, and be familiar with its framework. Then choose a research area of your interest, such as contracting, performance management, and leadership, and answer the following question based on your review of the literature in the research area: (1) Are all the four paradigms specified by Morgan reflected in the literature in this area of research? (2) If one or more paradigms are missing from the literature, what might be the reason? Can you think of meaningful ways to apply the missing paradigms to this area of research? (3) If one or more paradigms have been developed in the literature, are there any syntheses? If not, can you develop one?
REFERENCES
Agranoff, R. and McGuire, M. 2003.Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Govern- ments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Allison, G.T. 1971.Essence of Decision. Boston: Little Brown.
Arndt, J. 1985. On making marketing science more scientific: Role of orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving.Journal of Marketing49(3), 11–23.
Babbie, E.B. 2005.The Basics of Social Research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Behn, R.D. 1995. The big questions of public management.Public Administration Review55(July=August), 313–324.
Berry, F.S., Brower, R.S., Choi, S.O., Gao, W.X., Jang, H., Kwan, M., and Word, J. 2004. Three traditions of network research: What the public management research agenda can learn from other research commu- nities.Public Administration Review64(5), 539–552.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1979.Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Callahan, K. and Yang, K. 2005. Training and professional development for civically engaged communities.
Innovation Journal10(1), 1–16.
DeHart-Davis, L. and Kingsley, G. 2005. Managerial perceptions of privatization: Evidence from a state department of transportation.State and Local Government Review37(3), 228–241.
De Lancer Julnes, P. and Holzer, M. 2001. Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation.Public Administra- tion Review61(6), 693–708.
Denhardt, R.B. and Denhardt, J.V. 2000. The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review60(6), 549–559.
Dubnick, M. 1999. Demons, spirits, and elephants: Reflections on the failure of public administration theory. Prepared for delivery atThe 1999 Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, Atlanta.
Fayol, H. 1949.General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman Publishing.
Fox, C.J. and Miller, H.T. 1995.Postmodern Public Administration. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Fox, C.J. 1996. Reinventing government as postmodern symbolic politics.Public Administration Review56(3), 256–262.
Frederickson, H.G. 1980.New Public Administration. University of Alabama Press.
Frederickson, H.G. 1996. Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administra- tion.Public Administration Review56(3), 263–270.
Frederickson, H.G. and Smith, K.B. 2003. The Public Administration Theory Primer. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press.
Giddens, A. 1976.New Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Basic Books.
Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review15, 584–602.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. 1967.The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Chicago: Aldine.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology91(3), 481–510.
Heinrich, C. and Lynn, L., Jr. 2000.Governance and Performance: New Perspectives. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Holzer, M., Gabrielian, V., and Yang, K. 2006. Five great ideas in American public administration. In Jack Rabin, W. Bartley Hildreth and Gerald J. Miller (eds.),Handbook of Public Administration (3rd edn).
New York: Taylor and Francis pp. 49–102.
Huber, J.D. and Shipan, C.R. 2002. Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, N. and Carter, P. 1993. Paradigm wars: A response to Hugh Willmott.Organization Studies 14, 721–725.
Kettl, D.F. 2000. Public administration at the millennium: The state of thefield.Journal of Public Adminis- tration Research and Theory10(1), 7–34.
Kirlin, J.J. 1996. The big questions of public administration in a democracy.Public Administration Review 56(5), 416–423.
Kraemer, K.L. and Perry, J.L. 1989. Institutional requirements for academic research in public administration.
Public Administration Review49(1), 9–16.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lan, Z. and Anders, K.K. 2000. A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test.Administration and Society32(2), 138–165.
Lewis, M.W. and Grimes, A.J. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms.Academy of Management Review24(4), 672–690.
Lynn, L.E., Heinrich, C.J., and Hill, C.J. 2000. Studying Governance and Public Management: Challenges and Prospects.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 10(2), 233–261.
March, J. 1997. Administrative practice, organization theory, and political philosophy: Ruminations on the reflection of John M. Gaus.PS: Political Science and Politics30(4), 689–698.
Martin, J. 1992.Cultures in Organization. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, G. 1997.Images of Organization (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory.Administrative Science Quarterly25(4), 605–622.
Moynihan, D.P. and Pandey, S.K. 2005. Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(3), 371–392.
Neumann, F.X. 1996. What makes public administration a science? Or, are its‘‘big questions’’really big?
Public Administration Review56(5), 409–415.
Osborne, D. and Ted Gaebler. 1992.Reinventing Government. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
O’Toole, L.J. and Meier, K.J. 1999. Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural context.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory9(4), 505–526.
Pandey, S.K. and Wright, B. 2006. Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity and the public manager’s role ambiguity.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(4), 511–532.
Pondy, L. and Boje, D.M. 1981. Bring the mind back in. In W. Evan (Ed.),Frontiers in Organization and Management. New York: Praeger pp. 83–101.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. 1983. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values approach to organizational analysis.Management Science29, 363–377.
Radin, B. 2000. The government performance and results act and the tradition of federal management reform:
Square pegs in round holes?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(1), 111–135.
Rainey, H.G. 1994. On paradigms, progress, and prospects for public management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory4(1), 41–48.
Reed, M. 1997. In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis.
Organization Studies18, 21–42.
Reed, M. 1985.Redirections in Organizational Analysis. London: Tavistock.
Riccucci, N. 2007. The logic of inquiry in thefield of public administration. InHandbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, K. Yang and G. Miller (Eds.). New York: Taylor & Francis pp. 3–11.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Rosenbloom, D.H. and Kravchuk, R.S. 2005.Public Administration (6th edn). New York: McGraw Hill.
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. 1996. Living with multiple paradigms: The cases of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies.Academy of Management Review21(2), 529–557.
Simon, H. 1947.Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Stillman, R.J. 1995. The refounding movement in American public administration. Administrative Theory Praxis17(1), 29–45.
Stivers, C. 2002.Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era.
Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Strauss, A.L. 1978.Negotiations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Waldo, D. 1946.The Administrative State. San Francisco: Chandler.
Wang, X. and Evan, B. 2000. Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory11(3), 403–428.
Weber, M. 1958. Bureaucracy. In Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (eds.),From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 196–244.
Weick, K. 1979.The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Whicker, M.L., Strickland, R.A., and Olshfski, D. 1993. The troublesome cleft: Public administration and political science.Public Administration Review53(6), 531–541.
Willmott, H. 1993. Breaking the paradigm mentality.Organization Studies14, 681–719.
Wilson, J. 1989.Bureaucracy. California: Basic Book.
Yang, K. 2006. Will performance results be communicated honestly? Testing a political model. Presented at The 3rdSino-U.S. conference in Beijing, June.
4 Where Do Research Questions Come from and How Are
They Developed?
Samuel J. Yeager
CONTENTS
4.1 Where Do Research Questions Come from and How Are They Developed? ... 45 4.2 Motivation to Do Research and Decide on a Research Question ... 47 4.3 Where Do Research Questions Come from?... 47 4.4 Types of Research Questions... 51 4.5 Explicit and Implicit Questions ... 51 4.6 Creating, Clarifying, and Framing Research Questions ... 54 4.7 Review by Colleagues, Practitioners, and Clients ... 57 4.8 Conclusion ... 57 Endnotes... 57 References ... 57 4.1 WHERE DO RESEARCH QUESTIONS COME FROM AND HOW
ARE THEY DEVELOPED?
InAlice’s Adventures in WonderlandAlice asks the Cheshire cat‘‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’’ ‘‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’’ said the cat.‘‘I don’t much care where . . .’’said Alice.‘‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’’said the cat.‘‘. . . so long as I get SOMEWHERE,’’Alice added as an explanation.‘‘Oh, you’re sure to do that,’’said the cat,‘‘if you only walk long enough.’’(Carroll, 2005, pp. 57–58). The researcher’s quest, like that of Alice, is to make a journey of discovery. Making a research journey efficiently and effectively requires a sense of direction provided by a research question.
Most research projects start with a question. Identifying the research problem or defining the study question is the first and most important of eight steps in the research process described by McNabb (2002, p. 54). Similarly, Gail Johnson describes planning as the key to successful research and thefirst step in planning a research project is determining the question (2002, p. 27). Johnson believes that this step is so crucial to the success of a research project that if mistakes are made then
‘‘the research cannot be saved’’(2002, p. 27).
What does the phrase research question mean? It is the focal question a research project is intended to answer. It is not a question developed for a survey or an interview protocol. Most research methods, survey research, and interviewing texts cover writing that type of question very well. Such questions are tools designed to help develop an answer to the research question.
Virtually every research methods text talks of research questions. Their authors acknowledge the importance of a research question as a guide for the research project. The research question helps define what is to be included in the project, and just as important what is to be excluded. Multiple authors of methods texts make this point (Johnson, 1997; McNabb, 2002, p. 73; Andrews, 2003, 45
p. 14; and Trochim, 2005). This guidance includes direction for the literature review, research design, method or methods of collecting data, selection of a sampling frame and sample, forms of analysis, and also influences how the results are written, and may affect decisions about where and how they are presented. These texts make this point well.
In contrast, a few authors of methods texts proffer some ideas aboutfinding or creating research questions which is of some use, but many do not help the reader learn where research questions come from and how to develop research questions and subquestions. Usually, methods texts’ coverage of research questions is limited to making the point about the importance of the research question. Once this is done they usually then suggest that the researcher canfind research questions by reading the literature, talking with experts, and attending conferences. Usually the topic of research questions is not developed more than this and no examples are provided.
Although these ideas are useful, is it enough to suggest that research questions can be found by reading the literature, talking with experts in thefield, and attending conferences? The author thinks not, because this level of coverage barely scratches the surface of the issue. Moreover, the preferred process of developing a research question varies from individual to individual researcher and it is only one topic in any methods text.
The process used by a specific researcher to develop a research question is highly individualistic and may be approached in different ways for different topics. What works best for one person may not work equally well for another. Researchers like all students learn in different ways and are interested in different things. How deductive or inductive an approach a researcher takes, or how they mix these approaches, varies considerably across individuals and projects too. Some researchers like to use research questions in their work although others prefer more formally stated hypotheses. How an individual approaches the issue of question development may evolve considerably over the life of their career. A student and, in turn, a young faculty member may struggle tofind research questions. Later in their careers they mayfind research questions almost everywhere they look. The issue then is one of prioritizing and concentrating one’s efforts on the questions the researcher believes are most important.
To be fair, development of a research question is only one of the many complex topics that research methods text must address as they survey the methodologicalfield. For that matter a research methods text can barely touch the issue of research questions or virtually assume that they occur naturally in the research process, but cannot legitimately treat topics like survey research, interviews, and measurement issues that way.
Questions are our primary means of dealing with the unknown and of obtaining new informa- tion. A question frames the literature review. In fact, a literature review may reveal answers to the research question and eliminate the need for new research to answer a given question. This discovery could be a fortunate event in multiple senses, at a minimum because it saves time and energy. Similarly, a literature review may lead to studies of closely related questions. These are useful because they suggest perspectives, issues, questions, and research methods that a researcher can build on in their own work.
In addressing the question of where research questions come from this essay examines the following topics:
. Motivation to do research and decide on a research question
. Where do research questions come from?
. Types of research questions
. Explicit and implicit questions
. How are research questions framed?
. Creating, clarifying, and framing research questions
. How questions are framed determines their usefulness
. Every research question may contain subquestions
. Review by colleagues, practitioners, and clients
. Conclusion
4.2 MOTIVATION TO DO RESEARCH AND DECIDE