Mixed-Methods Inquiry in Public Administration: The Interaction of Theory, Methodology, and Praxis

• Author: Estelle Raimondo,Kathryn E. Newcomer
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17697247
• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Date: 01 June 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17697247

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2017, Vol. 37(2) 183 –201

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17697247

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Mixed-Methods Inquiry

in Public Administration:

The Interaction of Theory,

Methodology, and Praxis

Estelle Raimondo1,2 and Kathryn E. Newcomer2

Abstract

Although the methods wars that were entrenched in most of the social science

disciplines well into the 1990s have purportedly ceased, methodological diversity

remains rare in public administration. We suggest that the productive interaction

between methods, theory, and praxis in the field of public administration requires

further methodological integration. Through a review of articles published in Review

of Public Personnel Administration (ROPPA) since 2011, we show that the promise

of mixed-methods design has not fully materialized. We explore avenues for

implementing mixed-methods research designs that are particularly appropriate for

examining the behavior and motivations of public service personnel by identifying

examples of articles in ROPPA that used a single-method approach but could have

usefully leveraged a diversity of methods to answer their primary research question.

We then support our case for the use of integrated mixed-methods with a study

of the institutionalization of a performance assessment system in an international

organization.

Keywords

mixed-methods, public administration, performance management

Introduction

The methods wars that were entrenched in the 1970s up to the late 1990s in most of the

social science disciplines did not spare the field of public administration and public

1World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA

2George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Estelle Raimondo, World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA.

Email: eraimondo@worldbank.org

697247ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X17697247Review of Public Personnel AdministrationRaimondo and Newcomer

research-article2017

184 Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(2)

management and are still lingering (Riccucci, 2010). Hard-lines about the nature of

knowledge, the appropriate form of empirical inquiries remain particularly vivid

today. Although some scholars have favored qualitative and historical approaches

(e.g., Kaufman, 1960; Riccucci, 1995; Stivers, 2000), quantitative methodologies

have remained dominant in public administration. To a large extent, enduring differ-

ences between perspectives creates intellectual stimulation in scholarly conversation,

but there is also scope for exploring possibilities of further integration between differ-

ent methodological traditions. This warrants a balanced and honest discussion, as

called for in this symposium.

In the foreword to this special issue, Sanjay Pandey highlights the need for enhanc-

ing the discipline’s appreciation of the interplay between theory and method, including

the need to be more reflexive about how the domains of theory and methods interact.

In this article, in addition to the imperative of theory-development (episteme), and of

thoughtful methodological design (techne), we are also concerned with the third

approach to knowledge accumulation in the social sciences—practiced as a source of

practical and context-dependent knowledge which is action-oriented (phronesis). The

extent to which the scholarly field of public administration’s focus should be on

informing practice or theoretical development remains up for debate. In this article, we

do not refute the idea that the field of public administration benefits from theoretical

advancements that may not immediately provide direct input to practice (e.g.,

Frederickson & Smith, 2003; Raadschelders, 2011; Riccucci, 2010). In the spirit of

Lewin—who famously argued that “there is nothing more practical than a good the-

ory” (Lewin, 1952, p. 169)—we take the three imperatives of episteme, techne, and

phronesis as equally necessary. Adopting all three elements may require a shift in

thinking about what constitutes rigorous evidence and how to obtain it.

The multiplicity of views regarding the goal and nature of social science in general,

and public administration in particular, reflects diverse opinions about the relative

strengths of different methodological approaches. Although the search for universally

valid rules and principles is typically assumed to entail the application of hypothetico-

deductive methods inspired from the natural sciences, an action-oriented social sci-

ence highlights the importance of first framing the questions appropriately, and then

considering the appropriate methods, as a fundamental part of the research endeavor.

Action-oriented research is designed to produce knowledge that effectively informs

public deliberations and praxis. Given the goal of informing practice, methodological

considerations should be subservient to the goal of solving practical problems and

generating useful evidence for action (Flyvbjerg, 2002; Harmon, 1981; Rorty, 1982).

In this article, we explore how the discipline can embrace mixed-methods inquiry to

support more phronesic-oriented knowledge creation.

The basic tenet of action-oriented social sciences is to answer questions that are

salient to practitioners with the appropriate set of methods. One specific realm where

theory, methodology, and praxis need to be particularly intertwined, and where dia-

logue among the three ought to take place, lies in the framing of research questions and

the development of research methods to answer them. On this point, three lines of

consensus seem to have emerged over the past decade. The first insists on letting the