Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn this essay, I take stock of the red tape research program (and research programs on administrative burden and sludge) to assess whether subjective individual experience has been given its rightful due in public policy and public administration. My primary purpose is to assess how concepts facilitate or hinder our understanding of the subjective individual experience. To serve this purpose, I present a conceptual analysis strategy and elaborate on the value of interrogating the modularity assumption (fit between conceptualization and experience). I conclude by advocating for consilience across concepts and research programs to better capture the subjective individual experience.

Despite widespread agreement about goals of knowledge development in public administration, there is imbalance in efforts directed at these goals. The overlap between the domains of theory and practice is not substantial. Important concerns in public administration theory and practice are outweighed by naïve quantitative bias (NQB), an unfortunate methodological artifact. This symposium seeks to highlight this imbalance and to nudge the public administration scholarly community toward paying attention to theoretical and practical matters, recognizing NQB and mitigating its undesirable effects on knowledge development. Broadly speaking, two recommendations emerge from symposium contributions. The first recommendation emphasizes paying attention to theoretical goals. The second recommendation is to promote reflexivity about how the domains of theory and method interact to counter the methodological artifact of NQB. A brief overview of each article in the symposium and its contribution to advancing knowledge development is provided.

Aus indischer Sicht