Suchergebnisse

In 2010, the state is not merely hollow but increasingly empty, and those of us in government have to find their energy and purpose in the process of rebuilding it. Our happy endings—the specific outcomes we claim to want—somehow come along with unexpected twists and losses. We've discovered that life and governance aren't linear and predictable. In the 20th century, public administration (PA) ignored pragmatism, in large part, because it did not provide blueprints or formulas or promise specific outcomes. When PA asked, "How will this inclusive process of inquiry produce efficient results?" Pragmatism answered, "Efficiency? Does our Constitution call for efficiency? No, it's the process that matters. Trust the process, involve as many citizens in the process as possible, invest in the development of citizens' capacity to join and contribute to the process. If the process is right, our path through the woods will go in the right direction, and 'right' (if not predictable) outcomes will follow. The process is continuous, and as circumstances change, the process adapts." In the past we rejected Pragmatism. Today, perhaps, we need to reflect on our understanding of what governance is, and possibly to reexamine those strange ideas Pragmatism offered once upon a time.

This article argues that it would be not only possible, but also prudent, for the field of public management to reclaim the philosophy of John Dewey as a guiding ethos for its practice. In Dewey's view, the democratic community is responsible for ensuring that each person's capacity for participation and self-government is fully developed. In such a community, citizens would engage in inquiry to choose appropriate action in particular situations. The public manager would participate in this process by contributing his or her expert knowledge but would not make policy decisions. Today's decentralized and reinvented government presents an opportunity for the practice to reconnect to citizens in processes such as those advocated by Dewey.

In this article, the authors examine the importance of expressive and aesthetic truth claims to public administration scholars, and present a model to aid them in making and evaluating such claims. Sincere expression adds credibility to an argument, and quality of expression can lend elegance to a truth claim. Expressive or aesthetic truth claims are not merely used to heighten emotions or enhance sensory experience; more importantly, they can also contribute to the efficacy of an empirical or normative truth claim. Through the judicious use of these truth claims, significance and meaning can be attached to the bare facts of empirical inquiry or a recommendation to act.

This article presents a conceptual model related to normative truth claims and is advanced as part of a larger project involving the development of a logical taxonomy of options available to public administration scholars as they assess projects of various kinds. The model differentiates among five types of truth claims, two paradigmatic options, various theoretical perspectives, four forms of argumentation, and several kinds of evidence, creating a roadmap that can be used by scholars—particularly those just entering the field—to conceptualize and articulate their projects. It also provides a framework against which normative truth claims can be evaluated.