JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - naspaa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enhancing Professional Socialization Through the Metaphor of Tradition Summary From this professional socialization process view, role conception is envisioned as a problem of scholarship, practice, and public perception. It can be studied from the perspective of those constructing the role (scholars), those taking the role (practitioners), or those interacting with the role (elected officials, other administrators, and citizens). While internal role conceptions and externally prescribed role conceptualizations are clearly interrelated, this article focuses on the latter, and the manner in which theory describes and promotes roles for the public administrator. It seeks to describe the constitutive elements of unique role conceptualizations, define how they are mutually exclusive in terms of legitimacy logic, and explain how the field attempts to promote them through pedagogy. ROLE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY As noted by Morgan (1986), images and metaphors are used not only as descriptors, but also as prescriptive guides for attitudes and action. Role conceptualizations depict what we wish social actors to be and do. In this case, images of identity stem from “legitimating myths” about the enterprise of public administration within our political system (Kass, 1990). In fact, a historical review of the field “shows that the debate over defining the role of the administrator in governance has actually been a struggle of political ideology” (McSwite, 1997, pp. 229-230). For example, Waldo (1984) brought the problem of political philosophy into public administration theory: “Are training in the mechanics of administration and codes of professional ethics enough Or should our new Guardian Class be given an education commensurate with their announced responsibilities and perhaps be imbued with a political philosophy” (p. 202). While the field for the most part has accepted this charge, the specifics flow “from different, often conflicting, ideas in American political philosophy” (Kettl, 2000, p.14). Perhaps in part because of this phenomenon, there is widespread disagreement about the legitimate role of government actors. This has been described as a “crisis of legitimacy” (King, et al., 1998) for which a variety of solutions has been offered. In fact, the resulting identity crisis has been recognized as one of the most pressing concerns for the field in the new millennium. A 2006 symposium in the International Journal of Public Sector Management described a competition between the traditional bureaucratic ethos and the managerialist ethos promoted by the New Public Management and related theories. Elsewhere, competing democratic and bureaucratic ethos are similarly described (Pugh, 1991). Each ethos has a specific logic, ethical framework, and corresponding role identity for public administrators (Newland, 2003). Such competition among ethos is described as an “identity project” that 294 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Enhancing Professional Socialization Through the Metaphor of Tradition is thought to be changing the professional culture of public service (Du Gay, 1996), along with the associated practitioner identity (Cooper, 1984; Horton, 2006; van Bockel & Noordegraaf, 2006). To a large extent, these references to alternative ethos and professional identities are just different ways to say “competing bases of democratic legitimacy.” The notion that the ethos and the corresponding role conception of public administrators can and perhaps should change suggests the need to make informed choices. A better understanding of these role conceptualizations should benefit this effort. Research on public service motivation and the question of what causes individuals to adopt the role of public administrator is one approach (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Brewer, Selden, & Facer, 2000; Downs, 1967; Perry, 1996, 1997; Rainey, 1982; Selden, Brewer, & Brudney, 1999). Related literature about a vocation or calling also explores the motivation to enter public service, and assumes a role conceptualization related to some type of moral purpose (J.V. Denhardt & R.B. Denhardt, 2003; Kass & Catron, 1990; Staats, 1988). A similar area of inquiry provides typological conceptualizations of the role conceptions held by individual administrators (R.B. Denhardt & deLeon, 1995; Svara, 2006). In sum, these varying conceptualizations of the public service role include categorizations by cognitive type, social level of concern, type of personal affect or commitment, orientation toward technical and democratic concerns, and relationship to politicians. However, while empirical approaches are important in linking value systems to specific functions, organizational missions, or job classifications, they may not explain competing and mutually exclusive bases of legitimacy. For this, an ideal-type model is required. Reconsidering these role conceptualizations using legitimacy as an analytical lens also highlights an important theoretical problem: they frequently offer paradoxical or conflicting normative prescriptions. For example, in some role conceptualizations, administrators are charged with being both discretionary and obedient to external masters (e.g., managers, politicians, and law). These two characteristics are based on two very different bases of legitimacy (expertise and the constitutional order, respectively), and it is questionable whether they can be successfully integrated. Perhaps certain elements of various approaches to public administration can be combined into one role conceptualization, while others cannot. The framework presented here seeks to remedy this deficiency by devising ideal role types derived from three distinct bases of democratic legitimacy that are present in public administration literature. Generating coherent sets of administrative practices and role conceptualizations that are associated with mutually exclusive bases of legitimacy may help scholars evaluate and select which one(s) to promote or to practice. Journal of Public Affairs Education 295
Page 1 and 2: Summer 2009 Volume 15, No. 3 JPAE J
Page 3 and 4: EDITOR’S NOTE REFERENCES Henry, N
Page 5 and 6: the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Page 7 and 8: Public Values As a Core Element of
Page 9 and 10: Public Values as a Core Element of
Page 15 and 16: How Do We Know What They Know Evalu
Page 33 and 34: Enhancing Professional Socializatio
Page 37: Enhancing Professional Socializatio
Page 61 and 62: Staying Connected: MPA Student Perc
Page 77 and 78: Teaching Public Administration As a
Page 89 and 90:
Teaching Public Administration As a
Page 91 and 92:
Badgers & Hoosiers: An Interstate C
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Operation PSA: The Action Learning
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Introduction of Government Process
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
show all

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - naspaa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?