Public Administration as an Interdisciplinary Field: Assessing Its Relationship with the Fields of Law,Management, and Political Science

Public administration is an interdisciplinary field, building on a variety of disciplinary approaches and values. But how well does the field of public administration reflect those values and processes? In contrast to previous arguments regarding the degree to which the field does or should incorporate values and lessons from other academic disciplines, this study provides a systematic assessment of the field’s reliance on research and theory from the fields of law, management, and political science. An analysis of journal citations across these fields suggests that research in public administration is largely isolated from the three disciplines that are commonly believed to form its foundation.     

Behavioral Public Administration: Past,Present, and Future

The last decade has seen remarkable growth in the field of behavioral public administration, both in practice and in academia. In both domains, applications of behavioral science to policy problems have moved forward at breakneck speed; researchers are increasingly pursuing randomized behavioral interventions in public administration contexts, editors of peer-reviewed academic journals are showing greater interest in publishing this work, and policy makers at all levels are creating new initiatives to bring behavioral science into the public sector. However, because the expansion of the field has been so rapid, there has been relatively little time to step back and reflect on the work that has been done and to assess where the field is going in the future. It is high time for such reflection: where is the field currently on track, and where might it need course correction?     

The Evolution of Chinese Administrative Studies: Where Is the Field of Chinese Administrative Science Headed?

Is Public Administration (PA) as a field of study a basic science? If not, could PA generally and Chinese PA (CPA) in particular become a basic science or a design science? To address these questions, this essay reviews pertinent literature to underscore the major problems, basic deficiencies, and critical issues of CPA, and then reviews ongoing CPA research to shed light on its future development. Our review shows that PA lacks an intellectual core that defines the nature of public administration as a professional practice, and in turn, the nature of PA as an academic discipline. Further, while CPA bears the same deficiencies, it also suffers from three maladies, namely, reductionism, traditionalism, and conservatism, which together reinforce mediocrity. In view of all these issues and problems, where CPA is headed? Our literature review reports some ongoing research breakthroughs in CPA, including ontological confirmation of public administration nature and identification of necessary conditions for effective administrative results, which form a basis to suggest that CPA may become a basic science and design science.

     

Survey Research in Public Administration: Assessing Mainstream Journals with a Total Survey Error Framework

Survey research is a common tool for assessing public opinions, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors for analyses in many social science disciplines. Yet there is little knowledge regarding how specific elements of survey research methodology are applied in practice in public administration. This article examines five mainstream public administration journals over an eight‐year period regarding current methodological practice, organized around the total survey error framework. The findings show that survey research in the field of public administration features mainly small‐scale studies, heavy reliance on a single data collection mode, questionable sample selection procedures, and suspect sample frame quality. Survey data largely are analyzed without careful consideration of assumptions or potential sources of error. An informed evaluation of the quality of survey data is made more difficult by the fact that many journal articles do not detail data collection procedures. This study concludes with suggestions for improving the quality and reporting of survey research in the field.     

There is no “point” in decision-making: a model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration

The hope that policy-making is a rational process lies at the heart of policy science and democratic practice. However, what constitutes rationality is not clear. In policy deliberations, scientific, democratic, moral, and ecological concerns are often at odds. Harold Lasswell, in instituting the contemporary policy sciences, found that John Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy provided an integrative foundation that took into account all these considerations. As the policy sciences developed with a predominantly empirical focus on discrete aspects of policy-making, this holistic perspective was lost for a while. Contemporary theorists are reclaiming pragmatist philosophy as a framework for public policy and administration. In this article, key postulates of pragmatist philosophy are transposed to policy science by developing a new theoretical model of transactive rationality. This model is developed in light of current policy analyses, and against the backdrop of three classical policy science theories of rationality: linear and bounded rationalism; incrementalism; and mixed-scanning. Transactive rationality is a “fourth approach” that, by integrating scientific, democratic, moral, and ecological considerations, serves as a more holistic, explanatory, and normative guide for public policy and democratic practice.     

The Future of the Study of Public Administration: Embedding Research Object and Methodology in Epistemology and Ontology

What should be done to advance the study of public administration? A strong argument is advanced by outgoing PAR managing editor Jos C. N. Raadschelders that the field benefits significantly from greater attention to ontology and epistemology. To be sure, empirical, evidence‐based research has its place, but its basis and the meaning of findings seldom are questioned. Why? Many public administration scholars seek “scientificness” through a disciplinary type of methodology. However, working within an inherently interdisciplinary field, public administration scholars cannot reduce the complex, wicked problems of society and government to mere empirical measurement. The author lays out five critical challenges confronting today’s public administration—both its study and research—requiring the field’s urgent attention in order to meet the comprehensive and rapidly expanding needs of specialists and generalists, practitioners and academicians, as well as the general public.     

Repositioning American Public Administration? Citizen Estrangement,Administrative Reform,and the Disarticulated State

Levels of citizen estrangement from government in the United States have risen rather consistently since the late 1960s and have reached all‐time highs in recent years. Evidence is accumulating in political science research to suggest that public administrative theory may have contributed to this trend since the Progressive Era in the early 1900s. The authors develop this thesis by arguing that administrative theory in the United States has persistently portrayed public managers as “bridge builders” who link an expertise‐challenged citizenry to government in ways that emphasize bureaucratic over democratic administration. Moreover, despite claims of yet another “new” paradigmatic shift for the field, collaborative governance scholarship to date exhibits similar tendencies. To support this argument, the authors assess the common citizen‐marginalizing tendencies of three sets of administrative reforms in American public administration: the progressive, associationalist, and polycentric heritages. They offer counterarguments to this thesis and call for critical self‐reflection by the field and a more empirically robust research agenda on this topic.     

Behavioral Public Administration ad fontes: A Synthesis of Research on Bounded Rationality,Cognitive Biases,and Nudging in Public Organizations

This article provides a comprehensive overview of how policy makers, practitioners, and scholars can fruitfully use behavioral science to tackle public administration, management, and policy issues. The article systematically reviews 109 articles in the public administration discipline that are inspired by the behavioral sciences to identify emerging research trajectories, significant gaps, and promising applied research directions. In an attempt to systematize and take stock of the nascent behavioral public administration scholarship, the authors trace it back to the seminal works of three Nobel Laureates—Herbert Simon, Daniel Kahneman, and Richard Thaler—and their work on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging, respectively. The cognitive biases investigated by the studies reviewed fall into the categories of accessibility, loss aversion, and overconfidence/optimism. Nudging and choice architecture are discussed as viable strategies for leveraging these cognitive traps in an attempt to alter behavior for the better, among both citizens and public servants.     

Playground or Church? Implications for Public Administration from Trinity Lutheran v. Comer

The roots of public administration are in the fields of management, political science, and the law. The law is underrepresented in the literature and is not as well understood by nonlawyer practitioners, yet it increasingly enables, constrains, and prescribes government action. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving whether a government grant awarded on secular criteria must be provided to a qualified church. This article contributes to the field's understanding of the interplay of law and administration by examining the constitutional issues in the case and their implications for public administration. By considering how this dispute was framed and the ways in which the court approached its resolution, public officials can better understand the issues in similar cases; anticipate potential disputes; and (re)design policies that will serve their communities, remain within constitutional limits, and reduce the likelihood of litigation.     

Introduction to the Special Issue on Comparative Chinese/American Public Administration

In the field of public administration practice, China has a history of several thousand years, whereas the United States has a much shorter history of hundreds of years of governance. In terms of the scholarly development of public administration in China, the roots of those intellectual resources can be traced far back, to Confucius’s ideology of governance and the ancient development of a civil service system some 2,000 years ago. In terms of the systematic development of public administration as an independent subject of learning, however, the United States has been a leader worldwide. Public administration as a discipline in the United States dates back to the late nineteenth century, with extensive scholarly research and publications in the early twentieth century ( Follett 1926 ; Goodnow 1900 ; Taylor 1912 ; Weber 1922 ; White 1926 ). In the Chinese context, although there were occasional studies of public administration in the first half of the twentieth century, systematic study was deferred until the middle of the 1980s. They were only truly continued following the official launch of master of public administration degree programs at the beginning of the twenty‐first century. In this respect, China was a latecomer, and Chinese scholars almost always date the study and scholarship in this field to about 1980. Over the past eighty years or so, the United States has established more than 200 MPA and related programs, while China has founded 100 MPA programs in just the past eight years. Recognizing the urgent need for MPA training, China is trying to catch up to the demand for social development and societal transition. Considering that China has a population of 1.3 billion, compared to a population of 300 million in the United States, it looks as if there is great potential for China to expand its MPA programs.     

Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate

New Public Management (NPM) recently has been compared and contrasted with public governance (PG) to illustrate shifts in conceptions of public administrations and in reform agendas. The authors develop measures to capture the relevance of NPM and PG in textual discourse and investigate the extent to which they have entered the political debate. Content analysis of electoral programs for the 2005 Italian regional elections reveals that even in this legalistic country, considerable attention was paid to both NPM and PG issues. An important explanatory variable in preference for NPM or PG is party ideology, highlighting often‐ignored within‐country dynamics. Furthermore, the authors show how a methodological approach adapted from mainly political science and business research can be exploited in the field of public administration.     

Public Administration Scholarship and the Politics of Coproducing Academic–Practitioner Research

Developing greater cooperation between researchers and practitioners is a long‐standing concern in social science. Academics and practitioners working together to coproduce research offers a number of potential gains for public administration scholarship, but it also raises some dilemmas. The benefits include bringing local knowledge to bear on the field, making better informed policy, and putting research to better use. However, coproduction of research also involves managing ambiguous loyalties, reconciling different interests, and negotiating competing goals. The authors reflect on their experience of coproducing a research project in the United Kingdom and discuss the challenges that coproducers of research confront. They situate the discussion within a consideration of traditions of public administration scholarship and debates about the role of the academy to understand better the politics of their joint practice. Thinking about the politics of coproduction is timely and enables the authors to become more attuned to the benefits and constraints of this mode of research..     

公共管理视角下的中国危机管理研究——现状、趋势和未来方向

中国近年来社会科学视角的危机管理研究已进入瓶颈期。本文旨在梳理这十年来公共管理视角下的危机管理相关研究,以期为危机管理研究进一步深入发展提供参考。评述文献主要来源于公共管理、政治学、管理学和综合社会科学领域的重要学术期刊以及依据专业知识所选取的近些年来具有代表性的研究专著和报告。在对文献进行分类、编码和统计分析之后,分析结果表明:危机事前分析的文章占据主导地位,而对危机应对过程和危机后分析相对不足;应然研究类文章占据很大比重,但对于危机理论的建构和实证检验的研究比较缺乏;对于危机的综合分析多于单灾种分析。近些年中,虽然上述研究方式依然居于主导地位,但是研究者开始关注危机后的分析,注意理论的建构和检验,特别值得注意的是对于社会安全事件的分析呈上升趋势。最后,本文结合危机管理研究的现状和趋势总结出未来值得研究的若干领域。     

Generating Usable Knowledge through an Experimental Approach to Public Administration

This introduction to the symposium on experimental methods in public administration shows how using experimental methods generates not only research that is empirically credible, but also relates to the real world of public administration. The ten articles in the symposium subject classic public administration theories or hypotheses that have been generated in nonexperimental research to rigorous testing using experimental methods. The first group of articles consists of studies with citizens who interact with government. The second group consists of three studies with public officials.     

Gender and the Personal Shaping of Public Administration in the United States: Mary Anderson and the Women's Bureau, 1920–1930

Scholars of public administration in the United States traditionally view the 1920s as a decade when the administrative orthodoxy, emphasizing efficiency and organizational structure, dominated the field. This viewpoint recently has been challenged by arguments that the social justice–oriented views of women progressives and the philosophy of pragmatism also influenced public administration. However, no one has examined how women public administrators implemented exceptions to the prevailing, masculine viewpoints of administrative objectivity and the strict dichotomy between politics and administration during the 1920s. Using Mary Anderson (1872–1964), the longtime director of the U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau, as a case study, this article examines how her experiences as a woman worker and labor organizer influenced her advocacy of an alternative view of public administration, and how, from 1920 through 1930, she established the Women's Bureau within the prevailing orthodoxy yet also made the government agency a notable exception through its vigorous support of social justice feminism, particularly during and after the 1926 national Women's Industrial Conference.     

Topic Modeling the Research‐Practice Gap in Public Administration

The possible existence of a research‐practice gap is the topic of a long‐standing debate in the field of public administration. In this Viewpoint essay, the authors examine the agendas of scholars and practitioners using the topic modeling technique of computational social science. Topic modeling a content analysis of 35 topics identified in Public Administration Review and PA Times (3,796 articles) showed that just over 50 percent of topics were common to both groups, indicating shared interests. There were, however, topics that the two groups distinctly focused on. Moreover, scholars and practitioners attached significant differences to the weights allocated to the prominent topics in their writing. Taken together, these findings indicate that topic modeling can shed new light on the research‐practice gap in public administration.     

Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative Thought and German Political Theory

To what extent were Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about public administration informed by German organic political theory? Drawing on the writings of Wilson, Lorenz von Stein, and Johann K. Bluntschli on public administration, and comparing American and German primary sources, the author offers insights into Wilson’s general concept of public administration, as well as his understanding of the politics–administration dichotomy. With regard to current administrative research, this study underscores how the transfer of ideas profoundly contributes to advancing comparative public administration and helps clarify terminological difficulties and conflicting perspectives among diverse administrative science traditions.     

One‐way,Two‐way,or Dead‐end Street: British Influence on the Study of Public Administration in America Since 1945

What intellectual influence, if any, have British public administration scholars had on their American counterparts since World War II? In this article, the author briefly reviews the major areas of theory and research in the British study of publication administration, further identifying important contributions by British scholars in the areas of modernist‐empiricism, the new public management, regulation, policy networks and governance, and interpretive theory. Although there is a discernible American influence on British public administration, there is little British impact on U.S. public administration; nowadays it is a one‐way street. Increasingly, British scholars are involved in a growing community of European public administration scholars with whom they share active, two‐way connections. Recent European developments suggest that American and European public administration academics are growing further apart. Due to the immense strength of modernist‐empiricism throughout American universities, plus the interpretive turn to a European epistemology of “blurred genres,” these twin, traditionally self‐referential, communities seem to be parting company with an attendant danger that future intellectual engagement may be a dead end.     

We Need to Compare,but How? Measurement Equivalence in Comparative Public Administration

In addition to public administrations and public managers, there is increasing interest in studying citizens’ interactions with and views toward government from a comparative perspective in order to put theories to the test using cross‐national surveys. However, this will only succeed if we adequately deal with the diverse ways in which respondents in different countries and regions perceive and respond to survey measures. This article examines the concept of cross‐national measurement equivalence in public administration research and explores methods for establishing equivalence. Two methodologies are examined that test and correct for measurement nonequivalence: multiple‐group confirmatory factor analysis and multilevel mixture item response theory. These techniques are used to test and establish the cross‐national measurement equivalence of two popular measurement constructs: citizen satisfaction with public services and trust in public institutions. Results show that appropriately dealing with nonequivalence accounts for different forms of biases that otherwise would be undetected. The article contributes to the methodological advancement in studying public administration beyond domestic borders.