The Problem

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What this maturation means for the public administrator has already been stated above. Given this change in contextual formats, research in the field must begin to shift as well in order to effectively manage the changing relationships and dynamics of public life. The public administrator must begin to play more the role of facilitator of decisionmaking and implementation in a network of diffused power and knowledge rather than the autonomous director implementing ex ante decisions. As contexts change, we must be able and willing to devise new tools (or readapt old ones) to manage change in ways that are consistent with broad ranging goals and values. IV. Paradigmatic Shift-Towards Interpretation The methodological question To make progress towards accommodating such a contextual shift, our success will depend upon how we deal with fundamental methodological issues. That is, we must deal seriously with our theoretical approach to accommodating this contextual shift. Specifically, we must begin by first asking some serious methodological questions, such as: How can the inquirer go about finding out whatever he or she believes can be known? or, in this case, how can the practitioner and/or researcher go about finding out who should be at the table? The answer to this question is not straight forward, for it is entirely constrained by the answers that must be derived from two other questions, an ontological one, and an epistemological one. The ontological question asks: What is the form and nature of reality, and, therefore, what can be known about it? The epistemological question asks: How can we know what we know, or, more explicitly, what is the nature of the relationship between the knower and what can be known (that is, if the answer to the first question is that reality has “real,” independently verifiable qualities, then the answer would be that the relationship is an objective, detached and value-neutral one)? The question of methodological determination, therefore, is crucially linked to an individual’s view of possibly known knowledge. For example, “a “real” reality pursued 8
y an “objective” inquirer mandates control of possible confounding factors, whether the methods are qualitative or quantitative” (Guba and Lincoln 1994, 108). If an objective reality were accepted in this case, then a straight-forward statistical analysis might be performed to determine which stakeholders have the highest aggregate rating across a few chosen metrics. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the political/social world within which the public administrator operates will generally preclude the establishment of any such specific metrics. Simply put, the question of methodological enquiry cannot simply be addressed within a discussion about the “methods” to be used. Instead “methods must be fitted to a predetermined methodology” -- a methodology predetermined by the paradigm of enquiry chosen (108). Accordingly, a case can be made that the ontological and epistemological viewpoints expressed in the past decade or two in public administration have been heading from one set (or paradigm) to another (or others). This shift brings with it certain responsibilities, not the least of which is the responsibility to design new methodologies that support the new set of ontological and epistemological assumptions. That is, while the modified experimental method using falsification of hypotheses and highly quantitative methods fit the positivist and post-positivist paradigms of enquiry, they do not necessarily fit the newer critical theoretic and/or interpretive/constructivist paradigms of enquiry (White, 1994; Balfour and Mesaros, 1994; Dryzek, 1982). In the postpositivistic paradigm reality is assumed to exist, as in its predecessor, positivism, but we as human inquirers can only apprehend that reality imperfectly (unlike positivism) given our flawed human intellectual abilities (the ontology has been defined as “critical realism” (Cook & Campbell, 1979) because of the posture of proponents that claims about reality must be subjected to the widest possible critical examination to facilitate apprehending reality as closely as possible – but never perfectly). As stated by Guba and Lincoln, within this epistemological stance “objectivity remains a “regulatory ideal”; special interest is placed on “guardians” of objectivity such as critical traditions (Do the findings “fit” with preexisting knowledge?) and the critical community (such as editors, referees, and professional peers). Replicated findings are probably true (but always subject to falsification)” (110). 9
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: while at the same time calling for
Page 11 and 12: public. Different constraints are i
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?