Dubnick, Melvin J. “Demons, Spirits, and Elephants: Reflections on the Failure of Public Administration Theory.” Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs 4, no. 1 (2018): 59-115.
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: This paper was originally written and presented in 1999 as both a critical reflection on Public Administration’s ongoing “identity crisis” and a rather (often too harsh) assessment of several recently published works that seemed exemplary of the problem being highlighted. Although some aspects of the argument made in the paper did find an outlet (see Dubnick, 2000), its length and contentious tone meant it was unlikely to find a mainstream outlet for publication. Nevertheless, it did circulate among colleagues and generated some collegial and published reaction (see Bogason et al., 2000). Eventually relegated to a location at the author’s website, it continued to circulate via intermittent downloads, with notable increases in “hits” at the beginning of each academic term. It seems that over the years it became required reading in a number of doctoral seminars at various institutions, and as some graduates of those programs have taken up positions at other institutions, the paper’s life and influence (for good or bad) has been sustained.
With the advent of online journals such as the Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs (JPNA), it became logistically possible to consider publishing a lengthy piece such as “Demons…,” and I was pleasantly surprised when the editors approached me about revisiting the paper for possible publication. As flattering as the suggestion seemed, the prospect of undertaking what might be regarded as the longest “revise and resubmit” in history was daunting, not merely due to the length and complexity of the paper and its thesis, but also because my views of the field and works (and “gatekeepers”) I critiqued have modified and mellowed somewhat. What we did agree on was to have JPNA publish the original paper (with a few very minor tweaks) along with some external commentary. The result is that what you are about to read has not been “updated” as to facts, and especially as to opinion; moreover, you will not find a reference in the bibliography more recent than 1999. That said, I hope some of the arguments offered can still prove valuable to those who, like me, are committed to the future of our field.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document critically examines the ongoing identity crisis in Public Administration, its historical roots, and the failure of its theorists to establish it as a recognized social science discipline.
Field’s Identity Crisis and Its Historical Context
- Public Administration faces an ongoing struggle to establish a clear disciplinary identity.
- The field has oscillated between being seen as a profession, social science, or craft.
Role of Consensus in Discipline Formation
- Building consensus through origin myths and canonical texts is vital for discipline development.
- Weak or fragmented consensus leads to internal challenges and weak organizational structures.
Organizational Structures and Academic Recognition
- Growth in academic units and programs shows some progress but reflects lingering identity ambiguities.
- The field’s weak status within broader social sciences hampers recognition and resource allocation.
Debates on Public Administration’s Professional vs. Disciplinary Status
- Waldo advocates acting as a profession without formal discipline, emphasizing broad social purpose.
- The field remains more aligned with professional education than a distinct social science discipline.
Disciplinary Status in Public Administration
- Achieving disciplinary status involves consensus, distinct identity, and professionalization.
- Public Administration struggles with establishing itself as a social science due to lack of core consensus.
Historical Debates and Key Figures
- Simon’s 1947 “Administrative Behavior” challenged prewar principles, advocating for a social science approach rooted in logical positivism.
- Waldo emphasized normative and normative-critical perspectives, criticizing Simon’s focus on facts and value separation.
Simon’s Social Science Approach
- Advocated for empirical, verifiable knowledge based on logical positivism, emphasizing decision-making processes.
- His work aimed to develop administrative sciences with practical and theoretical value, influencing broader disciplines.
Waldo’s Normative and Cultural Critique
- Criticized the strict fact/value separation, stressing the normative and normative-critical importance in public administration.
- Believed normative theories and cultural norms are central to understanding democratic and effective administration.
The Simon-Waldo Debate and Its Impact
- Their contrasting views shaped the field’s identity crisis, with Simon favoring scientific rigor and Waldo emphasizing normative and cultural aspects.
- The debate influenced the field’s defensive stance against positivist social science and its normative foundations.
Challenges to Social Scientific Methods
- Public Administration faces skepticism about applying physical science methods to human behavior.
- The field struggles with methodological limitations and the social, political, and ideological implications of adopting a “value-neutral” science.
Efforts Toward Disciplinary Recognition
- Reformers focus on improving research methods and researcher competency to meet social science standards.
- Many efforts aim to organize existing knowledge into coherent frameworks, but lack clear agendas for theory development.
Alternative Perspectives and Critiques
- Alternativists question the epistemological feasibility of applying scientific methods to public administration.
- They argue that technical rationality and methodological reforms cannot resolve deeper epistemological issues.
Gatekeeping and Field Identity
- Public Administration theorists often resist adopting mainstream social science standards, maintaining a defensive posture.
- The field’s gatekeepers perpetuate a bias against positivist research, hindering disciplinary status and theory-building.
Overall Field Development
- Despite influential work, Public Administration remains fragmented and resistant to becoming a unified social science.
- The ongoing desire for disciplinary status is challenged by methodological, normative, and ideological debates.
Critique of Mainstream and Alternative Epistemologies
- Mainstream social science, especially positivism, faces criticism for its narrow standards and reliance on technical rationality.
- Alternativist approaches like historicism, interpretivism, and critical theory challenge these standards but often lack empirical rigor and clear validation methods.
Impact of Alternativist Approaches on Public Administration
- These approaches promote epistemological diversity but tend to weaken the field’s disciplinary status.
- They shift focus toward humanities-based research, emphasizing historical, interpretive, and critical methods that often lack rigorous evidence.
Critical Theory and Its Challenges
- Critical theory, exemplified by Adams and Balfour’s “Unmasking Administrative Evil,” relies on controversial frameworks like object-relations psychology without empirical validation.
- Its focus on uncovering “administrative evil” aims to raise consciousness but often uses selective history and vague concepts like “evil,” risking stereotyping and undermining scientific standards.
Normativist Perspectives and Ethical Foundations
- Normativists seek a normative theory grounded in democratic values and ethics, emphasizing “spirit” and moral content in public administration.
- They criticize value-neutral approaches and argue that research should serve moral and normative goals, often leading to rhetoric rather than empirical knowledge.
Postmodern and Transformationist Movements
- Postmodernists question the ontologies and categories used in public administration, advocating for a constructed, malleable view of reality.
- Transformationists aim to radically overhaul the field, rejecting positivism and promoting utopian, humanist, and relational approaches that often dismiss scientific standards.
Social Science Discourse and Field Evolution
- Social sciences are characterized by ongoing discourses about values, methods, and interpretations, with no single dominant paradigm.
- Public administration has historically tilted toward a positivist, technocratic model, but recent shifts favor diversity and reflexivity, though often at the expense of disciplinary rigor.
Status and Discipline of Public Administration
- Public administration often remains within political science departments, facing relationship issues.
- Its recognition outside academia is limited, as seen in job postings and discipline status debates.
Epistemological and Scientific Foundations
- The field’s scientific status has been debated, with efforts to apply natural science methods.
- Key figures like Simon and Waldo emphasized scientific approaches, but faced criticism for limitations and philosophical conflicts.
Historical Development and Key Movements
- Formation dates of the discipline vary (1926, 1928, 1934), reflecting evolving perspectives.
- Early efforts aimed at establishing public administration as a distinct science, with debates on scientific methods and community norms.
Methodological and Theoretical Challenges
- The discipline struggles with epistemological issues, including positivism, interpretivism, and postmodern critiques.
- Formal models, axiomatic theories, and qualitative approaches are debated, with limited mainstream adoption of formal methods.
Influence of Political Realism and Normative Perspectives
- Post-war debates included political realists opposing the politics/administration dichotomy.
- Normative and historical approaches emphasize values, constitutional principles, and ethical considerations.
Role of Research and Publication Culture
- Mainstream social science research faces barriers in publication within public administration journals.
- Researchers often publish outside the field, reinforcing its isolation and affecting research standards.
Postmodern and Critical Approaches
- Postmodern critiques challenge totalizing theories and emphasize diversity, language, and narrative.
- Critical models focus on emancipation and praxis, contrasting with rational and interpretive paradigms.
Overall Reflection
- The discipline faces ongoing debates about scientific legitimacy, methodological diversity, and normative roles.
- Its future depends on integrating scientific rigor with ethical, historical, and critical insights.