rigor, theoretical or methodological, has long been lamented by scholars (Kettl, 2000; March, 1997;
Whicker, Strickland and Olshfski, 1993). A better understanding of paradigms can help us design stronger studies and develop more practical and relevant solutions to the problems faced by society.
In this chapter, we treat the term‘‘paradigm’’in a broad sense to represent research clusters or theoretical lenses that share similar philosophies, focused problems, and approaches of inquiry. As Babbie (2005) states,‘‘social science paradigms represent a variety of views, each of which offers insights the others lack while ignoring aspects of social life that the others reveal’’ (p. 34). We attempt to show how public administration students can benefit from the existence of multiple, conflicting paradigms in their own research. We begin with a brief introduction of the major categorizations of public administration paradigms, and continue with discussions as to how multiple paradigms can be bridged or connected in a research project. To better illustrate how our approach to paradigm dynamics helps improve public administration research, we use examples to demonstrate how to link the existence of multiple paradigms with the typical research process.
and transformation, and instruments of domination. He emphasizes that‘‘all theories of organization and management are based on implicit images or metaphors that lead us to see, understand, and manage organizations in distinctive yet partial ways’’(p. 4). A similar perspective is developed in the public administration literature by Lan and Anders (2000), who argue that public administration as a whole is a tier-one, paramount paradigm, under which there are at least six subparadigms or cognitive approaches: managerial, political, judicial, ethical, historical, and integrated. Under those approaches are different sub-subparadigms or areas of concentrations such as personnel manage- ment,finance and budgeting, and policy analysis and design. The six approaches can be summarized as in Table 3.1. The first three approaches are also identified and emphasized by other scholars such as Rosenbloom and Kravchuk (2005), who demonstrate clearly how the three perspectives differ with regard to values, cognitive approaches, and understanding of organizational structure, individuals, budgeting, decision making, and governmental function.
Each school of thought can be dealt with from different metatheoretical stances. For example, the concerns of the managerial approach can be analyzed from the stances of either functionalism or postmodernism. Moreover, depending on its focuses, the managerial approach can be further classified into different models. For example, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) constructed a two- dimensional competing-values framework (flexibility versus control; internal versus external) that includes four models: open systems, rational goals, human relations, and internal processes. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) argue that these models are to some extent mutually exclusive because they are conceptually distinctive and managers should not pay equal attention to all of them at a single time. These models are also complementary because managers must strike a balance between them, and should not emphasize one model to the exclusion of the others in a longer period. Such holistic approaches have been in the mainstream of organizational thought since at least the mid-1970s, when the public productivity movement was launched to synthesize different schools of manage- ment (Holzer et al., 2006).
Frederickson (1980), for example, recognizes five models of public administration based on a definition of theory as empirically based knowledge: classic bureaucratic (Gulick and Urwick), neo-bureaucratic (Simon), institutional (Lindblom), human relations (McGregor), and public choice (Ostrom). He argues for a sixth one, the ‘‘new public administration,’’ which places a greater emphasis on humanistic, equitable, and democratic values, as opposed to the previous ones that focused primarily on efficiency and effectiveness. Later on, Frederickson and Smith (2003) sys- tematically review the theories’origins, assumptions, arguments, and implications, identifying eight contemporary families of theories that have contributed significantly to the body of knowledge in public administration or have the potential to make such contributions: theories of political control of bureaucracy, theories of bureaucratic politics, theories of public institutions, theories of public management, postmodern theory, decision theory, rational choice theory, and theories of governance. Moreover, they compare the theories’performance on six dimensions: parsimony or elegance, explanatory capacity, replicability, descriptive capacity, predictive capacity, and empirical warrant.
There are other categorizations of schools of thought in public administration. Stillman (1995) identified six schools of the ‘‘refounding public administration’’ movement developed since the 1970s: (1) the reinventors—an eclectic approach catalyzed by Osborne and Gaebler (1992);
(2) the communitarians—with emphasis on citizenship, family values, and civic participation;
(3) the Blacksburg Manifesto refounders—who try to extend the meaning of public administration from mere management of public organizations to a larger and more legitimate understanding of it as a part of governance; (4) the interpretive theorists and postmodernists—with emphasis on the human condition in a society dominated by organizations; (5) the tools approach—with a leading theme that today, with the burgeoning of the not-for-profit sector in delivery of public services, there is no one best way of approaching the administration of services, even at the federal level; and (6) the new bureaucratic perspectives—with the main emphasis on bureaucratic accountability in a constitutional democracy (Holzer et al., 2006).
TABLE3.1 SixApproachestoPublicAdministrationStudies ManagerialPoliticalJudicialEthicalHistoricalIntegrated Values=focuses.Efficiency.Representation.Legalrights.Morality.Lessonsfrompast.Processofgoverning .Effectiveness.Responsiveness.Legalprivilege.Ethics.Democraticvalues .Economy.Accountability.Dueprocess.Integrity .Equity Unitofanalysis.Individuals.Individuals.Regulations.Ethicalprocedures.Historicalliterature.Anythingrelevantto .Groups.Groups.Laws.Ethicalstandards.Individualseventsgoverning .Org.structures.Communities.Legalprocesses .Org.processes.Politicalinstitutions (structuresandprocesses) Coreproblems.Howtoimprove efficiency, effectiveness, andeconomy?
.Howtoachievepower andresourceallocation?.Howtosettleconflicts andachievecompliance?.Howtoimprove thesubstanceandethics ofadministrationandsociety?
.Hownottorepeat pastmistakes?.Howtounderstand andenhancepublic administration inaholisticway Sources:AdaptedfromLan,Z.andAnders,K.K.,Adm.Soc.,32,138,2000;Rosenbloom,D.H.andKravchuk,R.S.inPublicAdministration(6thedn),McGrawHill,NewYork,2005.
Holzer, Gabrielian, and Yang (2006) argue that given the applied nature of public administra- tion, it is important to discuss theories and ideas‘‘not only from the viewpoint of their theoretical distinctiveness and rigor, but also from the viewpoint of their impact on the development of thefield, the rhetoric that justified their embrace by the public, and the factors that shaped them’’
(p. 57). Accordingly, they outlinefive great ideas that shaped thefield of public administration. The first idea is honest, nonpartisan, and businesslike government. This stream of thought was mani- fested in the progressive movement, which not only separated administration from politics but also started the relentless drive of looking to the private sector for best practices. Under the dichotomy logic, administration became politically neutral, and the elected body took the responsibility for democratic achievement through the policy-making process.
The second idea refers to classic management models, which relate closely to thefirst idea both theoretically and temporarily. Starting with the politics–administration dichotomy and assuming a business-like approach, the second idea emphasized machine-like efficiency in ‘‘getting the job done.’’ The first idea focused on the political question of the place of public administration in society, whereas the second idea concentrated on a micro-concern—effective management of an organization premised upon the idea of clearly recognizable and scientific laws that describe reality.
It gave rise to a number of universal principles of administration such as POSDCORB (planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting). When Wilson and White were calling for a science of management, Frederick Taylor was conducting time and motion studies, trying to find the ‘‘one best way’’ to improve productivity. Between the world wars, Taylor’s methodology to efficiently accomplish physical tasks was increasingly applied to the organization in a broad social context (e.g., Gulick). Fayol (1949) extended the notion of scientific management to the public sector by indicating that the basic elements of administrative organiza- tion are specialization, authority, hierarchy, division of labor, communication, standard procedures of operations, and management; the combination of these elements and the relationships between them define the organizational structure of government. The types of organizations defined by scientific management theoristsfit with Max Weber’s (1958) bureaucratic model. Weber’s‘‘ideal- type’’ bureaucracy consists of these elements: universal rules, use of written records, division of duties into spheres of competence, training for each position, selection on the basis of compe- tence, hierarchical arrangement of offices, salary based on position, and tenure of office. This model of bureaucracy was accepted throughout public administration circles as a significant advancement for understanding both the whole of bureaucracy and the elements of modern government.
The third idea is politics and policy making. In contrast to thefirst two ideas, this idea rejected the politics–administration dichotomy, the administrative principles as proverbs, and the absolute neutrality of administrators, arguing that a theory of administration is necessarily a theory of politics. After World War II, a major trend in public administration has been the movement away from the idea of administrative neutrality and toward the idea of bureaucratic politics, which led to big research questions such as the following (Frederickson and Smith, 2003; Holzer et al., 2006):
(1) To what extent do administrative processes, as opposed to democratic processes, determine public policy? (2) What is the role of bureaucratic power in representing and advancing the goals of particular clientele groups or organized interests? (3) How can an administrative body organized on nondemocratic lines be consistent with the notion of a democratic society? (4) How can a bureaucracy balance representativeness and administrative capacity? (5) How can the democratic system balance administrative capacity and its democratic control? Dwight Waldo, Paul Appleby, Philip Selznick, Graham Allison, Herbert Kaufman, George Frederickson, Kenneth Meier, Laurence Lynn, and Harold Seidman, among others, have contributed to the theory development of bureau- cratic politics by addressing the questions above.
The fourth school of thought is human relations, which was formed following the Hawthorne experiments and the introduction of a sociological approach to organizations in the late 1920s and 1930s. The first two models were closed and concentrated primarily on a technical system of
organization, whereas the behavioral model recognized the equal importance of the social system— a system comprised of informal, multidimensional, and nebulous networks of relationships between individuals or groups within an organization. The research team of the well-known Hawthorne experiments, via field research methodology, accidentally found that organizations serve the purpose of‘‘creating and distributing satisfaction among the individual members of the organiza- tion,’’in addition to creating goods or services (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939, p. 562). The Hawthorne conclusions were reaffirmed in Chester Barnard’s work. Frameworks such as the needs hierarchy (Maslow), Theory X and Y (McGregor), the need for achievement (McClelland), equity (Adams), expectancy theory (Vroom), and goal-setting (Locke and Latham) have been adopted and extended by many public administration scholars to develop empirical hypotheses about a central question, that is, why bureaucrats do what they do. For example, Wilson (1989) argues that several factors drive the behavior of bureaucrats and bureaucracies: situational imperatives, peer expect- ations, professional values, and ideology. Wilson concluded that successful bureaucracies are those in which executives have created a clear sense of mission, identified the tasks that must be achieved to fulfill that mission, distributed authority within the organization according to those tasks, and provided subordinates with enough autonomy to achieve the tasks at hand.
The fifth idea identified by Holzer, Gabrielian, and Yang (2006) is program effectiveness or performance. As a result of growth of government programs with new missions, combined with the rapid technological and demographic changes experienced since the turn of the twentieth century, and, the shrinking of public resources, the effectiveness or performance of public organizations has become a primary concern of public administration. By and large public administration began to view itself as a syntheticfield, one that has to balance competing, often contradictory, values and which is open to continuous adaptation and improvement in pursuit of productive performance. This idea can be related to the productivity movement, performance measurement, program evaluation, and even governance. For example, Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill (2000) present a model of governance logic as O¼f [E, C, T, S, M], where O¼outputs=outcomes; E¼environmental factors such as political structures, levels of authority, funding constraints, legal institutions, and technological dynamism;
C¼client characteristics; T¼treatments or the primary work or core processes of the organizations such as missions, objectives, and technologies; S¼structures such as organizational type, level of coordination and integration, centralization of control, functional differentiation, administrative rules and incentives, budgetary allocations, contractual arrangements, and institutional culture and values; and M¼managerial roles and actions such as leadership characteristics, staff-management relations, communications, decision-making tools, professionalism=career concerns, mechanisms of monitoring, control, and accountability.