Standing in the right corner: From practitioner-centric to public-centered public administration

Q1 Social Sciences Administrative Theory and Praxis Pub Date : 2021-04-16 DOI:10.1080/10841806.2021.1910413
M. Nisar
{"title":"Standing in the right corner: From practitioner-centric to public-centered public administration","authors":"M. Nisar","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2021.1910413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The sociopolitical ecology of public administration (PA) is undergoing major changes. Whether it is the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, the ongoing farmer protests in India, increased infiltration of algorithm-led policy implementation, or the global ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the fundamental nature of the national and global administrative landscape is changing. These shifts require a fundamental paradigm shift in the way academic research is carried out and disseminated in the public administration community, because business as usual guarantees our continued irrelevance to major governing discourses of our time. Such a fundamental reorientation, however, requires distinguishing between three different types of disciplinary models for the identity of public administration. Distinguishing these different models not only elucidates the nature and degree of change required within the public administration research community but also clarifies the reason that I think Reed’s (2020) recommendations, while thoughtful, are not the solution to resolve the escalating irrelevance of public administration research findings for administrative praxis. To be clear, Reed (2020) offers thoughtful ways in which public administration researchers can better involve practitioners in designing, discussing, and distributing their research results. I do not disagree with any of these suggestions. As I discuss below, however, I am primarily interested in a reorientation of the discipline away from the practitioners as the primary audience of PA research and not the modalities of engagement with them.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"44 1","pages":"87 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2021.1910413","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2021.1910413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sociopolitical ecology of public administration (PA) is undergoing major changes. Whether it is the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, the ongoing farmer protests in India, increased infiltration of algorithm-led policy implementation, or the global ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the fundamental nature of the national and global administrative landscape is changing. These shifts require a fundamental paradigm shift in the way academic research is carried out and disseminated in the public administration community, because business as usual guarantees our continued irrelevance to major governing discourses of our time. Such a fundamental reorientation, however, requires distinguishing between three different types of disciplinary models for the identity of public administration. Distinguishing these different models not only elucidates the nature and degree of change required within the public administration research community but also clarifies the reason that I think Reed’s (2020) recommendations, while thoughtful, are not the solution to resolve the escalating irrelevance of public administration research findings for administrative praxis. To be clear, Reed (2020) offers thoughtful ways in which public administration researchers can better involve practitioners in designing, discussing, and distributing their research results. I do not disagree with any of these suggestions. As I discuss below, however, I am primarily interested in a reorientation of the discipline away from the practitioners as the primary audience of PA research and not the modalities of engagement with them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
站在右角:从以从业者为中心到以公众为中心的公共行政
公共行政的社会政治生态正在发生重大变化。无论是美国的“黑人的命也是命”(Black Lives Matter)运动、印度正在进行的农民抗议、算法主导政策实施的渗透加剧,还是2019冠状病毒病大流行的全球影响,国家和全球行政格局的根本性质正在发生变化。这些转变需要在公共行政界开展和传播学术研究的方式上进行根本性的范式转变,因为一切照旧保证了我们继续与我们时代的主要治理话语无关。然而,这种根本的重新定位需要区分公共行政的三种不同类型的学科模式。区分这些不同的模型不仅阐明了公共行政研究界需要改变的性质和程度,而且澄清了我认为Reed(2020)的建议虽然周到,但并不是解决公共行政研究成果与行政实践日益不相关的解决方案的原因。需要明确的是,Reed(2020)提供了深思熟虑的方法,使公共行政研究人员能够更好地让实践者参与设计、讨论和分发他们的研究成果。我并不反对这些建议。然而,正如我下面讨论的那样,我主要感兴趣的是学科的重新定位,远离实践者作为PA研究的主要受众,而不是与他们接触的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Administrative Theory and Praxis
Administrative Theory and Praxis Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Farewell, and thanks for the memories Reckoning with theoretical research: A heuristic for gauging and writing public administration theory Meaningful knowledge about public administration: Epistemological and methodological antecedents Theory and practice in dis-harmony? Toward a praxis ecosystem approach to the public administration and management discipline and profession ATP celebrates 45 years: A dialogue series
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1