Theory and Method in Public Administration

• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17707036
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17707036

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2017, Vol. 37(2) 131 –138

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17707036

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Theory and Method in

Public Administration

Sanjay K. Pandey1

Abstract

Despite widespread agreement about goals of knowledge development in public

administration, there is imbalance in efforts directed at these goals. The overlap

between the domains of theory and practice is not substantial. Important concerns

in public administration theory and practice are outweighed by naïve quantitative

bias (NQB), an unfortunate methodological artifact. This symposium seeks to

highlight this imbalance and to nudge the public administration scholarly community

toward paying attention to theoretical and practical matters, recognizing NQB and

mitigating its undesirable effects on knowledge development. Broadly speaking, two

recommendations emerge from symposium contributions. The first recommendation

emphasizes paying attention to theoretical goals. The second recommendation is

to promote reflexivity about how the domains of theory and method interact to

counter the methodological artifact of NQB. A brief overview of each article in the

symposium and its contribution to advancing knowledge development is provided.

Keywords

theory, practice, method, naïve quantitative bias (NQB), methodological pluralism,

methodological determinism, theoretical determinism

Let me begin by making two uncontroversial points that seem almost jejune at first

blush. First, as a scholarly community, we want public administration research to be

theoretically rich and insightful. Second, we want public administration research to be

well grounded in and useful for public administration practice. We are likely to get

widespread agreement on these two points. Yet, the road beyond easy agreement on

these two points is neither well-paved nor pretty.

1The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sanjay K. Pandey, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George

Washington University, 805 21st St NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA.

Email: skpandey@gwu.edu

707036ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X17707036Review of Public Personnel AdministrationPandey

research-article2017