If public administration is not a normal science, but rather a postnormal science, what should its approach to research be? How should scientific inquiry be carried out? This section looks at how various approaches to research postulate reality and truth. It asks, by what means do we arrive at the truth in public administration, or more broadly, the social sciences? Is it‘‘scientific’’methods that lead us to the truth? How do we know if or when we have arrived at the truth?
* For the purposes of this chapter, the terms positivism and logical positivism are used interchangeably, although logical positivism combines positivism with apriorism (i.e., where some knowledge can exist prior to experience).
Public administration is afield which has historically generated a rich body of qualitative research, often empirically based (e.g., descriptive; best practices; case studies). Even Simon, who strongly urged the field to adopt analytical tools and methods in the logical positivist tradition, contributed mainly descriptive and normative discourse to thefield of public administration. Yet, the work of Simon has led to a broad reliance on, and acceptance of positivism in public administration. Although an important approach, it is only one of many which are appropriate for post-normal sciences, such as public administration. As noted earlier, the post-normal sciences operate with a different level of assumptions as compared to the normal sciences. For instance, unlike the normal sciences, which are assumed to be both certain and value-free, post-normal science, as Ravetz (1999, p. 647) points out,‘‘makes‘systems uncertainties’and‘decision stakes’the essential elements of its analysis.’’He goes on to say that the insight leading to Post-Normal Science is that in the sorts of issue-driven science relating to environmental debates, typically facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. Some might say that such problems should not be called‘science’; but the answer could be that such problems are everywhere, and when science is (as it must be) applied to them, the conditions are anything but‘normal’. For the previous distinction between
‘hard’, objective scientific facts and‘soft’, subjective value-judgments is now inverted. All too often, we must make hard policy decisions where our only scientific inputs are irremediably soft. In such contexts of policy making, there is a new role for natural science. The facts that are taught from textbooks in institutions are still necessary, but are no longer sufficient. For these relate to a standardised [sic] version of the natural world, frequently to the artificially pure and stable conditions of a laboratory experiment. The world is quite different when we interact with it, either destructively or constructively. . . . Contrary to the impression conveyed by textbooks, most problems in practice have more than one plausible answer, and many have no answer at all. (Ravetz, 1999, p. 649)
Table 1.1 provides a matrix comparing various approaches to research.* The matrix, although not definitive, seeks to illustrate the ontological, epistemological, and methodological bases for conducting research in the social sciences. It does not intend to promote one best way for researching matters concerning public administration but rather to generate a discussion around the utility of varied approaches to public administrative research. Some of the prominent philo- sophers and thinkers associated with the various approaches are also listed to encourage others to more fully explore the application of philosophic thought and science to public administration.
As indicated in Table 1.1, from an ontological standpoint, approaches to research range from positivism—where reality exists‘‘out there’’and is driven by immutable, universal, or natural laws that are completely independent of the researcher—to postmodernism, where reality is a social construction and is‘‘in the eye of the beholder.’’It results from the interactions between the researcher and their world, and there is no single, objective truth (example, Guba, 1990; Fox and Miller, 1994;
McSwite, 1996, 1997; Dempster, 1998; Lincoln and Guba, 2000; Miller, 2002). The ontologies are different, but no value can be ascribed to them; one is not better than the other. In fact, we conduct research on the basis of accepting specific ontologies. For example, postmodernist’s sense of reality is governed by nominalism, where ideas have no objective realities, but rather are merely names;
postmodernists know a pencil to be a pencil because the name tells them it is. For positivists, however, grounded in realism,ythe reality of a concept is accepted without question and at face value.
* It should be noted that there is a degree of ambiguity in the use of ontological and epistemological concepts and propositions which emanate not only from the different branches of the social sciences but also from theological philosophies as well. That is to say, each of the disciplines within the social sciences as well as the varied theologies embraces the philosophy of science in distinct or unique ways. For example, antipositivism, a term introduced by Max Weber, wasfirst used in thefield of sociology to encourage researchers to create and use scientific methods that differed from those employed in the natural sciences. Others have equated the term antipositivism with deconstructionism (as conceived by Jacque Derrida) and postmodernism or relativism.
yI use the term ‘‘realism’’ as distinct from critical realism or other conceptions of realism (e.g., scientific realism, commonsense philosophical realism). Realism in the context here assumes that a thought- or mind-independent reality exists. Critical realism asserts that there is a reality‘‘out there’’but that our knowledge will always be limited and mutable because it is made up of the world, our perception of it, and us. For different and overlapping treatments of these concepts, see, for example, Little, 2000; Sayer, 2000; Niiniluoto, 1999; Leplin, 1984; Feyerabend, 1981.
TABLE1.1 ThePhilosophyofScience:ComparingResearchApproachesintheSocialSciences Postmodernism (Antipositivism)aRationalismEmpiricismPositivismbPostpositivismc OntologydNominalism;relativism; researcherandrealityare inseparable,asarelifeand world Researcher’smindisreality; mindcomesfromGod Researcherandrealityare separate Realism;researcherand realityareseparate; universalsexistandtheyare real
Criticalrealism;researcher andrealityareoneandthe same EpistemologyKnowledgeisrelative; objectivitydoesnotexist;all truthisasocialconstruction andisculturebound
Reasonischiefsourceof knowledge;deduction; knowledgeisinnate;mind experience;intuition;apriori knowledge Objectiverealityarisesfrom introspectiveawareness; senseexperience; aposterioriknowledge Objectiverealityexists beyondthehumanmind; valueneutrality;induction
Qualifiedobjectivity;reality exists,buttoocomplextobe fullyunderstoodor explained;empirical falsification MethodologyIdeographic;hermeneutics; phenomenology; interpretation
Deductive;speculation; commonsensereasoning Observation;logicallyderived hypotheses;empiricaltesting ofhypothesesinductive processofthought Nomothetic;inductive; logicallyderived hypotheses;empiricaltesting ofhypotheses;verification Triangulation;modified experimental RecordingTechniqueQualitativeQualitativeQualitativeandquantitativeQuantitativeQualitativeandquantitative Philosophersand Thinkers
MaxWeber(antipositivism); Jean-FrançoisLyotard; JacquesDerrida;Michel Foucault;SandraHarding; NancyScheper-Hughes Plato;Descartes;Leibniz; Spinoza Aristotle;Epicurus;Francis Bacon;JohnLocke;George Berkeley;DavidHume AugusteComte;Rudolf Carnap;Wittgenstein;Otto Neurath;JohnStuartMill; HerbertSpencer
KarlPopper;JohnDewey; NicholasRescher aSeeWeber,R.,2004,MISQuarterly,28,iii,especiallyp.ivforacomparisonoftheusageofterminology. b Forthepurposeshere,positivismandlogicalpositivismaretreatedalike,althoughstrictlyspeakinglogicalpositivismcombinespositivismwithapriorism. cPostpositivismoverlapswithpostmodernisminthatithasbeenusedtorefertoagroupwithinpoliticaltheory,mostlycomprisedoffeministsandpostmodernists. dOntologygenerallyreferstothenatureofexistenceorbeing;however,italsoencompassesthegeneralfeaturesandrelationsoftheentitieswhichexist.Itisinthislattercontextthatontologyis usedinthistable.
Ontologies are ultimately based upon our belief system (e.g., positivists’belief that reality is out there or postpositivists’belief that we can never fully know). Thus, as Dempster (1998) points out, even positivism which,‘‘is, generally taken to be an objective process . . . is based on core beliefs.
Such beliefs, in turn, are reinforced by understanding gained through scientific study.’’In short, questions of ontology inevitably rest on beliefs.
Epistemology asks how do we know what we know. As many have pointed out (Bunge, 1983;
Dempster, 1998), epistemological questions are closely linked to ontological considerations: How can we know something withoutfirst knowing whether (or believing) it exists? Epistemologies, like ontologies, take many forms. That is to say, we know something to be true through a variety of sources. For example, we experience them in our mind (rationalism) or empirically via our senses (touch, sight, etc.). Or, we know something to be true because we feel it or have been told it by a credible source (Fernández-Armesto, 1997). For postpositivists, truth or knowledge can only be gained through empirical falsification (Fischer, 1998). According to the imminent political and social philosopher Karl Popper (1963, 1977), falsification is a process of‘‘conjectures and refutations.’’
Hypotheses, propositions, or theories cannot be scientific unless there is the possibility of a contrary case. The process of accumulating knowledge involves formulating hypotheses and then trying to prove them wrong. In this sense, the hypotheses can never be proven correct because of the possibility that one or more experiments could prove them wrong. Thus, we can approximate, but never fully know reality.
For positivists on the other hand, there is no room for metaphysical speculation, reason, or innate ideas, as the rationalists called for. Truth and knowledge are gained through induction.
Positivists maintain that logical and mathematical propositions are tautological and moral and value statements are merely emotive. The goal of knowledge under this approach is to describe the phenomena experienced (Riccucci, 2001, 2006). It should further be noted that positivism favors the distinction between pure and applied research. Although public administration is an appliedfield, positivists might argue that both applied research, which seeks application of know- ledge and truths, and pure or basic research, where knowledge is pursued without concern for application, can be pursued.
Methodology is equally linked with ontologies and epistemologies. Indeed, methodology and hence, choice of method* and even recording technique depends upon our ontological and epi- stemological frameworks. So, conducting research in any of the social sciences involves not simply making choices about methodology but also hinges on the researcher’s ontological and epistemo- logical suppositions. Bunge (1983, p. xiv) points out that‘‘methodology . . . is the discipline that studies the principles of successful inquiry, whether in ordinary life, science, technology or the humanities . . . it is descriptive and analytical, but in addition it is prescriptive or normative: It attempts tofind out not only how people actually get to know but also how they ought to proceed in order to attain their cognitive goals.’’
For positivists, study must be nomothetic, inductive, and based on value-free, rationally derived, testable, and verifiable hypotheses. They maintain that ‘‘questions answerable through natural science methods of testing and confirmation are the only legitimately answerable questions, and the correct answers can only come from those methods’’(Little, 2000, p. 5, emphasis in original).
Postmodernists, on the other hand, subscribe to hermeneutics and phenomenology, where case studies and best practices research are highly valued. Postpositivists emphasize the importance of triangulation, multiple measures, and observations, each of which may possess different types of error; ultimately, multiple realities manifest simultaneously (Guba, 1990; Lincoln and Guba, 2000). Through the increased reliance on qualitative techniques, postpositivist methodology seeks to falsify, rather than verify hypotheses.
* Method and methodology are often used interchangeably. But some argue that methodology is the theory and analysis of how research should proceed—the practice of knowing—although method is simply the technique for gathering evidence (see, for example, Bunge, 1983; Harding, 1987; Guba, 1990; Dempster, 1998).
In sum, there are various ontological, epistemological, and methodological bases for conducting research in any of the social sciences. And, regardless to the approach, choice and subjectivity are invariably present. As Dempster (1998) points out, the challenge is‘‘recognizing the gray areas that exist among and between [the various approaches to conducting research] . . . tailoring research approaches to match characteristics of particular situations is not only valuable, but essential . . . plural perspectives offer the potential for strong contributions to research.’’