The Problem

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The methodology of the critical theoretic paradigm of enquiry, however, has been described as “dialogic and dialectical” (110). That is, a dialogue must occur between the subjects of the inquiry and the inquirer, and that dialogue must be dialectical in nature in order to transform ignorance and misapprehensions into a more informed consciousness. Similarly, the methodology of the constructivist/interpretivist paradigm of enquiry is considered to be “hermeneutical and dialectical in nature” (111). 1 That is, because in this paradigm reality is considered to be relativist – “multiple, intangible mental constructs, socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature … and dependent for their form on the individual persons or groups holding the constructions” – it is believed that individual “constructions” can be elicited and understood only through interaction between and among investigator and respondents (111). Point: the methodologies of the newer paradigms of enquiry are mostly qualitative in nature and require that we (as the inquirer) actually talk to people, not simply elicit information (data) from them. It is from this simple point that we level an accusation at P.A. methodologists. Our charge is that while the field of public administration has been steadily moving, on the theoretical side of the field/discipline, toward critical theoretic, interpretivist, and (gulp) postmodern perspectives, we have not kept pace on the methodological side. Quantitative methods courses firmly rooted in the scientific method of falsification are still the curriculum norm. What few qualitative courses that are offered in a few programs scattered throughout the U.S. almost exclusively focus on the methods derived for other disciplines. While many of these disciplines are beginning to subscribe to the same paradigmatic orientations just presented, their world of application is not the public organization and/or the general 1 For public administration scholars who have studied the concept of paradigms with reference to Burrell and Morgan’s “sociological paradigms,” (a conceptual framework that unfortunately is not commonly used in other ealms of the social sciences), the concepts of critical theoretic and constuctivist paradigms loosely translate to Burrell and Morgan’s radical humanist and interpretivist paradigms. respectively. 10
public. Different constraints are identifiable with each field of application, such as anthropology and sociology. This is not to say that we cannot learn from these disciplines. Quite the contrary, methodological exegesis in these other disciplines is quite developed and we would be wont to reinvent the wheel. What we do need to do, however, is consider how these approaches can be modified to work within the constraints of public administration research. Our first cut at a methodological solution addressing the point made above, that newer paradigms of inquiry are mostly qualitative in nature and require that we (as the inquirer) actually talk to people, is what is referred to as stakeholder analysis. Stakeholder analysis focuses on the need of the practitioner/researcher to understand who they should be talking to, as well as why they should be talking to them. Our interpretation of a stakeholder analysis methodology is designed specifically to be used in either a critical theoretic or interpretivist research mode and is firmly rooted in an understanding of the network context of the public administrator. A Pragmatic Approach The approach to be advocated here places a premium on utility over elegance. That is, it emphasizes progress over perfection. The approach is more an amalgamation of various tools and approaches than a theoretical doctrine, although it is devised for use by those sharing a critical and/or constructivist perspective. From this perspective, “it appears less as a solution, than…as a program for more work, and more particularly as an indication of the ways in which existing realities may be changed. Theories thus become instruments, not answers to enigmas in which we can rest” (James, 1982: 213). Hence it focuses on the requirements of the situation. How one chooses to set-up their stakeholder identification and management system will ultimately depend upon what they want it to accomplish. An extra-contextual approach to stakeholder identification would simply be unhelpful (Tennert, 1998). 11
Page 1 and 2: Stakeholder Analysis: A Tool for Ne
Page 3 and 4: Stakeholder Analysis - A Tool for N
Page 5 and 6: public administrator, however, are
Page 7 and 8: while at the same time calling for
Page 9: y an “objective” inquirer manda
Page 13 and 14: which aim to capture the richness o
Page 15 and 16: stakeholders or a manager who is co
Page 17 and 18: perhaps the most dynamic. Because t
Page 19 and 20: implementation process. Snowballing
Page 21 and 22: which is a private sector entity, t
Page 23 and 24: unhelpful. As Melissa Powell notes,
Page 25: Figure 1 - Time, Energy, and the Im
Page 28 and 29: Figure 4 Diagnostic Typology for Pr
Page 30 and 31: Table 1 Who Is A Stakeholder? Sourc
Page 32 and 33: Table 3 Sample Directed Interview I
Page 34 and 35: Goldenberg, Sheldon. 1992. Thinking
Page 36: Timney, M.M. (1996). “Overcoming

The Problem

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?