The Science of Public Administration: Problems,Presumptions, Progress,and Possibilities

Nearly 70 years ago, Dahl noted the difficulty of constructing a science of public administration that was plagued by three interrelated problems: values, behavior, and culture. Underlying all three problems was the presumption that public administration could establish a set of universal principles independent of moral or political ends, individual human differences, or social influences. In discussing these three broad and easily accessible themes, Dahl did more than identify and critique the field's problems and presumptions. He also provided a road map to move the field forward and establish a science of public administration. Drawing on the framework provided by Dahl, this article argues that the field has made considerable progress in recognizing, if not addressing, each problem raised by Dahl. Even so, several current presumptions or omissions are also identified that, if challenged, can provide additional possibilities to advance the science of public administration.     

The Trial of Scopes: Perestroika,Epic Political Theory,and the Dominance of Method

This work takes up where Vanessa Ruget's 2002 New Political Science article leaves off in discussing the nature of political science in light of the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Ruget argues that there is a clear “establishment” at work in the discipline, benefiting from various types of “capital” and other reproduction strategies. The Perestroika movement, she believes, seeks in part to expose the supremacy of certain approaches to political science. I build upon Bourdieu's notion of reproduction strategies and discuss the limiting of the scope of political theory over the past 30 years as part of the (re)production strategy of a “methodized” political science. In this I utilize Sheldon Wolin's arguments concerning political theory as vocation and the importance of “epic” political theory as an attempt to resist the narrowing re-scoping of political theory and science.     

Open Data for Science,Policy, and the Public Good

Supporters of open data believe that free and complete access to research data is beneficial for science, public policy, and society. In environmental science and policy, open data systems can enable relevant research and inform evidence‐based governmental decisions. This article examines the unlikely case of Brazil's National Institute for Space Research's transition toward an open data model. Considering Brazil's young democracy, incipient practice of government transparency and accountability, and lacking a tradition of science‐policy dialogue, this case is a striking example of how open data can support public debate by making information about forest cover widely available. The case shows the benefits and challenges of developing such open data systems, and highlights the various forms of accessibility involved in making data available to the public.     

Risks,predictions and other optical illusions: Rethinking the use of science in social decision-making

This article examines two examples of what has been called mandated science - risk analysis and long-term energy demand forecasting - with a view to disentangling the implicit assumptions underlying their use in public policy debates and in the policy process. In both fields, there has emerged a growing and very similar challenge to traditional views of the role and status of mandated science in informing decision-making. This challenge has led to the reformulation of some of the attributes of the standard view, without however causing changes in the underlying view of the nature of the problem or the role of science in principle. A deeper critique suggests that mandated science is inherently value-laden, producing conclusions that are strongly affected by theoretical presuppositions that in turn reflect underlying values (e.g., about rationality, knowledge or the role of technology). Thus a sharp separation of science and policy is untenable and amounts to a hidden policy bias in favor of the business-as-usual policies supported by conventional science. There is a need for a new concept of science, one that is more integrated into the policy context, more contextual and openly value-laden, less oriented to mastery over natural and social processes, and more accessible to the public at large.     

Political science,political ideas and rhetoric

The article reviews ‘ideational’ analysis and theory in political science. It argues that this is an important area of research limited by lack of a clear sense of what ideas in politics are and of how to analyse them as directly as possible. It is argued that political science should learn from the ‘rhetorical turn’ in various areas of the social sciences, developing ways, appropriate to political science, of analysing the language, rhetoric and argumentation of political and policy discourse in its governmental contexts. Such an approach rests on a strong sense of the dynamic, contested and creative nature of political activity.     

Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem: IRBs,Rules, and Failures of control

“Institutionalized science ethics” refers to the statutory, professional and institution-based ethical standards that guide and constrain scientists' research work. The primary institution responsible for implementing institutionalized science ethics is the Institutional Review Board. We examine the limitations of IRBs and institutionalized science ethics, using bureaucratic theory and, especially, theory related to the development and enactment of rules. We suggest that due to the very character of rules-based systems, improvements in IRB outcomes are unlikely to be achieved through either more or better rules or even by bureaucratic reform. Instead, we suggest that improvements in human subject protection can best be advanced through increased participation. Ours is not a call for more participation by the general public but participation, via “Participant Review Boards” of persons who are eligible, by the protocols of the research in question, to serve as subjects. This provides a level of legitimacy and face validity that cannot be obtained by IRB affiliates, even by “external representatives.” In making these points, we review a recent science ethics controversy, the KKI/Johns Hopkins lead paint study. In spite of being approved by IRBs, the study resulted in a civil lawsuit that reached the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case illustrates the limits of institutionalized science ethics and the bureaucracies created for their enactment. The case also underscores the complex and equivocal nature of the ethical guidelines established under the National Research Act. We are grateful to – for providing helpful comments on an earlier draft.     

Science,Technology and the New President: Advancing Security,Prosperity, Resilience and Stability for 2009 and The 21st Century

At one time, only 20 years ago, the United States was the undisputed leader globally in virtually every field of science and technology with a reputation for being the place where innovation, technological breakthroughs and cutting‐edge science found a home and thrived. Not so any longer as several other nations, some friendly and others competitive rivals have surged ahead with a robust and growing infrastructure in the broad science and technology ['S&T’] field which surpasses many American programs and displays trends which will eclipse American leadership in the S&T realm. In nanotechnology, biotech and molecular engineering we find ourselves outperformed and outmaneuvered at risk of falling further behind other nations. The situation is not likely to change or improve unless the United States considers this problem to have serious strategic consequences and profound implications for our national security and prosperity.     

How Do Career Strategies,Gender, and Work Environment Affect Faculty Productivity Levels in University‐Based Science Centers?1

Recent studies have shown that in many science and engineering fields, almost 40% of faculty are affiliated with university‐based research centers ( Corley & Gaughan, 2005 ). As major science funding organizations continue to increase annual levels of funding for interdisciplinary science centers, it is likely that this number will increase significantly over the next decade. Moreover, some scholars have argued that the rise of university‐based science centers has already led to the development of a new institutional form for the execution of university‐based research ( Bozeman & Boardman, 2004 ). Yet, interestingly few researchers have studied the impacts of this new institutional form on the productivity of individual researchers. The purpose of this article is to begin to address how individual career strategies and perceptions of scientific work environments within university‐based science centers relate to the productivity of academic scientists who participate in these centers. In particular, this article investigates the relationships between productivity, individual career strategies, and perceptions of scientific work environment across gender. The results of the study demonstrate that university‐based science centers might serve as an equalizing mechanism for male and female productivity levels. Yet, women scientists affiliated with these centers are significantly more likely to feel discriminated against—and they are less likely to embrace the most promising career strategy for the current structure of these centers.     

Environmentalism,pre-environmentalism,and public policy

In the last decade, thousands of new grassroots groups have formed to oppose environmental pollution on the basis that it endangers their health. These groups have revitalized the environmental movement and enlarged its membership well beyond the middle class. Scientists, however, have been unable to corroborate these groups' claims that exposure to pollutants has caused their diseases. For policy analysts this situation appears to pose a choice between democracy and science. It needn't. Instead of evaluating the grassroots groups from the perspective of science, it is possible to evaluate science from the perspective of environmentalism. This paper argues that environmental epidemiology reflects pre-environmentalist assumptions about nature and that new ideas about nature advanced by the environmental movement could change the way scientists collect and interpret data.     

Pursuing Consilience: Using Behavioral Public Administration to Connect Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape,Administrative Burden,and Regulation

Behavioral public administration (BPA) research aspires not only to draw on developments in behavioral science but also, importantly, to address central themes in public administration. By focusing a symposium on bureaucratic red tape, administrative burden, and regulation, we encouraged BPA scholarship to engage with fundamental public administration topics that are also relevant for the broader literature on organizations and management. Indeed, the symposium contributions demonstrate how BPA can better meld the behavioral science and public administration literatures. They expand on existing conceptions of BPA, with respect to both methodology and topical focus, and provide a basis for demarcating what might and might not be usefully described as BPA. The symposium contributions provide a blueprint for how BPA research might usefully evolve and the introduction offers a philosophical reflection on the future development of BPA and behavioral science.     

Let One Hundred Flowers Bloom,Let One Hundred Thoughts Contend: Political Science with Chinese Characteristics

The development of Chinese political science was not a relatively neat and tidy event. It was profoundly impacted by two revolutions, war, civil war, and political turmoil throughout most of the 20th Century. In the first three decades of New China, political science suffered from both ideological rigidity and political suspicion. With the heralding of Reform and Opening-up, Chinese political science has experienced a renaissance, influenced as much by the concept of indigenization (ben tu hua) as Western ideas. Much like its American counterpart, Chinese political science is now experiencing a healthy debate about the primacy of the discipline’s contending intellectual influences and traditions, as well as its core functions and future direction. The on-going debate suggests that Chinese political science is developing, in the words of Deng Zhenglai, “its own plurality of methodological approaches to the study of politics”. This article examines the rise and growth of contemporary Chinese political science, with particular emphasis devoted to the influence that a burgeoning political science with “Chinese Characteristics” will have on the discipline both within and outside China.     

Paradigm,School, or Sect? Some Reflections on the Status of Rational Choice Theory in Contemporary Scandinavian Political Science

There is a marked difference between American and Scandinavian political science when it comes to the position of rational choice theory within the discipline. In the US it is said to have become "probably the hottest thing going in political science today", whereas in Scandinavia it seems at present to linger on the borderline between a school and a sect. As part of a possible explanation for this difference, this article points, on the one hand, to some differences between the status of American and Scandinavian political science and on the other hand to some differences between dominant intellectual traditions. The intellectual differences may in turn be linked to differences between American and Scandinavian politics. Thus, in some respects rational choice theory appears to be more congenial to the American than to a Scandinavian political setting. The article concludes with a short discussion of how ongoing changes in Scandinavian and, more generally, European politics might affect the scientific status of rational choice theory in the future.     

Reflections on Scientific Inquiry,Academic Freedom,and Enlightenment

This paper explores the connections between scientific inquiry, scholarly reflexivity, and enlightenment. I argue that the free intellectual inquiry essential to the practice of science is a fundamental constituent and enactment of human dignity, freedom, and democracy. The expansion and diffusion of these values are both unavoidable in the modern age and immensely valuable, even if there are of course many obstacles to their expansion and no guarantees of their ultimate realization. This process of scientific inquiry also contains the seeds of a discourse ethic with broader ramifications for public enlightenment and perhaps even democratization. I develop these themes through a dialogue with some of the writings of Professor Yu Keping on the topics of Chinese political science and “incremental democracy.”     

Government and Science: A Troubled, Critical Relationship and What Can Be Done about It

The U.S. government–science relationship, which helped win World War II, put a man on the moon, unravel the human genome, and nurture economic growth, is troubled. Money is one reason. However, far more than funding, the tensions between government and science are about politics and policy management. Many scientists and their allies argue that the Bush administration has crossed the line separating appropriate control of information from political interference. That is, there has been a "politicization of science." This essay examines the current debate about politicization in historical context; discusses the tensions among scientists, politicians, and administrators; and suggests possible ways to strengthen the government–science partnership in the future.     

Public Policy and Foreign Policy: Divergences,Intersections, Exchange

Policy studies tend to be divided between domestic matters and foreign affairs. Scholars seldom employ one another's literature, and they largely draw on different traditions within political science. This article explores the potential for cross‐fertilization and calls for greater integration of these related subfields. The argument considers the case for unity, parallelism, and overlap between domestic public policy studies and foreign policy studies. It examines the reasons for the divide and surveys a variety of attempts to find solutions for the problem of intersection at the boundary between national life and the international environment. It places the dichotomy in a broader context of political science as a whole and offers suggestions about potentially fruitful exchanges. It treats globalization and suggests that a theory of the state could be helpful to both tendencies in policy studies.     

Russian and American Cosmism: Religion,National Psyche,and Spaceflight

A product of science, religion, and national culture, cosmism is reflected in academic and popular views about our place in the universe, space exploration, and human destiny. Although linked historically to the Russians, cosmism captures many aspects of American thinking about space. The present comparison shows that prophets, prophecies, striving for perfection, utopian visions, and hopes for salvation are evident in both Russian and American thought, but that there are also differences. Geert Hofstede's cross–cultural research on national values—power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance—is useful for understanding Russian–American differences. Russian acceptance of power inequalities, collectivism, concern for group welfare, and aversion to uncertainty lead to constellations of beliefs and emotions about spaceflight that differ from those bred by American egalitarianism, individualism, obsession with personal achievement, and acceptance of uncertainty. Both Russian and American thinking include occult and paranormal phenomena, but Americans have been more reluctant to assimilate such influences within mainstream science. As a concept, American cosmism captures the occasional blurring of the lines between religion and science in discussions of humanity's place in the universe and future in space.     

Depleted Uranium,Public Science,and the Politics of Closure

The public controversy over depleted uranium (DU) seems to follow a standard trajectory—scientific closure, via the reduction of scientific uncertainty, led directly to policy closure, as government bureaucracies increasingly downplayed its dangers and denied redress to exposed individuals. Closer inspection, however, reveals a more complex dynamic. A series of expert, public science reports, while articulating a shared narrative of DU safety, actually accentuated great uncertainty concerning DU's biological effects, mirroring new uncertainties raised by ongoing scientific research. Policy closure is thus mirrored in neither the scholarly scientific literature nor in broader political realms, suggesting a close and unique relation between the expert reports and governmental policy making. Public science institutions and the expert reports they produce are crucial political resources for resolving governmental policy making but are decidedly less successful at closing the broader political debate.     

Science studies,climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique

Abstract

Starting from the debates over the ‘reality’ of global warming and the politics of science studies, I seek to clarify what is at stake politically in constructivist understandings of science and nature. These two separate but related debates point to the centrality of modern science in political discussions of the environment and to the difficulties, simultaneously technical and political, in warranting political action in the face of inevitably partial and uncertain scientific knowledge. The case of climate change then provides an experimental test case with which to explore the various responses to these challenges offered by Ulrich Beck's reflexive modernization, the normative theory of expertise advanced by Harry Collins and Robert Evans, and Bruno Latour's utopian vision for decision-making by the ‘collective’ in which traditional epistemic and institutional distinctions between science and politics are entirely superseded.     

Recommending a scheme of reason: Political theory,policy science,and democracy

It is the task of policy science, as of political theory generally, to recommend a scheme of reason that will presumably result in better public decisions. This may seem profoundly undemocratic, for in a democracy, should not the people be free to think precisely as they please? Yet all political theory intimates an idea of political reason and unreason. The problem then is which ideal of reason to teach in the name of a policy science of democracy. Herein I compare three common schemes of reason: utilitarian calculation, liberal rationalism, and practical reason. My conclusion is that there is no reason to suppose that the capacity for the more public-spirited forms of deliberation is less widely distributed in the population than calculated self-interest, and that either liberal rationalism or practical reason, or some combination of the two, is more compatible with democracy than utilitarian calculation.     

Aristotle, Hobbes and Chimpanzees

The article is an exercise in the philosophical anthropology of politics. According to Aristotle, man is a political animal but not uniquely so, whereas, according to Hobbes, politics is artificial and the preserve of humans alone. Both Aristotle and Hobbes draw upon contemporary science. The dominant relevant science today is neo-Darwinism – humans are products of evolution and genetically closely related to the other primates. The argument that chimpanzees are political, thus putatively endorsing an Aristotelian rather than a Hobbesian perspective, is scrutinised. However, at best, chimpanzees are only metaphorically political. While this conclusion may weaken the Aristotelian position, it cannot of itself vindicate the Hobbesian one. The philosophical anthropological endeavour to investigate the relation between politics and human nature still has work to do.