Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration

Avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance

Rebecca Nesbit, Stephanie Moulton, Scott Robinson, Craig Smith, Leisha Dehart-Davis, Mary Feeney, Beth Gazley, Yilin Hou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Public Administration (PA) is a field characterized by great diversity in theoretical approaches and methodological tactics. This wide scope lends itself to potential epistemological and methodological fragmentation, which prevents scholars from adequately appreciating and building on each other's work. Although many scholars value PA's theoretical and methodological diversity, this intellectual diversity brings some important trade-offs that must be acknowledged. We see three future challenges for the field as (1) supporting the application of diverse and rigorous methodological approaches, (2) continuing to encourage theoretical diversity and theoretical depth, and (3) promoting relevance without compromising methodological rigor and theoretical depth. We believe that a self-conscious, deliberate focus on balancing these goals will strengthen and connect public administration. In this article, we suggest several practical strategies for accomplishing this, such as embracing the public focus of our research, working in interdisciplinary teams, and being more explicit about methodological assumptions and approaches in our writing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Volume21
Issue numberSUPPL. 1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

public administration
fragmentation
tactics
Fragmentation
Public Administration
Values

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Cite this

Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration : Avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance. / Nesbit, Rebecca; Moulton, Stephanie; Robinson, Scott; Smith, Craig; Dehart-Davis, Leisha; Feeney, Mary; Gazley, Beth; Hou, Yilin.

In: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 21, No. SUPPL. 1, 01.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nesbit, Rebecca ; Moulton, Stephanie ; Robinson, Scott ; Smith, Craig ; Dehart-Davis, Leisha ; Feeney, Mary ; Gazley, Beth ; Hou, Yilin. / Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration : Avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance. In: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2011 ; Vol. 21, No. SUPPL. 1.
@article{c2b49d28ce6f41e7a856f7eebb929b48,
title = "Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration: Avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance",
abstract = "Public Administration (PA) is a field characterized by great diversity in theoretical approaches and methodological tactics. This wide scope lends itself to potential epistemological and methodological fragmentation, which prevents scholars from adequately appreciating and building on each other's work. Although many scholars value PA's theoretical and methodological diversity, this intellectual diversity brings some important trade-offs that must be acknowledged. We see three future challenges for the field as (1) supporting the application of diverse and rigorous methodological approaches, (2) continuing to encourage theoretical diversity and theoretical depth, and (3) promoting relevance without compromising methodological rigor and theoretical depth. We believe that a self-conscious, deliberate focus on balancing these goals will strengthen and connect public administration. In this article, we suggest several practical strategies for accomplishing this, such as embracing the public focus of our research, working in interdisciplinary teams, and being more explicit about methodological assumptions and approaches in our writing.",
author = "Rebecca Nesbit and Stephanie Moulton and Scott Robinson and Craig Smith and Leisha Dehart-Davis and Mary Feeney and Beth Gazley and Yilin Hou",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jopart/muq062",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
journal = "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory",
issn = "1053-1858",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "SUPPL. 1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration

T2 - Avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance

AU - Nesbit, Rebecca

AU - Moulton, Stephanie

AU - Robinson, Scott

AU - Smith, Craig

AU - Dehart-Davis, Leisha

AU - Feeney, Mary

AU - Gazley, Beth

AU - Hou, Yilin

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Public Administration (PA) is a field characterized by great diversity in theoretical approaches and methodological tactics. This wide scope lends itself to potential epistemological and methodological fragmentation, which prevents scholars from adequately appreciating and building on each other's work. Although many scholars value PA's theoretical and methodological diversity, this intellectual diversity brings some important trade-offs that must be acknowledged. We see three future challenges for the field as (1) supporting the application of diverse and rigorous methodological approaches, (2) continuing to encourage theoretical diversity and theoretical depth, and (3) promoting relevance without compromising methodological rigor and theoretical depth. We believe that a self-conscious, deliberate focus on balancing these goals will strengthen and connect public administration. In this article, we suggest several practical strategies for accomplishing this, such as embracing the public focus of our research, working in interdisciplinary teams, and being more explicit about methodological assumptions and approaches in our writing.

AB - Public Administration (PA) is a field characterized by great diversity in theoretical approaches and methodological tactics. This wide scope lends itself to potential epistemological and methodological fragmentation, which prevents scholars from adequately appreciating and building on each other's work. Although many scholars value PA's theoretical and methodological diversity, this intellectual diversity brings some important trade-offs that must be acknowledged. We see three future challenges for the field as (1) supporting the application of diverse and rigorous methodological approaches, (2) continuing to encourage theoretical diversity and theoretical depth, and (3) promoting relevance without compromising methodological rigor and theoretical depth. We believe that a self-conscious, deliberate focus on balancing these goals will strengthen and connect public administration. In this article, we suggest several practical strategies for accomplishing this, such as embracing the public focus of our research, working in interdisciplinary teams, and being more explicit about methodological assumptions and approaches in our writing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79251483500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79251483500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jopart/muq062

DO - 10.1093/jopart/muq062

M3 - Article

VL - 21

JO - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

JF - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

SN - 1053-1858

IS - SUPPL. 1

ER -