Speaking truth to academics: The wisdom of the practitioners

Abstract: Academic scholars, both as researchers and teachers, need the ideas and insights of reflective practitioners on the real world of the public service. Public servants can “speak truth to academics” in the broad sense of providing information, analysis and counsel concerning the public service and candid commentary on scholarly writings. Conceptualizing the public servant as a theorist involved in research through reflection‐on‐action highlights the importance of the scholarly practitioner as a source of learning. This article profiles several public servants whose contributions to the scholarly literature on public administration have had substantial influence in the academic community. Among the factors limiting such contributions are time constraints, the scarcity of publication outlets and lack of senior‐level support. Incentives to write for publication include personal interest and motivation and invitations to contribute to a conference, book or article or to collaborate with someone else. Practitioner contributions to scholarly writing can be fostered by such means as co‐authorship with academics, communities of practice and senior‐level encouragement. Academic scholars can help foster the systematic accumulation of knowledge in the public service and its transfer beyond government. Sommaire : Les universitaires, qu'ils soient chercheurs ou enseignants, ont besoin des idées et des perspectives de praticiens qui réfléchissent sur le monde concret de la fonction publique. Les fonctionnaires peuvent « révéler la vérité aux universitaires » au sens large du terme en fournissant des informations, des analyses et des conseils sur la fonction publique et des commentaires francs sur les publications savantes. Le fait de concevoir le fonctionnaire comme un théoricien engagé dans la recherche grâce à la réflexion sur l'action souligne l'importance du praticien universitaire comme source d'apprentissage. Cet article dresse le profil de plusieurs fonctionnaires dont les contributions aux publications érudites sur l'administration publique ont eu une influence considérable dans le milieu universitaire. Parmi les facteurs qui restreignent de telles contributions, on note les contraintes de temps, la rareté des débouchés pour les publications, et le manque de soutien de la part de la haute direction. Les motivations qui encouragent la rédaction d'articles en vue de publication comprennent l'intérêt personnel, les invitations à contribuer à une conférence, à un livre ou à un article, ou bien la collaboration avec quelqu'un d'autre. Les praticiens peuvent être incités à contribuer à la recherche si on leur donne la possibilité d'être coauteurs avec des universitaires, de participer à des communautés de praticiens et de recevoir les encouragements de la haute direction. Les universitaires peuvent contribuer à l'accumulation systématique de connaissances dans la fonction publique en les faisant passer au‐delà du gouvernement.     

An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials

An investigation of the impact of innovations in civil trial procedure manipulated trial structure (unitary vs. separated trial issues), order of decisions (liability or causation first), and number of decisions made (one to four) in a simulated toxic tort trial. Juries gave verdicts and damage awards. Recordings were made of the juries' deliberations. The results showed significantly more verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs in unitary trials (causation, liability, and damages heard together) as opposed to separated trials. However, average damage awards were higher in the separated than in the unitary trial conditions. Juries assigned more responsibility to the defendant in the unitary trial. Juries also used the totality of the evidence to decide all issues, especially general causation, which contained the most ambiguous testimony. The performance of these simulated juries in complex litigation was discussed in terms of group and individual cognitive factors.     

IDEOLOGY AND POLICY RESEARCH: THE CASE OF MURRAY'S LOSING GROUND

Ideology and policy research are intertwined in many ways; an example is Murray's Losing Ground which uses “science” to justify racial, sexual, and class discrimination. Murray is utterly faithful to the neoconservative version of how liberalism went wrong in the 1960s. He says an intellectual elite shifted the blame for poverty, crime and low achievement to “the system” destroying individual responsibility. But his argument is not supported by evidence. Data are bent tofit foregone conclusions. He argues that more people are becoming dependent on government support, but his method of counting who receives assistance is a fiction. Nevertheless his argument has wide appeal among Americans. Why? His argument touches the self-interested Social Darwinist in almost all of us.