Dubnick, Melvin J., “Demons, Spirits, and Elephants: Reflections on the Failure of Public Administration Theory.” Prepared for delivery at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta Hilton and Towers and Atlanta Marriott Marquis, September 2-5, 1999. Copyright by the American Political Science Association
Abstract: For the past half-century, those defining the field of Public Administration in their role as its leading “theorists” have been preoccupied with defending the enterprise against the evils of value-neutral logical positivism. This polemical review of that period focuses on the Simon-Waldo debate that ultimately leads the field to adopt a “professional” identity rather than seek disciplinary status among the social sciences. A survey of recent works by the field’s intellectual leaders and “gatekeepers” demonstrates that the anti-positivist obsession continues, oblivious to significant developments in the social sciences. The paper ends with a call for Public Administrationists to engage in the political and paradigmatic upheavals required to shift the field toward a disciplinary stance.
Author’s Note:
Although widely circulated and sometimes used as a “foil” of sorts in graduate seminars, this paper was not published until 2018. See https://dubnick.net/publications/2018-demons-spirits-and-elephants/.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document critically examines the identity crisis and theoretical challenges within the field of Public Administration, calling for a disciplinary shift.
Field’s Identity Crisis and Community
- Public Administration faces a long-standing, resistant identity crisis, shifting from adolescence to mid-life.
- The community of scholars is an “imagined community” with shared interests, not strict boundaries.
Disciplinary Development and Consensus Building
- The field’s emergence involved founding myths and canonical texts, but consensus remains weak.
- Organizational growth includes academic units and associations, yet ambivalence about its social science status persists.
Challenges to Public Administration’s Scientific Status
- Post-WWII debates challenged its claim to science and normative foundations, leading to a non-disciplinary identity.
- The field’s struggle for a unified paradigm hampers its development as a social science discipline.
Professional vs. Disciplinary Identity
- Dwight Waldo proposed acting as a profession without formal discipline, emphasizing broad social purpose.
- The professional stance aims to unify diverse interests and maintain the field’s broad, inclusive nature.
Historical Development of Public Administration
- The field’s identity crisis stemmed from a split between social science researchers and practitioners.
- Postwar efforts aimed to establish Public Administration as a distinct social science or professional field.
Key Debates and Theoretical Foundations
- Simon’s 1947 “Administrative Behavior” challenged prewar principles, advocating for scientific social science.
- Waldo emphasized the importance of normative, value-based approaches over strict positivism.
Simon’s Scientific Approach and Criticism
- Simon rooted his work in logical positivism, emphasizing empirical verification and decision-making theories.
- His efforts aimed to legitimize Public Administration as a credible social science but faced resistance within the field.
Waldo’s Normative and Cultural Perspective
- Waldo criticized the overemphasis on facts, stressing the normative, value-laden nature of public administration.
- He argued that theories must incorporate ethical and normative considerations central to democratic governance.
The Simon-Waldo Intellectual Conflict
- Their debate shaped the field’s ongoing struggle between scientific rigor and normative, value-based approaches.
- Waldo viewed Simon’s scientific methods as insufficient for capturing the normative essence of public administration.
Field’s Struggle for Disciplinary Status
- Achieving recognition as a social science requires consensus, distinct units, and professionalization.
- Public Administration remains multidisciplinary, borrowing from political science, sociology, and management.
Challenges to Social Science Identity
- The field faces internal bias against scientific methods and external skepticism from mainstream social sciences.
- Efforts to legitimize Public Administration as a social science are hindered by historical biases and methodological debates.
Future Directions and Critiques
- Some scholars advocate reforming methodologies to align with mainstream social sciences.
- Others call for a radical rethinking of the field’s worldview, emphasizing ontological and normative shifts.
- The ongoing debate reflects a tension between maintaining normative standards and adopting scientific rigor.
Normativist Perspective on Public Administration
- Emphasizes ethical issues and values in research and theory development.
- Seeks a normative theory guiding “good” public service beyond empirical data.
Reformist Approach to Methodology
- Aims to align Public Administration with social science standards through methodological reforms.
- Focuses on adjusting methods to fit the field’s unique subject matter and improving researcher competency.
Challenges in Building a Disciplinary Social Science
- Field lacks a coherent theory or research program based on existing knowledge.
- Propositions are often summaries rather than testable hypotheses, limiting theory development.
Limitations of Knowledge Organization Efforts
- Attempts to create comprehensive inventories do not meet social science standards for causal mechanisms.
- Relying on varied research quality hampers establishing causal links and theory-building.
Alternative Epistemologies and Methodologies
- Advocates for historicism, interpretivism, and critical theory challenge mainstream positivist standards.
- These approaches emphasize understanding power structures, historical context, and subjective meanings.
Critical Theory and Its Application
- Uses frameworks like psychoanalysis to analyze organizational evil and power dynamics.
- Often relies on unverified assumptions, risking arbitrary conclusions and conceptual ambiguity.
Epistemological and Conceptual Issues
- Alternative approaches often lack empirical verification and clear definitions, e.g., “evil.”
- Use of historical and interpretive methods is criticized for being selective and non-testable.
Normative and Ethical Foundations
- Normativists argue for a moral basis guiding research and practice rooted in democratic values.
- Emphasize the importance of moral content in theories and reject value-neutral approaches.
Transformation and Postmodern Perspectives
- Seek ontological shifts to challenge modernist assumptions about rationality and objectivity.
- Advocate for viewing reality as socially constructed and malleable, emphasizing language and categories.
Impact on Field Identity and Research Standards
- Normativist dominance discourages mainstream social science engagement.
- Critical and relativist approaches are seen as hindering Public Administration’s disciplinary status.
Postmodernism and Its Social Impact
- Emerging from diverse sources, postmodernism questions society’s shift from Enlightenment-based modernity.
- It predicts a future lacking firm intellectual grounding, with mixed optimism and anxiety about societal change.
Divergent Views on Postmodernism
- Some, like Drucker, see postmodernism as a chance for positive societal and economic transformation.
- Most contemporary thinkers express concern over dehumanizing effects and loss of meaning under modern rational techniques.
Critical and Transformational Approaches in Public Administration
- Fox and Miller, and McSwite, critique current conditions but advocate for radical change.
- They promote rethinking bureaucracy and democracy through constructivist discourse and relational pragmatism.
Anti-Positivist and Utopian Perspectives
- Transformationists reject mainstream social science, emphasizing human subjectivity and utopian visions.
- They dismiss positivist methods, viewing knowledge as a tool for utopian programs, often risking ideological bias.
Challenges of Social Science Methodologies
- Social sciences face ongoing debates over research standards, methods, and ethics across disciplines.
- There is a shift toward valuing diverse approaches, including narrative and historical analysis, over strict positivism.
Evolution of Social Science Knowledge
- Social sciences are characterized by multiple discourses on values, theories, and interpretations.
- Logical positivism is seen as an idealization that prompted reaction, leading to more open, diverse research standards.
Future Directions for Public Administration
- Engaging with broader social science discourses can enhance understanding and disciplinary relevance.
- Overcoming traditional gatekeeping and embracing reflexivity and emotional complexity are key for progress.