Deconstructing Public Administration Empiricism

• Published date: 01 July 2007
• Date: 01 July 2007
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399707303813
• Author: Larry S. Luton
• Subject Matter: Articles

Deconstructing Public

Administration Empiricism

Larry S. Luton

Eastern Washington University, Cheney

Like much social science empiricism, public administration empiricism

at its best recognizes that it presents probabilistic truth claims rather

than universal ones.1In doing so, public administration empiricists are (to

a degree) recognizing the tenuousness of their claim that their approach to

research is better connected to reality than research that does not adhere to

empiricist protocols. To say that one is 95% confident that a quantitative

model explains 25% of the variation being studied is not a very bold claim

about understanding reality.

They are also masking a more fundamental claim that they know an

objective reality exists. The existence of an objective reality is the essential

foundation on which empiricism relies for its claim to provide a research

approach that is superior to all others and, therefore, is in a position to set

the standards to which all research should be held (Brady & Collier, 2004;

King, Keohane, & Verba 1994). In one of the most direct expressions of this

claim, Meier (2005) has stated, “there is an objective reality” (p. 664). In

support of that claim, he referenced 28,000 infant deaths in the United

States in 2000. He went on to attribute about one-third of those deaths to an

inadequate health care system. Recognizing that the one-third figure was

conjectural, he described the suspiciously rounded 28,000 number as real.

This brief anecdote points toward the direction of my argument. This arti-

cle will not challenge the existence of an objective reality; it will take an

Administration & Society

Volume 39 Number 4

July 2007 527-544

© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0095399707303813

http://aas.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

527

Disputatio Sine Fine

Editor’s Note: Disputatio Sine Fine has been a popular feature of A&S, but idle for several

issues now. It seems likely that this input from Larry Luton will bring it back to vibrancy. The

issues he raises have been simmering in the field of public administration for some time. A

frank and open discussion may be helpful to all of us. We welcome responses to it. The sub-

missions should be shorter than the typical article and may be without many of the features of

an academic article, but should be something with the qualities of scholarly dialogue, with cita-

tions if the author wishes, civil in nature, and without ad hominem argument. They will be

reviewed by the editor for such qualities, but not put through the usual process of blind reviews.

agnostic position on that question because it is unclear to me whether we

can ever be certain about such a thing. The basic argument here is that

public administration empiricists’ claims to measure reality are quite prob-

lematic. Refusing to dispute the existence of infant deaths is not the same

as conceding the accuracy of an attempt to measure them.

This article’s approach will be based on close examination of some of

the best public administration empiricist research available. It will begin by

reviewing key aspects of the empiricist claim to be connected with reality.

It will then examine those aspects by focusing on specific examples of public

administration empiricist research published in top-rank peer review acad-

emic journals—examples that most any public administration researcher

would recognize as quality work. The shortcomings found in such work

can, I think, be fairly characterized as representing typical shortcomings of

public administration empiricist research.

In addition, because the value of research depends on its ability to

address important questions (cf. Lynn, Heinrich, & Hill, 2001, p. 11), this

article will focus on research that has done so. For empiricist work to make

a significant contribution to the growth of knowledge, it needs to be

thoughtfully connected to important theories and concepts. The issues

addressed by the research examined here include red tape, representative

bureaucracy, and performance measurement. It seems unlikely that many

would question whether the concepts of red tape, representative bureau-

cracy, and performance measurement have been important ones for public

administration in the last several decades. Pandey and Scott (2002) have

identified red tape research as an area where much progress has been made

in recent decades. Meier (2005) has described the past 30 years’ work on

representative bureaucracy as “high quality empirical work” (p. 663).

Performance measurement has also specifically been recognized as an

“empirical exemplar” (Miller & Fox, 2007, p. 19).

In sum, using focused attention on three narratives, this article will suggest

that because of the tenuousness of their claim to do research that is connected

to reality, the knowledge claims of public administration empiricists are suffi-

ciently weak that the field of public administration ought not perceive them as

having set the benchmarks for quality research (cf. Gill & Meier, 2000, p. 193).

The Foundational Claims of Public

Administration Empiricists

Having granted the possibility that an objective reality exists, I begin

with the empiricist claim that their work is connected to it. At its heart, that

528 Administration & Society