Research in Public Administration: A Further Note

IN HIS provocative article on Research in Public Administration, in the Summer, 1956, issue of this Review, Frederick C. Mosher asked, Is there a 'field' of public administration, or, in the academician's glossary, is there such a 'discipline'? If so what is its scope, its rubric, its method? He then added, I am not sure that either question can be answered. And, after acknowledging the relationship of public administration to political science and the other social sciences, he said, it would appear that any definition of this field would be either so encompassing as to call forth the wrath or ridicule of others, or so limiting as to stultify its own disciples. Perhaps it is best that it not be defined. One may ask of Mosher's statement, how can there be research in a field that is undefined? How can theoretical and practical problems be identified, hypotheses formulated, and research techniques applied, if we have been unable to demarcate our area of interest? In short, without such definition how can programs of research be planned and undertaken? The problem of definition also presented itself in discussions on research in public administration at the 1957 annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration. Practitioners found themselves discussing their needs for research in terms of solving problems of day-to-day operations. How big should an organization and methods staff in a governor's office be? How have state governments fared in introducing program-budgeting systems? What is a reasonable cost for the operation of a fire department of a mediumsized city? On the other hand, some persons with interests directed to teaching and academic research urged that there be more basic research, which in concept seemed to range all the way from studies having rather practical and value-oriented objectives to those seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge rather than for immediate utility. It was evident in these discussions that a common pool of understanding was lacking with regard to (a) what public administration is and whether it is a separate field or discipline from the other social sciences, and (b) the nature of research that has meaning for public administration. Behind these questions lay others about which there may also be lacking a consensus, such as the character of the training that should be given persons who expect to work in the public service, and the research function of the professional society that serves those who work in, and provide training for, the public service. Answers to the first set of questions are helpful in thinking both about training in public administration and about the role of the professional society. It is the purpose of these comments to suggest answers to the two questions posed above and to offer some thoughts on the research function of the professional society.