Putting the Methodological Cart Before the Theoretical Horse? Examining the Application of SEM to Connect Theory and Method in Public Administration Research

• Date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17704268
• Author: Edmund C. Stazyk,Randall S. Davis
• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17704268

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2017, Vol. 37(2) 202 –218

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17704268

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Putting the Methodological

Cart Before the Theoretical

Horse? Examining the

Application of SEM to

Connect Theory and Method

in Public Administration

Research

Randall S. Davis1 and Edmund C. Stazyk2

Abstract

The application of psychometric statistical techniques, such as confirmatory

factor analysis and structural equation modeling, has grown significantly in public

administration research over the past three decades. Given the growth in the

application of these techniques, we take stock of the ability of these statistical

approaches to advance public administration theory by examining their use in two

areas of research: public service motivation and red tape. We further argue that

theoretical and methodological diversity in public administration is desirable, so

long as scholars recognize that the application of new and multiple methods in a

single study do not inherently lead to better tests of theory. Instead, scholarship

should focus on emphasizing that each theoretical and methodological approach adds

significant, yet partial, contribution to public administration scholarship.

Keywords

research methods, public service motivation, red tape, discipline, public administration

theory

1Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, USA

2University at Albany, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Randall S. Davis, Department of Political Science, MPA Program, Southern Illinois University, 1000 Faner

Drive, Faner Hall, Mail Code 4501, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA.

Email: rsdavis@siu.edu

704268ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X17704268Review of Public Personnel AdministrationDavis and Stazyk

research-article2017

Davis and Stazyk 203

Introduction

Since its origin as a self-identified field of knowledge, scholars have examined public

administration from myriad theoretical vantages. As such, it is not surprising that our

contemporary understanding of the field coalesces around the belief in, and accep-

tance of, public administration as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry (Frederickson,

Smith, Larimer, & Licari, 2015; Hou, Ni, Poocharoen, Yang, & Zhao, 2011;

Raadschelders, 2011a, 2011b; Riccucci, 2010; Wright, 2011). As an interdisciplinary

field, we have recognized that many of the problems faced by public administrators

are “open-ended, multidimensional, ambiguous, and unstable” and also that our pro-

cess for researching said problems “cannot be bounded and managed by classical

approaches to the underlying phenomena” (Klein, 1996, p. 142; citing Mason &

Mitroff, 1981; Rittle & Webber, 1973). Instead, as a field, we have applied diverse

theoretical lenses to integrate knowledge and advance our understanding of govern-

ment (Klein, 1996; Raadschelders, 2011b).

Although interdisciplinarity, with its aim of the accumulation and integration of

knowledge, is not without challenges and pitfalls (see, for example, Mainzer, 1994;

Pfeffer 1993), the ability to bring multiple perspectives to bear when examining com-

plex phenomena is widely viewed as a necessary advancement in the knowledge pro-

duction process itself—one that leads to better solutions—and a powerful tool for

classifying and organizing intricate concepts and ideas (Blume, 1985; Klein, 1996).

Practically, interdisciplinary inquiries in a given field necessitate merging elements

from different disciplines to solve problems, which further requires researchers aggre-

gate disparate epistemologies, concepts, theories, and methodologies. Yet despite

efforts to integrate disparate perspectives into a coherent whole, an inherent by-prod-

uct of interdisciplinarity is theoretical and methodological pluralism.

Like many other public administration scholars (e.g., Raadschelders, 2011;

Riccucci, 2010), we start from the assumption that interdisciplinarity generates

sounder, more robust knowledge in the field. We also assume that the resulting theo-

retical and methodological pluralism of interdisciplinarity is generally a net gain.

Pluralism allows researchers to examine a single problem or classes of problems from

multiple perspectives and using multiple tools. In this sense, pluralism is akin to the

concept of triangulation in research methods, which assumes applying two or more

methodologies in a study allows researchers to compare and validate findings as well

as to “map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behavior

by studying it from more than one standpoint” (Cohen & Manion, 1986, p. 254).

Bringing multiple theoretical and methodological perspectives to bear in the field of

public administration acknowledges that each perspective “makes a useful, but partial,

contribution” to our understanding of core issues (Mainzer, 1994, p. 360).

Although we view theoretical and methodological pluralism as largely positive, we

would also argue that the field has, at times, poorly integrated or applied different meth-

odological orientations when grappling with diverse interdisciplinary theories. And, at

times, this tendency naturally and unsurprisingly spills over into our evaluation of

homegrown theories too. In part, our struggle to integrate different methodological