advancing administrative theory/science: get it out from being bound to be in the cone behind...

8/9/2019 Advancing Administrative Theory/Science: get it out from being bound to be in the Cone behind Axiomatic Formaliz

1/28

"Moving Forward Faster in Public Administration:

Complexity, Interdisciplinarity and Designing Effective Theory-Practice Networks"

Paper presented at

Ninth ASPA/CPM Texas Annual Conference: Transforming Public Service,

Austin TX, November 2, 2007

Authors: Adrian S. Petrescu

University of Texas, Brownsville

[email protected]

Senol Duman

TURKSAT, Ankara Turkey

WORK IN PROGRESS

Please do not cite. Comments encouraged and most welcome

2001-2007


2/28


3/28

Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 1

Abstract

In ecological studies, the Volterra S-shaped curves describe the evolution of thepopulation of a species, or its subgroups, when they occupy a new territory or when they

are under the pressure of overpopulation or undernourishment in their current territories.

The Volterra S-shaped curves can be used to model phenomena other than the evolutionof populations. In our paper, we will argue that the Volterra curves, together with

Thomas Kuhns theory of scientific paradigms, successfully illustrate the developmental

stages of public administration theory. We shall also explore how the publicadministration theory may relate differently to complexity theory at each stage of its

development.

Phenomena evolving in line with Voltera S Shaped Curves undergo four

distinct stages in their development: initiation, sustained growth, limited growth, andsaturation. We argue that the rules, conditions and strategies of populating a field or

stream of inquiry inside a field with newly created knowledge mirror these stages.

In any scientific discipline, an active search for inspiration in both the

epistemologies and content of other disciplines is a necessity. Throughout itsdevelopment, Public Administration Theory has been particularly prone to using such

cross-disciplinary inquiry tools, especially due to its placement at the interconnect of a

number of disciplines, and due to its high dependency on sociology, management,

economics, political science, and so forth. In as much as interdisciplinarity can helpscholars deal with complexity, we argue that there are different optimal modes of

interdisciplinarity correlated to a disciplines stage of development.

Based on Axelrods distinction between signalers and followers in social systems,

combined with the population growth metaphor, we propose a model integrating types ofinterdiscpllinarity & uses of complexity. Some modes will yield more effective

theoretical advancements while others will yield increased practical applications. Webriefly test this model on Graham Allisons three models of decision and the scientificcommunitys reaction to it. From this model we infer a set of recommendations that may

help theorists to focus more easily in their work on using complexity in support of the

most fitted inquiry tools for the disciplines current stage. By analyzing the combinedinfluences of a disciplines specific conditions by intra-paradigm development stage and

Kuhn-ian meta-paradigm development stage, the community of theorists will know better what

to do and what to avoid in support of the disciplines growth. Such an approach may in

turn lead to a more effective development of the discipline towards (axiomatic)formalization or a normal science stage.


4/28


Motto 1: All Science Requires Faith in Harmony of the World

(Albert Einstein)

Motto 2: One nutty person throws a rock in the lake,

and a hundred wise people through themselves in the water to retrieve it

(Romanian Proverb)Introduction

The stage of development (in Kuhn-ian terms)1 of Public Administration (PA) Theory hasbeen an issue of contestation for the past few decades2. At the same time, the stages of

development of many disciplines neighboring PA Theory, or even mother disciplines to

it, have also been under dispute. While Kuhns model of the scientific development of a

discipline does itself draw objective criticism, in this paper we take the stance that allthese disputes need not be resolved prior to our being able to take active steps directed at

harnessing complexity in an attempt at speeding up the development of social science

disciplines in general, and Public Administration Theory in particular.

The realization of the core precepts of complexity theory usually worries practitioners

and theorists in Public Administration. The first reaction is an attempt at controlling, oreliminating, its influences . In contrast, Axelrod finds that as a core characteristic of

social action, complexity can not always be eliminated, offers the more optimistic view,

suggesting that there are ways to tame complexity and use it to ones benefit, either as a

public management practitioner, or as a theorist. In response, various practicalapplications of complexity theory in public management have taken off the ground quite

well. In this paper we try to offer a possible somewhat specified model for consideration

by theorists and students in the epistemology of public administration.

We use the metaphor that scientific advancement can be considered to be in line with

Volterra S-shaped curves . In ecological studies, Lotka-Volterra models and equationsdescribe the growth of the population of a species, or its subgroups, when they occupy a

new territory or when they are under the pressure of overpopulation or undernourishment

in their current territories .

The core reason for using the metaphor stems from the fact that, just as undernourished

populations, scientific communities at times may run out of food for thought, and thus

may send seekers into new fields to come back with information as to new territoriespossibility of being effectively populated3. It is rare however that such missions have

been consciously sent out in search of new knowledge. In fact, Kuhn would argue that

successful such attempts are rather anomalies, and not the norm . Thus, one of theexistent critique of Kuhn is nonetheless that, anomalies driven scientific revolutions

cannot necessarily be consciously called for. We disagree, and take instead a stance

12 For a strong critique of PA Theory please see Dunn and Fouzouni and Denhardt . Daneke and others

also shed critical views on PA Theorys stage of development. For one of the many attempts to address the

pitfalls they identify, please see use of the advanced systems theory as one response.3 This would be in line with Ravetzs , Dunns , and others quest for identifying usable ignorance, in

attempt to determine in advance what is worth studying.


5/28


closer to a optimist view such as Axelrods , namely that complexity can be used in ones

favor, and harnessed to make our understanding and quest for knowledge more effective

and far reaching. Just the same as populations under life threatening threats send outfood seekers, communities of scientists could help create and/or abide by conditions that

would favor more of Kuhns anomalies, basically by initially sending out more of

Axelrods signalers called to find the right inferences and interdisciplinary connections orborrowable pre-knowledge. Once some of these signalers return successfully from

their searches (some would not), the scientific community would mount and consciously

direct teams of Axelrods followers to study, interpret and fully integrate the new sourcesof information/knowledge, and ultimately put it in the context of the previously known .

So far, the means proposed most often for dealing with complexity in attempts at more

effective scientific advancement have been built around ensuring a high degree ofinterdisciplinarity in our scientific endeavors . This is of course true. Moreover, in this

paper we further support the argument with a modest look at how scientific advancement

occurs in neighboring and often intersecting social science disciplines, and how

advancement in one could influence and/or determine advancement in another. However,we suggest that there are more than one single type of interdisciplinary relations between

scientific fields, and different modes of interdisciplinarity can yield differing results.

We organize the paper as follows:

First, we briefly explain why we think reconciling either the assessment of the stage ofdevelopment of PA Theory, or Kuhns very model of scientific revolutions is not

absolutely necessary prior to developing our complexity theory driven modes of

interdisciplinarity model.

Second, we briefly re-state the simplified Volterra population growth model, in order to

familiarize the reader with the characteristics of each phase in the model.

Third, we introduce the way in which the conditions inherited from the Volterra

population growth model can and should be adapted inside an interpretation of evolutionsin a scientific discipline in general, and in PA Theory in particular.

Fourth, we describe a possible interpretation of how related disciplines in social sciences,

with PA at the core, interact epistemologically.

Fifth, we specify the modes of interdisciplinarity model. We propose this model

simply by way of integrating one of Axelrods distinctions , looked at through the eyes ofthe Volterra model, into the prescription for increased interdisciplinarity in the field of

PA Theory. In short, the conclusions of the model imply that some interdisciplinary

modes yield higher theoretical effectiveness, while other interdisciplinary modes yieldhigher pragmatic effectiveness.

Sixth, we briefly test the resulting framework against a famous case, namely the

emergence, use and critique of Graham T. Allisons three models of decisions . Allisons


6/28


modelles are used so extensively in PA Theory, in spite of (1) their originating with

Foreign Policy Decision Theories, and of (2) the low predicted likelihood of such a

Kuhn-ian anomaly ever occurring and affecting to such a high degree the discipline ofPA. With this case, we find that the appropriate modes of interdisciplinarity were used

at the proper times to make more effective scientific advancement possible.

Seven, we propose a more general application to the sustained growth of the PA

discipline of the Thompson and Tuden (1959) and later Donaldson (2000) labeled

contingency theory in organizations as a potential means for accelerating developmentin theory and practical knowledge consistent with Kuhns recommendations and our

modes of interdisciplinarity presented herein.

Finally, we conclude by (1) reiterating the recommendations for actions to be taken insidescientific communities for better results in harnessing both complexity and a

positive/optimist view of Lindbloms cognitive impairement , and (2) proposing further

adaptations of the modest model herein that would take into account already existing

knowledge from population sciences that we have purposefully overlooked in the interestof simplification.

1. Competing Epistemological Interpretations of PA Theory Should not Stop Us

The state of any scientific discipline, and public administration is no exception, is most

often a contested matter. Moreover, an objective assessment of the state of socialsciences in general, in Kuhn-ian terms, is an issue under even more debate. Objective

assessment may seem to be essential for any epistemological intervention. Indeed, a

misrepresentation of the stage in which an intervention is performed may easily lead tothe improper intervention and to continuedand amplifiedefforts towards a dead end.

We are trying to suggest that disagreement on this issue should not stop us from

developing, testing and possibly applying our modes of interdisciplinarity model tryingto make better use of complexity in building effective knowledge advancement in a

scientific discipline affected maybe most by complexity.

1. 1. The Contested State of the Discipline of PA

In spite of the array of possible criticism that can be brought to this over-simplification,

let us consider that there are from an epistemological perspective, only two essentiallydifferent meta-schools of thought in the epistemology of Public Administration Theory.

We shall call them the classic school, and the critical school.

In short, the classic school concedes that the multiple paradigms in existence in PA

build on one another, inheriting and critically adapting findings from the previous ones

into the newer ones. One can consider for example Applebys re-bringing in the sceneof the administrative-politics relationship and Mertons attacks on the ideal (Taylorist)

type of bureaucracies as a paradigm shift from the classic era . Further, the Human

Relations era of Follet, Mayo, Barnard, Simon, March or Cyert has in turn added a new

paradigm shift to the former . The New Public Administration (Marini, Frederickson


7/28


etc.) would in turn add yet another paradigm shift while today we shall deal with yet

another with the Public Management Era .

In contrast, the critical school considers in short that the PA theory is lacks theoretical

foundations of its own. Dunn and Fozouni in their contested 1976 book start by stating

that [a]dministrative theory is conveyed today as a chaotic array of fragmentedassumptions, vacuous prescriptions, and disorganized beliefs about public organizations

[] . This description can hardly be referring to a normal stage discipline in Kuhn-ian

terms.

1.2. Multiple Epistemologies of the Same Field?

In this context, students of public administration often do not fully know what side totake, and are therefore bound to consider both as potentially valid. Whether they can or

not co-exist in addressing the epistemology of PA is however of no significance.

The reason has to do with our proto-interpretation of Kuhns model of scientificrevolutions, at least as it should be applied to social sciences. Indeed, the positivist era

has left behind a major shuffle to use Danekes ) words, along with many implicationsof physics and economics envy in social sciences in general, and more so of the envy for

the scientific methods of management in PA in particular. We are not going to question

whether this was a proper or improper response. We are just left puzzled and in search of

an understanding on how can there be two different epistemological interpretations of thesame discipline. Probably, the answer can be found somewhere between the argument

that (1) social sciences are a special case, and (2) component social sciences disciplines

interact with one another and with the observed objective reality in ways that are alsospecific and not mirroring natural sciences (please also see section 4).

1.3. Social Sciences--A Type of Their Own?

There are of course at least two major distinctions between natural and social sciences

that will always yield any comparison difficult: (1) the moving target of the object ofstudy in social sciences, and (2) the impact our theories and their application have back

on the reality of the social. Such impact can contribute to the very changing of the laws

of the social, whereas in physics only what we know may change. Progress in what is

known may yield or not scientific revolutions, but never will our knowledge change thelaws under which nature functions.

In other words, social sciences and public administration try to explain and control socialbehaviors that constitute a target whose moves may be determined by their very

explanations Interestingly, physicists and philosophers have found themselves much

puzzled in front of the discovery of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. This principle isindeed possibly the one and only similarity between the social and the natural that is

breaking somewhat the above distinction. Yet, its application in social sciences is much

more complex. In social science, unlike with the Heisenberg principle, not only does

observation affect naturally the state of the observed, but the practical application of


8/28


the scientists theoretical findings will consciously affect social behaviors. PA, due to its

characteristics, is the first social science discipline to be affected most by this major

difference. The expectation is therefore that even if we agree that PA finds itself in anormal science stage, this stage is by necessity only temporary. Further developments in

PA will likely determine social change of a nature that is unpredictable now and that will

need further explaining. Therefore, social sciences, and PA in particular will always findthemselves in a meta-pre-paradigm stage from some perspective.

1. 4. Bound to be in the Cone behind Formalization?

When trying to determine the conditions specific to a natural science discipline

thermodynamicsbefore its full formalization, S. Petrescu has used the metaphor being

in the cone before the principles, or before the disciplines axiomatization. Thoseconditions resemble very much those found in a Kuhn-ian pre-paradigm stage of a

discipline.

In view of this metaphor, new social change will always be ahead of us. This yields theneed to constantly adapt our tools of inquiry s to pre-paradigmatic specific conditions in

spite of the unresolved debates or determinations, underlined previously. Therefore, weshould pursue the building of our epistemology-complexity model of modes of

interdisciplinarity. In other words, social scientists may be bound to always work in a

meta-cone behind the next set of principles/axiomatixation attempts. They are therefore

in constant need to use more complexity in wiser manners than natural scientists have to.

time

Axiomatization

Cone behind formalization of discipline


9/28


Figure 1: Cone behind formalization of a scientific discipline

In Figure 1 we have illustrated the cone behind formalization of a scientific discipline.

Before axiomatization, or the paradigmatic stage of a discipline, elements of knowledgeare being developed, not all of which would be incorporated as such in the axiomatization

effort once successful. Some will be discarded, while some will need adaptation and

reshaping to be included. In fact Kuhn argues that most of the pre-paradigmatic

knowledge elements do not survive the axiomatization stage.

Figure 2: Social Sciences Application of "Cone behind formalization" metaphor

In Figure 2 we have illustrated the special case of a social sciences discipline having to

face the moving target issue, whereas the known does influence back on the to be

known, namely on social or administrative practices which constitute the object of study.


10/28


2. Population Growth Models

In ecological studies, the Volterra S-shaped curves describe the evolution of thepopulation of a species, or its subgroups, when they occupy a new territory or when they

are under the pressure of overpopulation or undernourishment in their current territories4.

The four distinct stages of the simplified model are (I) initiation, (II) sustained growth,(III) limited growth, and (IV) saturation, or equilibrium, as depicted in Figure 3. Differentprime features of the given population are needed in each stage.

Species may choose to send sacrifice seekers into new territories to search and test for

newly inhabitable places the species can move into when the community as a whole arefaced with over-population or under-nourishment in their currently inhabited territory,.

Many of these seekers will dye of poison or of predators but some will find inhabitable

land and will return to get the bulk of the species. Once they return the species starts

moving into the new territory. This is the initiation stage. With a brand new territory attheir disposal, full of resources, and coming straight out of a crisis situation, the species

population undergoes massivesustained growth for quite some time before resources in

the new territory become somewhat scarce again. When this happens, growth continuesbut becomes limited growth. In time, the new territory becomes overpopulated as well,

leading to a equilibrium insaturation. Conceivably, the cycle most often repeats itself

from here .

The core characteristics of the species population, and of individuals proving themselvessuccessful and useful to their co-specimen, are different across the four distinct stages.

To build a successful new initiation, being a successful seeker venturing into the wild

unknown for the greater good requires courage and risk, but also a sense of belonging andresponsibility to the community. Those individuals will self-select, with the species

community helping. They will be rewarded upon their return if they find the new

promise land. Otherwise they will get lost. The community needs to build in those

4 The model used here is in fact an over-simplification. For a more detailed analysis of more complete

population growth models available please see Wangersky . Here we chose not to consider several factors

that are important in population studies. In the concluding chapter we offer some possible uses of such

factors in light of further refining our model.

time

N

I

II

III IV

Figure 3: Phases of a Volterra S Curve describing

o ulation rowth in newl o ulated territories

I initiation

II sustained growthIII limited growth

IV saturation


11/28


necessary qualities5. Special characteristics of leadership are needed further from other

individuals to convince parts of the population to follow them into the new territory once

it is discovered (during initiation andsustained growth). Further, completely differentsets of skills are needed for maintaining internal order in the population as soon as the

resources start comparatively decreasing in the third stage, limited growth, and especially

the next and last,saturation. With saturation however, a major shift needs to occur inorder for the skills and values needed for sending new seekers to be build in the

population in time, before overpopulation and undernourishment strike again in full.

3. The Scientific Community in a Discipline as a Population under Objective Stress

The Volterra S-shaped curves can be used to model phenomena other than the evolution

of populations . We argue that the Volterra curves, if taken in their cyclic application,can successfully illustrate the developmental stages of public administration theory.

Employing the population growth under stress metaphor can help us understand better

how public administration theory relates to complexity theory at each stage of its

development.

As described above, phenomena evolving in line with Volterra S Shaped Curves

undergo four distinct stages in their development: initiation, sustained growth, limited

growth, and saturation . We argue that the rules, conditions and strategies ofpopulating a field or stream of inquiry inside a field with newly created knowledge

mirror these stages.

We propose that the stage of development of a discipline correlates with the type of

relationship it has with other disciplines. Furthermore, the stage of development mayalso influence the type of relationships it has with complexity theory and the modes of

inquiry used. There is therefore a correlation between the stage of development on the

one hand and the modes of inquiry and complexity theory usage on the other. Anadapted version of the Volterra curves showing our use of the population growth

metaphor in the case of a scientific discipline is shown in Figure 4.

3.1 Outward Seeking Mode of Interdisciplinarity

5 Not all species are equally good at this, and this is one weakness of using the metaphor, since we may end

up having to deal with much more specificity than we need if we follow exactly findings from ecology

time

N

I

II

III IV

Figure 4: Volterra S Curve and a disciplines usage of

com lexit

I initiation: strong outward(discipline is very thirsty*)

II sustained growth: outward (discipline is thirsty*)

III limited growth: inward (discipline is not thirsty*)IV saturation: strong inward (discipline issaturated)

*) for knowledge/models from other disciplines


12/28


Even prior to the initiation stage, the discipline is thirsty for imported new knowledge

from outside neighboring disciplines. In this stage, and duringsustained growth as well,

a disciplines focus is outward reaching and supportive of primarily inductive modes ofinquiry. The disciplines use of complexity should too be mainly outward reaching. The

primary knowledge producers should resemble the food seekers we have encountered

above. The scientific community should value their sacrifice and should promote suchseeking in the wilderness behavior. Inferences from other disciplines are the core tool

of inquiry. Many such imports may fail however, and the parallels driven may thus not

be perfect, or even applicable at all. Some such parallels will hold water however, andthey will fuel scientific advancement. We could think of these as Kuhns anomalies ,

only some of which yield a true scientific revolution or paradigmatic shift.

3.2 Inward Seeking Mode of Interdisciplinarity

In contrast, in limited growth andsaturation stages, the discipline does not need any new

knowledge imported from other disciplines. Instead, it grows in depth and builds internalrelationships within the confines of already gathered knowledge. The core purpose is

achieving a better structure and formalization. Scholars would make better use of

complexity if targeting it to be inward reaching and supporting primarily deductivemodes of inquiry. The most successful knowledge seekers would be Axelrods

followers . Following criticism is likely to yield many replicated (and yet modified with

each iterated replication) studies that lead in turn to better structure and formalization

inside the discipline.

At a given point however, the focus shifts again. For braking the equilibrium of

saturation new influx of knowledge from neighboring and the mother disciplines will

be needed, in an attempt to start a new cycle. Again, knowledge seekers will become the

prime scholarly actors, and Axelrods signalers will need to be sent out in the new stagesknowledge wilderness .

3.3. The Need for a Model of Optimal Modes of Interdisciplinarity?

Thus, we suggest that interdisciplinarity has different optimal applications in different

stages of development of a discipline. While we expect a high yield of scientificadvancement when using highly interdisciplinary modes of inquiry in the first two stages,

initiation andsustained growth, the need for internal formalization suggests lower

degrees of interdisciplinarity in the limited growth andsaturation stages to be the norm.

Nonetheless, inter-disciplinary import should probably not stop in these stages either.Most likely however the inter-disciplinary attempts in these two latter stages should be

differently targeted, primarily at philosophy of sciences related disciplines, at

formalization methodologies, not at importing new pre-knowledge, but rather at adapting

existing theoretical models from disciplines more advanced in their formalization.Further, we shall discuss some more how disciplines relate to their neighbors and their

mother grand disciplineoften in PA this translates in grounding in and relating back

and forth with a grand social theory, but this is not the sole case. In doing so, we attemptto prepare the reader for our next step, which is bringing in Thomas Kuhns theory of

scientific paradigms , and thus the modes of interdisciplinarity connection between

differences in stages of development in neighboring disciplines, and the functioning ofpull-push effects between a discipline and some of its mother grand disciplines.


13/28


4. An Assessment of Inter-Disciplinary Epistemological Interaction

Public administration developed independently6 mainly out of sociology, political

science, organization theory, private management, legal studies and so forth7 . Itsrelationship which each of these disciplines stays very strong to date . Its applied

character can make public administration evolve quicker under pressures from changes inthe society than its more theoretically driven disciplinary counterparts. Such evolutionthen reflects back in evolutions in the other neighboring disciplines.

Looking solely at implication of the neighboring disciplines upon PA would not draw thewhole picture. The reversed arrow question needs therefore equal attention as the

direct impact question does.

4.1 The Direct Impact of the Disciplines on Public Administration

Being built upon knowledge and theories originating in large part in neighboring

disciplines, public administration theory emerges necessarily as a synthesis of suchknowledge, empowered and enriched8 however with its own practical & often problem

solving focus of study, and development of specific inquiry methodologies. While

Linblom may disagree, we argue that just the same as with complexity, there are ways to

harness cognitive impairmenttoo.

In a very illustrious discussion, public administration scholars have debated a lot abouthow political science and public administration should interact when they need to borrow

or lend constructive concepts, analytical tools, and practical methods. Even since the

inception of public administration as an independent field, the earlier scholars of public

administration ponder about how management practices should be demarcated from

political involvements and judgmental or value-laden calls. Frank Goodnow in hisseminal work Politics and Administration argues that the expression of the will of the

state and the execution of the will of the state must be separated. On the other hand,

6 Some would argue it never did develop as a fully independent discipline. For instance, Waldo argues that

public administration is neither discipline nor a subdiscipline of political science. Peters also points out

that public administration as a discipline has no overarching theoretical paradigm, not even close, to study

public administration. However, we rather argue that public administration always as a pragmatic approachdeveloped over time independently either inside or at the intersection of its neighbor disciplines in social

science.7 Please see more for heated discussions between the earlier frontiers of public administration .8 With his cognitive impairment, Lindblom considers that a scholars primary disciplinary focus impairs

their knowledge or analytic abilities, affecting their ability to perform objective analysis. Of course

Lindblom and Cohen further argue that exactly because of such cognitive impairment our quest forobjective science is futile, even more so considering that ordinary, non-professional scientific inquiry

produced knowledge may be as important as, if not more important than such (unachievable) objectivescientific knowledge. We need to fight our cognitive impairment, argues Lindblom , by tracing down and

eliminating our inherent subjective influences from our education, culture, identity or the disciplines we

have come to public administration from. We find Lindblom and Cohens concept of usable knowledge ,

as well as their need for awareness and action against cognitive impairment that affects us laudable, but we

still tend to find his approach overly pessimistic. In other words, it is true that our theoretical

presuppositions (in post-positivist terms) necessarily affect us, but there are also positive impacts here, not

only negative ones, as we will try to point out below.


14/28


political science, or politics in general, is a value-laden discipline. Key argument from

earlier scholars such as Wilson and Goodnow is that if everybody brings their values,

belief systems, and judgments into the practice of public administration, governmentcannot be run as business-like . Furthermore, very interestingly, Goodnow (1900)

argued that there is no Republican way to build a road; you can bring engineers and find

the best solution, and do the job successfully. However, Paul Appleby criticized thenotion of politics-administration dichotomy. He further argued that administration must

deal with politics and values that cannot be separated from the practice of government at

all.

Appleby also attacked Goodnows notion of Republican way of road building by

arguing there is no Republican way to build a road. It is true. However, there is a

Republican way where to build a road, how to build, how to collect money to build aroad, which priorities come first. Furthermore, political scientists attacked the notions

ofadministrative principles and value-free approaches. Waldo argued that there is no

realm of factual and judgmental decisions from which values are excluded. To decide is

to choose between alternatives; to choose between alternatives is to introduce values(p.97). Simon ) replied to Waldos assertions by arguing that there are value decisions

and factual decisions; the term judgment refers to an element of decision, not to adecision as a whole (p. 495). Simon also criticized Waldos rhetoric: by saying that

the history of human error demonstrates repeatedly philosophers will inevitably reach

the conclusions they wish to reach unless they subject themselves to a merciless

discipline of rigor and the chances are good that they will fall into error even (p. 495).

In essence Waldo believed that the influence of the public administration field by certain

disciplines (private management in particular) and their specific inquiry methodologieshad been too high, as compared to influence by other fields, such as politics (or political

science), sociology and history. Such differences in influences have made public

administration theory to concentrate too much on rational decision making which, inWaldos opinion, did not properly reflect the policy process, which is much more

affected by politics than rationalists believe or can grasp or explain with their methods.

Waldos solution is roughly that the balance of influence has to be realigned, while thepublic managerial process should eventually be better managed.

Public Administration draws not only its underlining theories from the disciplines, but

also its methodologies. Phronesis, the method of inquiry of choice for post-positivists, aswell as the much more criticized hypotetico-deductive model, or more particularly the

falibilist approach, all rely heavily on the use of knowledge and methods developed in an

inter-disciplinary setting . Eventually, pragmatic pluralists (Dunn and others) will choseto use only a subset ofphronesis in their inquiry, recognizing the lack of practical

applicability or of time and cost effectiveness of applying the whole in practical settings.

In this view, we believe this approach is not only more optimistic, but it is also broaderand more practical than the relatively limited approaches of Lindblom . Public

administration is therefore called to integrate knowledge (and, according to Ravetz and

Dunn , usable ignorance) from the disciplines, in an effort to make social problem-

solving activities more effective. In this endeavor, public administration makes a


15/28


combined use of and needs to refine the methods developed in and borrowed from

disciplines for its own practical scopes. For example, methods employed by Cook and

Campbell or Dunn in their quasi-experimental inquiry designs rest heavily on rivalhypothesizing and elimination of threats to validity (among several other principles of

inquiry). Often, such methods need input from different disciplines simply to make

possible the conscious and purposive avoidance of Lindblom-ian cognitive impairment.

4.2 The impact of developments in Public Administration on the disciplines

The use in public administration of knowledge and methods borrowed from the

disciplines enriches the practical applicability ofphronesis itself. The pragmatic inter-

disciplinary setting forced upon other disciplines by public administration is likely to

enhance their very ability to produce more knowledge.

The complexity of real life social problems has demanded from social sciences to build

interdisciplinary bindings. Building upon theories and methods developed in political

science, economics, psychology, sociology, history etc., public administration theoristsand practitioners have been able to better understand the functioning of society and the

effectiveness of political systems they have studied.

Refining borrowed knowledge and methods, PA is able to influence back the disciplines

by offering them more complex, inter-disciplinary methodologies and theories likely to

increase advancement of knowledge in the disciplines as well. Nevertheless, disciplinesare not all equal and thus both influences may introduce field variance in both the amount

of knowledge contributed to public administration and/or learned back from it.

Different disciplines, or fields and sub-fields, in social sciences tend to develop

independently once they have based themselves originally on one grand social theory or

the other, or a combination thereof. The directions these fields and sub-fields will takeare adapted to the particularities of the respective discipline's focus or to the

characteristics of the social sub-system they are analyzing. In doing so,phronesis is key

offering flexible yet possible pragmatic adaptive set of inquiry tools of choice.

In a discipline's development, there are timed "re-connections" to the evolutions in the

mother grand theoretical approach developed jointly and meta-theoretically outside the

particularities of a discipline, but this is not to say that any social sciences sub-field hasits core theories connected continuously with the developments in grand theoretical

sociology. Moreover, the mentioned successive re-connections might not be done in the

same original distribution with everyone of the mother sociological theoreticalapproaches the discipline has originated in.

Accordingly, in the Public Administration Theory, the classic rational choice theory hasbeen evolving in time. The reconnection to the advancements in private management has

resulted in human relations paradigm earlier and new public administration paradigm

later, while their reconnection to critical theory has resulted very recently in some degree

of shift within these two mainstream paradigms towards accepting some marginal


16/28


compromises with new public management paradigm. The "re-connection" process is by

no means either (1) a one way only set of influences, or (2) a one, two or a limited

number of times only process. The connected - independent development process shouldtherefore be seen as more of a continuous double influence between grand theoretical

field and more applied pragmatic theories or just paradigms developed in sub-fields of

social systems analysis.

Next, we will look at how this relates directly to the building of our modes of

interdisciplinarity model.

4. 3. Volterra S-Shaped Curves Across Disciplines

As we pointed out in the introduction, the stage of development of PA in Kuhn-ian terms

is a contested and highly debated matter. Consequently in part 1 we have tried to explain

why this should not stop us from building our model of modes of interdisciplinarity.

The relationships between neighboring disciplines influencing each other, and the

successive reconnections with a disciplines meta- or mother disciplines, viewed fromthe Volterra S-Curves metaphor perspective, are illustrated in Figure 5.


17/28


While a discipline undergoes consecutive cycles of the initiation-saturation phases in its

development, both neighboring and mother disciplines undergo similar cycles. Thecycles periodicity and the volume of disciplinary advancement may not be the same

though. In addition, it is for certain that advancement will not be in sync across differentdisciplines. If we choose to import knowledge from a neighboring discipline, or inherit

some from a mother meta-discipline, there are of course implications that disciplines

stage of development will have on the success of the import attempt. Similarly, our owndiscipline is likely to have more or less valid and important knowledge to export to a

neighboring or mother discipline in certain stages of its own development.

We may experience however useful pull and push effects from one discipline to another

in situations where the two are in the proper relative stages of development. Identifying

such higher yield knowledge import/export situations and avoiding the lower yieldsituations should be part of a disciplines scholarly community strategy for self

advancement.

If we take for example sociology as one mother discipline to PA, the connections andreconnections underlined above could be better interpreted in light of Figure 5.

The relationship between the application of the outward/inward preferred use of

complexity in one discipline based on its own stage of development and the

Figure 5: Consecutive Cycles of Voltera S Shaped Curves, Interdisciplinarity

and Thomas Kuhns model

I

IIIII

IVI

II

III IVI

II

III IV

time

N

KI

KII

KIII

KIV


18/28


outward/inward preferred use of complexity in one of its mother disciplines is

suggested in Figure 6. In drawing both Figure 5 and Figure 6 we make the assumption

that thesaturation stage represents a Kuhn-ian normal science stage, when the disciplineis ripe for a paradigmatic shift/scientific revolution drawn by major new advancements in

the form of a new initiation occurring.

In quadrant (A), both our discipline and its mother are in initiation orstrong growthstages at the same time. Complexity usage should be outward reaching in both. There istherefore little already formalized knowledge our discipline can import from above.

Instead, the two, say PA and sociology in our example can develop jointly, but in doing

so both should be careful to import knowledge from other more evolved neighboringdisciplines.

Overarching discipline Kuhnian stage

I. Init II. SG III. LG IV. Sat

PAStage

(absoluteorrelative)

I. Init O O O O O I O I

II. SG O

(A)

O O O O

(C)

I O I

III. LG I O I O I I I I

IV. Sat I

(B)

O I O I

(D)

I I I

Legend: O: primarily Outward oriented, I: primarily Inward oriented uses of complexity

(in a cell, left O and I referr to row headings; right O and I referr to column headings)

Figure 6: Combined effects of PA stage of development and contextual/environment

(surrounding relevant disciplines) Kuhn-ian stage on the disciplines use of complexity

Somewhat similar, in quadrant (D) both our discipline and its mother are concentrating

towards internal formalization. The studying of complex relationships should betherefore targeted at refining intra-discipline connections. There is a strong possibility

for benefits from in sync development of such formal models, whereby the modes can be

transferred from where there are developed (in PA or in sociology) to the otherpartner (i.e. to sociology, or to PA respectively).

In quadrant (C), the discipline under study, public administration in this case, finds itself

in initiation orsustained growth stages. Meanwhile, its mother discipline finds itself inlimited growth orsaturation stage. The mother discipline is thus well formalized and

ready to export knowledge into public administration. In turn, public administrations

outward use of complexity finds good new resource in the mother discipline. Thus,quadrant (C) represents a case where the mother discipline can help pull public

administration into a new initiation stage.


19/28


In quadrant (B), the discipline under study is in limited growth orsaturation stage while

the mother discipline is in initiation orstrong growth stage. Inward use of complexitycharacterizes public administration. The resulting stronger formalization in PA may offer

opportunities for import of knowledge by the mother discipline in search of new valid

avenues of knowledge creation.

In accordance to these four distinct types of relations, we further introduce our model that

deals with different modes of interdisciplinarity.

5. Optimal Modes of Interdisciplinarity?

Between all of the above and Axelrods categorization of social actors into signalers andfollowers , we build a model of modes of interdisciplinarity. We argue that some

modes of interdisciplinarity are better fit to yield higher and appropriately timed

theoretical advancements, in line with what a discipline needs in a given stage of its owndevelopmentas in degree of theoretical formalization.

As shown in Figure 7, we consider the gray shaded areas (quadrants C and B) to

represent uses of interdisciplinarity closer to optimality for theoretical advancement

purposes.


20/28


Behavioral Patterns of Majority of Scholars (Axelrods categories)

Followers Signalers

ComplexityU

sage

Outward

Inward

StageofDevelopmentofa

Discipline

I.Initiation

PP

Practical Driven Prescriptive

Knowledge

Closed Networks

Prevailing Replication (using older

Knowledge)

TT

Theoretical Innovations

Initiating Advances in the FieldOpen Networks

Prevailing Exploration of Wilderness

II.

SustainedGrowth

P

(A)

T

(C)

III.LimitedGrowth

T

Theoretical Formalizations

Deepening the Field

Closed Fast Networks

(produce new insights fast inside thediscipline)

Prevailing Incremental Replication

P

Practical Innovations

Open Networks Theorist/Practitioners

Useful Practical Explorations

IV.

Saturation

TT

(B)

PP

(D)

Legend: TT; T: High TheoreticalAdvancement, PP; P: High Advancement inPracticalApplied Knowledge

Figure 7: Complexity Usage, Types of the Majority of Knowledge Seekers and Types of Knowledge Produced

Before we delve further into explaining the model in more detail, as a parenthesis let us

look briefly at the practical/theoretical debate within public administration. Manyscholars have sensed a disconnect between theory and practice in many social sciences in

general. Public administration and its sister discipline, public policy analysis, are


21/28


affected a lot by it, as noted by Lindblom and Cohen , or more directly related to PA, by

Denhardt . In Lindblom and Cohens words:

On public policy making, many suppliers and users of social research are

dissatisfied, the former because they are not listened to, the latter because they donot hear much they want to listen to (Lindblom and Cohen, Usable Knowledge)

Denhardts assessment applied to PA is very similar. We believe that while this may be

true, there are objective reasons for it. Many of them have been analyzed before inseveral studies and from many different perspectives . Our model can also contribute to

shedding a new light on why this disconnect can have objective causes. In part, the

disconnect can be said to be the byproduct of optimal (theory building appropriate)modes of interdisciplinarity. In other words, quadrants A and D in figure 5 represent in

fact modes of interdisciplinarity likely to yield more practical oriented (applied)

knowledge. These modes thus become also optimal, but for different purposes. Thedisconnect mentioned above can then be much easier understood based on the

predominance of relationships and behaviors inside the discipline of PA and between it

and both disciplinary neighbors and practitioners in the field at a given time.

Having said that, let us turn back to detailing why we believe that certain modes ofinterdisciplinarity yield higher theoretical advancements and why others result in more

applied knowledge.

Quadrant (C) represents the intersection of the initiation andsustained growth stages of a

discipline with the majority9 of scholars in the discipline acting as signalers10. If inaddition neighboring disciplines are in more developed stages, this will sustain effective

imports of knowledge from other disciplines at a stage when this is necessary and

beneficial. The result is theoretical innovation initiating advances in the field occurringprimarily due to the fit of signalers t the task of outward complexity usage. This is often

achieved through using open networks of scholars, communicating extensively with othernetworks of scholars in other disciplines, and through encouraging exploration of

knowledge wilderness.

Quadrant (B) represents the intersection of a disciplines limited growth orsaturation

stage with the majority of scholars acting as followers. If in addition there are no majorneighboring disciplines more advanced than itself, and at the same time there is not much

to inherit from any meta discipline, effective theoretical formalization deepening the field

should occur. This happens due to the fit of followers characteristics to the task ofinward complexity use. Incremental in-depth replication prevails, facilitated by fast and

closed networks of scholars that cooperate in exploring, testing and refining new

relationships between concepts already in the field.

9 The term majority here is not used primarily as representing sheer volume in numbers alone. It means

more a power majority then a simple numbers driven majority. In other words, signalers may be more

numerous but less powerful compared to followers better placed in a disciplines hierarchy. This would

represent a case of followers being in majority, not signalers.10 As mentioned before, we use the followers and signalers categories and characteristics defined by

Axelrod (1999)


22/28


Following the strategies for quadrants (C) or (B) will ensure effective theory

advancement. As noted above however, the unfortunate cost will be dissatisfied

practitioners because in this case the discipline and scholars inside it focus on theoreticaladvancements without sufficient regard to immediate practical applicability.

Practitioners should not worry too much though. On the contrary, many times

practitioners should find much more attention being given to their immediate needs, andthe reason comes from the characteristics of the other two quadrants, (A) and (D), as

detailed below:

In quadrant (A), the majority of scholars in a discipline are followers at a time when the

discipline is in initiation andsustained growth stage. Theoretical advancements will be

delayed due to the better fit of this situation for practical advancement. Followers are not

good at outward uses of complexity. They will rather use knowledge from a previousparadigm and apply that in practice in new situations, and that may be unwise, because it

does not take into account newer knowledge about to be refined. The modes of operation

will be closed networks. Practitioners will be happy because many scholars primarily

pay attention to their needs. The practical knowledge produced however is notnecessarily fully valid theoretically because older theoretical findings are used. In fact,

followers run the scientific community. They will not prepare or let the necessarysignalers out in seeking interdisciplinary new knowledge. The required outward use of

complexity for the theoretical advancement of the discipline in this stage will thus not be

met.

In quadrant (D) the majority of scholars are signalers. The discipline is relatively

formalized in limited growth orsaturation stages. The scientific community is thus either

not prepared or not properly lead to in-depth inward uses of complexity necessary in thisstage. The needed internal relationships leading to formalization will most likely be left

unstudied. Theoretical advancement is thus delayed. Signalers will most likely test

knowledge in new situations, possibly putting their energy into applied problem solving.Practitioners will again be happy given the attention they receive.

In conclusion, cross-analyzing Axelrods social behavioral patterns as applied to ascholarly community against a scientific disciplines necessary usage of complexity

(inward/outward) can help understand differing outcomes of different modes of

interdisciplinarity. Maintaining awareness of the stage of a discipline and trying to

adapt the signalers/followers leadership according to the needs of the respective stagewill likely result in more effective and targeted advancement, either practical or

theoretical.


23/28


6. Short Case Study: The Rise, Critique and Refinement of Graham Allisons Three

Models of Decision

Let us now very briefly test the above suggested framework against the case of the

emergence, import/export, use, critique and refinement of Graham T. Allisons threemodels of decision, used so extensively in PA Theory, in spite of (1) their originating

much outside the core realm of PA, namely in explaining a case from Foreign Policy

Decision Making, and of (2) the low predicted likelihood of such a Kuhn-ian anomalyever occurring and affecting to such a high degree the discipline of PA. With this case,

we argue that the proper modes of interdisciplinarity were used at the proper times to

make more effective scientific advancement possible.

In Bendor and Hammonds words:

[] as predicted in the reviews [by Holsti (1972), Rourke (1972), Wagner

(1974) of Allisons Essence of Decision book], Allissons [three models]

approach has indeed had a substantial impact on both the study and the teachingof bureaucracy.

We can easily identify Allisons 1969 APSR article and his 1971 book as the act of anAxelrod type of signaler11. Clearly, it was a successful signaler that managed to induce

initiation. Furthermore, this initiation occurs in more than one sole discipline at the same

time, which in turn stands proof of the functioning of inter-disciplinary connections and

cross fertilizations of the kind presented in figure 4 above.

Once the three models were specified, both appreciation and critique followed from large

numbers of scholars in PA. Even the appreciative voices (Holsti, Rourke, Wagner) havebeen critical and offered modifications and improvements . Again, in their own words:

[Allisons] three models have been widely applied, and other scholars have

followed his lead by developing additional models to account for aspects ofpolicymaking left unexplained by Allisons analyses.

Bender and Hammond cite as many as 16 authors writing various new versions based onAllisons original three. They further find that:

in the 1990 Social Science Citation Index,Essence of Decision and Allisons

1969 article were cited 84 times in 58 different journals (319).

We believe the impact Allisons work has had on PA (and neighboring disciplines) is

sufficient evidence in favor ofsustained growth following initiation. At some point

however, thesustained growth changes into limited growth. At this stage, critical modelsstart being better and more in-depth specified, while the number of such new models

appearing decreases. In other words, the import stage is complete and the focus more in-

depth stands proof of the move towards an inward usage of complexity. The goalbecomes tighter better specified relationships between already imported and somewhat

11 Arguably Allison does not write in PA, but this is of no consequence to testing the validity of the model

in its entirety. Inter-disciplinarity accounts for how PA scholars imported the model as soon as it was

proposed.


24/28


developed abstractions towards a higher degree of formalization. In fact, Bender and

Hammonds own critique of Allison and their re-specifying work falls in this category.

Benefiting from 20 years later hindsight (p. 301), along with other writers doing the samethey are successful Axelrod followers falling in quadrant (B) of figure 5.

easily identify this major impact

Allisons impact may be an anomaly in Kuhni-ian terms. Yet, the whole process may

have come at a time when the disciplines in their connection were ripe for it and for

taking good benefit from it. In the long run, Allisons impact combined with his followerand critiques impacts upon number of disciplines may have led to a stronger

formalization or axiomatization, and why not may be even to a Kuhn-ian scientific

revolution. This case shows evidence that the use of proper modes of interdisciplinarity

may yield more effective scientific advancement.

7. Organizational Structures, Strategies and Processes and Accelerating Knowledge

Production and Paradigmatic Shifts

In response to the model above, we propose a more general application to the sustained

growth of the PA discipline of the Thompson and Tuden (1959) and later Donaldson(2000) labeled contingency theory in organizations as a potential means for

accelerating development in theory and practical knowledge consistent with Kuhns

recommendations and our modes of interdisciplinarity presented herein.

These are roughly five main forms of organizational structure according to Henry

Mintzberg, from simple form to machine bureaucracy, hierarchy, divisionalized form, or

adhocracy. Contingency theory of Donaldson (2000) argues that the fit of structure andprocesses in organizations to organizational goals and objectives impact efficiency and

effectiveness of outcomes.

In part the way the extended organizational design dealing with addressing an issue

impact the ability to address that issue fully, or optimally or if you apply the wrong

structure to the unfit type of issue you end up with errors.

These all have specific characteristics regarding horizontal and vertical communication

flows of information and decision making processes, specialization of expertise or

interdisciplinary multiple inputs (brain storming like) processes.

The question is then how does one organize a knowledge production effort to be able to

accelerate it

In part it is a matter of fitting the right structure to the type of task

If the task is deepening knowledge already in existence machine bureaucracy or hierarchy

works well.

But if the answer is widening the reach of knowledge then adhocracy is needed


25/28


How do we know it is this way? We don't. We just hypothesize. But it has been

hypothesized since 1959, mostly about other things, and not about knowledge production.

Since we keep struggling. In part the organization of academe is a large adhocracy. The

problem is academe alone cannot solve epistemic evolutionary barriers in PA.

This problem needs to cross understanding barriers between academics and practitioners.

We believe that more often than not we have been looking at the wrong system'sboundaries, namely at a subsystem only instead of at the entire system of knowledge

production in PA

We argue that a proper design of the extended organizational structure would create a"flow" towards early accelerated axiomatization inside the "cone", such as a metaphorical

pushing wind, or a directional magnetic field, attracting the pertinent knowledge towards

linking among itself towards the Axiomatization point in the graph in Figure 1., and also

producing more green knowledge and less red knowledge.

It also follows by consequence that resources need to be dedicated dedicate inverseproportionally with stage of development. In other words, in certain stages of

development of a discipline (exiting from a previous paradigmatic stageat plateau--

and struggling with a new initiation stage towards a paradigm shift) much more resources

need to be dedicated to initiation stages and less so in stages 3 and 4 as those selfreplicate resources and are thus less resource intensive. The problem is that a paradox

predicted well by Kuhn is that knowledge production systems most often dedicate

resources overwhelmingly in the stages 3 and 4. What this does is only elongate theplateau, which is not very useful from an economy and efficiency of research resources

perspective.

The problem of reversal inefficient allocation of resources is particularly present in PA.

This is in part because in PA practice politics (and not objective need) determines even

more so than in other disciplines or fields what knowledge gets mandated to be producedand thus what gets produced, and where the focus is.

This subjective hired gun type of knowledge in support of ideologically predetermined

ready-made opinions becomes then a possible "wind" in the opposite direction, toactually make more red knowledge available, and to drive back, further away from the

Axiomatization point, the green knowledge that could constitute the new fundaments of

the initiation of a paradigmatic shift, but its chance to do so becomes then more limited.

We argue that instead of allowing things to happen the way they do, by proactively and

purposefully finding and training and sending out signalers and also relying well onfollowers, by adjusting well the necessary proportions between the two categories based

on the stage of development of the discipline, we can then help accelerate the

development of a scientific discipline. In other words, the net effect would be to make

the distances between the consecutive respective re-Axiomatization points in Figure 2


26/28


smaller and smaller, as in D4


27/28


References

Appleby, P. H. (1945). Big Democracy. New York, NY: A.A. Knopf.

Appleby, P. H. (1949). Policy and Administration. University, AL: University ofAlabama Press.

Axelrod, R. (1999). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific

Frontier. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bendor, J., & Hammond, T. H. (1992). Rethinking Allison's Models. American PoliticalScience Review, 86(2), 301-322.

Daneke, G. A. (1990). A Science of Public Administration? Public Administration

Review, 50(3), 383-392.

Daneke, G. A. (1994). A Science of Public Administration. In J. D. White & G. B.

Adams (Eds.), Research in Public Administration: Reflections on Theory &Practice (pp. 60-74). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.

Daneke, G. A. (2001). Sustainable Development As Systemic Choices. Policy StudiesJournal, 29(3), 514-533.

Denhardt, R. B. (2000). Theories of Public Organization (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA:

Harcourt Brace College.

Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis :An Introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Dunn, W. N. (1997). Probing the Boundaries of Ignorance in Policy Analysis (Initiating

Change: Theory and Practice). American Behavioral Scientist, 40(3), 277-299.

Dunn, W. N., & Fozouni, B. (1976). Toward a Critical Administrative Theory. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.Gallagher, S. (1993). The Place of Phronesis in Postmodern Hermeneutics. Philosophy

Today(37), 298-305.

Golembiewski, R. T. (1996). The Future of Public Administration: End of A Short Stay

in the Sun? Or a New Day a Dawning? Intellectual Development of PublicAdministration. Public Administration Review, 56(2), 139-149.

Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and Administration. New York: Russell and Russell.

Haque, S. M. (1996). The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration in the Current

Epoch of Privatization. Administration & Society, 27(4), 510-537.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Kline S.J., and Rosenberg, Nathan. 1986, An Overview of Innovation, in R. Ladau and N.

Rosenberg (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy , National Academy Press,

Washington D.C., p. 275-305

Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand andShape Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


28/28


Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and

Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Little, J. H. (1994). Administrative Man Faces the Quality Transformation: Comparing

the Ideas of Herber A. Simon and W.Edwards Deming. American Review ofPublic Administration, 24(1), 67-85.

Lotka, A. J. (1925). Elements of physical biology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co.

Lotka, A. J. (1926). The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity. Journal of the

Washington Academy of Sciences(16), 317-323.

Newell, W. H., & Meek, J. W. (2000). What Can Public Administration Learn fromComplex Systems Theory. In G. Morl & L. F. Dennard (Eds.), News Sciences

for Public Administration and Policy: Connections and Reflections (pp. 81-106).

Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.

Peters, B. G. (1988). Comparing Public Bureaucracies : Problems of Theory and Method.Tuscaloosa , AL: University of Alabama Press.

Peters, B. G. (1996). The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS:The University Press of Kansas.

Petrescu, Adrian (2003). The Relationship Between Science and Technology in European

Advanced Industrial Economies (1980-2000), University of Pittsburgh

Petrescu, S., & Petrescu, V. (1986). Researching the Development of Thermodynamics in

the Cone behind the Principles, Methods of Thermodynamics (Romanian).

Bucheres: Editura Tehnica.

Ravetz, J. R. (1987). Usable Knowledge, Usable Ignorance: Incomplete Science withPolicy Implications. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 9(1), 87-116.

Ravetz, J. R. (1990). The Merger of Knowledge with Power. London, UK: Mansel.Simon, H. A., Drucker, P. F., & Waldo, D. (1952). Development of Theory of

Democratic Administration: Replies and Comments. The American Political

Science Review, 46(2), 494-503.

Volterra, V. (1926). Variazioni e Fluttuazioni del Numero D'individui in Specie AnimaliConviventi. Mem. R. Accad. Naz. dei Lincei, 6(2).

Waldo, D. (1952). Development of Theory of Democratic Administration. The American

Political Science Review, 46(1), 81-103.

Waldo, D. (1980). The Enterprise of Public Administration : A Summary View. Novato,

CA: Chandler & Sharp Publishers.Wangersky, P. J. (1978). Lotka-Volterra Population Models. Annual Review of Ecology

and Systematics, 9, 189-218.

advancing administrative theory/science: get it out from being bound to be in the cone behind...

Documents