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.’’
REFERENCES
Adams, G.B. and J.D. White. 1994. Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields:
An Assessment of Methods and Quality.Public Administration Review, 54, 565–574.
Box, R.C. 1992. An examination of the debate over research in public administration.Public Administration Review, 52, 62–69.
Bunge, M. 1983. Epistemology and methodology I: Exploring the world.Treatise on Basic Philosophy, volume 5, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Dempster, B. 1998. Toward a post-normal science: New (?) approaches to research, http:==bethd.ca=webs= pnsresearch=index.html, date accessed September 4, 2004.
Fernández-Armesto, F. 1997.Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Feyerabend, P. 1981.Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, F. 1998. Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositivist perspective.Policy Studies Journal, 26, 129–146.
Fox, C.J. and H.T. Miller. 1994.Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz. 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post normal science. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.),Social Theories of Risk. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age.Futures, 25, 739–755.
Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz. 1994. Emergent complex systems.Futures, 26, 568–582.
Guba, E.G. 1990.The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Harding, S. 1987. Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In Sandra Harding (ed.), Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. and A. Musgrave. 1970. Criticism and Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Lan, Z. and K.K. Anders. 2000. A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research.
Administration & Society, 32, 138–165.
Leplin, J. 1984.Scientific Realism. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba. 2000. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences.
In Yvonna S. Lincoln and Norman K. Denzin (eds.),Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd edition.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp. 157–213.
Little, J.H. 2000. Between positivism and relativism: A middle path for pubic administration. Paper presented at The 13th Annual Conference of the Public Administration Theory Network, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, January 28–29.
McSwite, O.C. 1996. Postmodernism, public administration, and the public interest. In Gary L. Wamsley and James F. Wolf (eds.),Refounding Democratic Public Administration: Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp. 198–224.
McSwite, O.C. 1997.Legitimacy in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Miller, H.T. 2002.Postmodern Public Policy. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Niiniluoto, I. 1999.Critical Scientific Realism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. 1963.Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
Popper, K. 1977.The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 14th printing.
Rainey, H.G. 1994. On paradigms, progress and prospects for public management.Journal of Public Admini- stration Research and Theory, 1, 41–48.
Ravetz, J.R. 1999. What is postnormal science?Futures, 31, 647–653.
Riccucci, N.M. 2001. The old public management v. the new public management: Where does public administrationfit in?Public Administration Review, 61, 172–175.
Riccucci, N.M. 2006. The criteria of action in reforming and advancing the administrative state: How do we determine or know effectiveness? In Howard McCurdy and David H. Rosenbloom (eds.), Revisiting Dwight Waldo’s Administrative State. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 55–70.
Rosenbloom, D.H. 1983. Public administrative theory and the separation of powers.Public Administration Review, 43, 219–227.
Sardar, Z. 2000.Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Icon Books, Ltd.
Sayer, R.A. 2000.Realism and Social Science. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Simon, H.A. 1945.Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMillan.
Stivers, C. 2000.Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Construction Public Administration in the Progressive Era.
Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Thompson, F. 1997. Book review of the state of public management. Donald F. Kettl and H. Brinton Milward (eds.),Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 484–507.
Waldo, D. 1948.The Administrative State. New York: The Ronald Press Company.
Weber, R. 2004. The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism,MIS Quarterly, 28 (March), iii–xii.
White, J.D., G.B. Adams, and J.P. Forrester. 1996. Knowledge and theory development in public administra- tion: The role of doctoral education and research.Public Administration Review, 56, 441–452.
2 Theory
Hugh T. Miller
CONTENTS
2.1 Theory as Hypothesis-Producing, Nomothetic Generalization... 13 2.1.1 A Coherent Account of the Facts ... 13 2.1.2 Theory=Data versus Data=Theory... 14 2.2 Theory as Narrative ... 16 2.2.1 The Quest of Reason ... 17 2.2.2 Metaphors ... 17 2.3 Theory and Practice ... 19 2.3.1 Theory as Something to Apply to Practice ... 19 2.3.2 The Theory–Practice Gap ... 20 2.4 Summary ... 21 2.5 Exercises ... 21 2.5.1 Intelligence and Reification ... 21 2.5.2 Precession of Simulacra... 22 2.5.3 Thought Experiments... 22 References ... 23 This chapter focuses not on fact-finding or truth-seeking (the functions of methods) but on question- raising and redescription (the functions of theory). To oversimplify for the sake of brevity, although the method-oriented researcher seeks to get the facts right andfind the truth, the theory-oriented scholar confronts established truths by reconciling incoherent elements of a theory into a more coherent narrative, by reinterpreting thefindings, or by deploying new and different categories to reframe the question.
This chapter considers theory in three ways: (1) as a source of hypotheses and generalizable deductions, (2) as a narrative of reason, andfinally (3) as one side of the infamous theory–practice gap. The now-standard understanding of theory (as a source of hypotheses) derives mostly from Karl Popper’s (1959) notion that theory is a logical-deductive set of statements from which testable propositions can be drawn and then subject to tests of evidence.
2.1 THEORY AS HYPOTHESIS-PRODUCING, NOMOTHETIC