Exceptional Proff 610

75th Anniversary Article

Bradley E. Wright is professor

and head of the Department of Public

Administration and Policy, School of Public

and International Affairs, at The University

of Georgia. His research focuses on how

employee attitudes and behavior are infl u-

enced by the interaction between character-

istics of the employee and the employee’s

organizational work environment.

E-mail: [email protected]

The Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities 795

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 6, pp. 795–805. © 2015 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12468.

Bradley E. Wright The University of Georgia

Editor’s Note: In 1947, Robert Dahl challenged public administration’s aspiration to be a science in “Th e Science of Public Administration: Th ree Problems.” In this anniversary essay, Bradley E. Wright returns to Dahl’s theme to assess how the fi eld fared in the aftermath of the essay. He takes stock of progress, which he views as signifi cant, and future possibilities.

JLP

Abstract: Nearly 70 years ago, Dahl noted the diffi culty of constructing a science of public administration that was plagued by three interrelated problems: values, behavior, and culture. Underlying all three problems was the presump- tion that public administration could establish a set of universal principles independent of moral or political ends, individual human diff erences, or social infl uences. In discussing these three broad and easily accessible themes, Dahl did more than identify and critique the fi eld’s problems and presumptions. He also provided a road map to move the fi eld forward and establish a science of public administration. Drawing on the framework provided by Dahl, this article argues that the fi eld has made considerable progress in recognizing, if not addressing, each problem raised by Dahl. Even so, several current presumptions or omissions are also identifi ed that, if challenged, can provide additional possibilities to advance the science of public administration.

areas (1947, 11; emphasis added), Dahl acted as the Lorax of our fi eld, speaking on behalf of science and understanding. He gave us not only a well-deserved warning regarding the fi eld’s problems and presump- tions but also hope and possibilities of how “a science of public administration might proceed” and where “a net gain to the science of public administration would result” (3). Th ese problems, therefore, do not prohibit a science of public administration. Th ey do, however, require greater attention when building such a science.

Th is article provides an assessment of some of the progress the fi eld has made toward heeding both his critique and call. First, I discuss Dahl’s critique of the presumptions of administrative management, its implications for defi ning a science of administra- tion, and the progress made in establishing a science of public administration. Second, I review the fi eld’s progress in answering Dahl’s call to address the three problems—values, behavior, and culture—that he suggested underscore both the inherent diffi culty and the potential promise of the scientifi c study of public administration. In each area, the fi eld has made considerable progress in recognizing, if not addressing, Dahl’s concerns. Even so, I note some current presumptions or omissions that, if challenged,

Th e Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities

In response to the growing acceptance of admin-istrative management and its search for universal principles of administration, Robert Dahl (1947) raised questions about the diffi culty of constructing a science of public administration that was plagued by three interrelated problems of values, behavior, and culture. Th e concern underlying all three problems was administrative management’s presumption that public administration could establish a set of prin- ciples that would have universal validity independent of moral or political ends, individual human diff er- ences, or social infl uences. In other words, principles could be discovered through science that would be not only value free but also successfully applied with any person and in any setting. While Dahl was not alone in questioning such pretensions (Simon 1946; Waldo 1948), his argument focused on these three broad and easily accessible themes.

Dahl’s contribution to the fi eld, however, was more than just providing a critique of the unrealistic expectations of administrative management. He also provided a road map for progress. In noting that “[w]e are a long way from a science of public admin- istration. No science of public administration is pos- sible unless” greater attention was given to three key

796 Public Administration Review • November | December 2015

or method rather than its outcomes. As one well-known scientist and author noted, “Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It’s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match.”1 Others have implied a similar defi nition when discussing the demarcation problem, noting that “whenever a branch of study is not admitted into the family of sciences, its rejection is always based on the methodological consid- erations” (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2000, 3). In fact, it was argued that “a science of administration will be distinguished from administrative lore by the methods used to build that knowledge of administration” (Th ompson 1956, 104; emphasis added).

If the status of public administration as a science depends on the methods by which its knowledge is amassed, then it is important to determine what it means to be systematic and evidence based. As with the defi nition of science itself, this is a contentious issue with especially heated disagreements over what constitutes valid evidence (Curd, Cover, and Pincock 2012; Pigliucci and Boudry 2013; Riccucci 2010). Even advocates of evidence-based research recognize that there are important and unavoidable disagreements concerning the best evidence to collect (Heinrich 2007). To the extent that a consensus exists, it centers around a core set of abstract or generic practices, including the need to compare ideas against evidence and to make the evidence (including the process by which it is gathered) explicit so that it can be exposed to critical scrutiny through replica-

tion and peer review. “Good science provides its own check on the infl uence of values in an inquiry. If the method by which the study has been done and the evidence for conclu- sions are clearly and fully stated, the study can be examined for the fi t of the conclusions to the evidence. If there is doubt about the validity of what has been done, the study itself can be double checked or replicated”

(Hoover 1992, 9). Consistent with commonly held principles of good governance, science encourages accountability and truth through competitive and transparent discourse.

Progress Is public administration research systematic and evidence based? Certainly, there have been numerous critiques of this research over the years. In addition to calls for increased methodologi- cal rigor (Brower, Abolafi a, and Carr 2000; Favero and Bullock 2015; Konisky and Reenock 2013; Perry 2012) or methodological diversity (Raadschelders 2008, 2011), some have argued that core elements of science are often not met because of a lack of theory testing or suffi cient detail about the evidence and method to allow for critical scrutiny and replication (Brower, Abolafi a, and Carr 2000; Houston and Delevan 1994; Wright, Manigault, and Black 2004). Such critiques are common in science and frequently occur in other fi elds, including economics, sociology, and psychology (Riccucci 2010). In fact, the very existence of these calls and cri- tiques helps reinforce the view of public administration as a science by illustrating the fi eld’s application of the scientifi c method as a standard by which to evaluate and improve the fi eld. As emphasized by the defi nition noted earlier, science is inherently self-correcting, as research methods and practices must be both explicit and exposed to critical analysis.2 Like Dahl (1947), these studies identifi ed

might create new possibilities to advance the science of public administration.

On a Science of Public Administration Presumptions One key issue raised by the title of Dahl’s article is whether public administration is, or even can ever be, a science. As noted in the introduction, Dahl’s intent was not to argue that public administra- tion would never become a science but rather to critique the claims made by some scholars that such a science could establish universal laws or truths (Gulick and Urwick 1937; Merson 1923). In doing so, Dahl not only questioned the very nature of science but also raised a number of key questions about how to defi ne the fi eld. What kind of science could public administration reasonably aspire to be? What type of scientifi c theories or principles could identify the fi eld? And where would a science of public administration exist with respect to other sciences? Th ere are no simple answers to these questions, as they still plague public administration and social science in general (Riccucci 2010). Although a full assessment of the academic fi eld’s intellectual status, contribution, and validity is beyond the scope of this article, no review of Dahl’s argument would be complete without some discussion of public administra- tion’s potential as a science.

Any discussion of public administration as a scientifi c endeavor must start by establishing a common understanding of what science is and what it is not. Whether public adminis- tration or any other academic fi eld is a science depends largely on how science is defi ned. Like Simon (1946), Dahl challenged the defi nition of science implied by those claim- ing that a science of public administration could establish universal laws or truths. Such claims were commonly made by advocates of a science of public administration during the fi rst half of the twentieth century and are still made, albeit to a lesser degree, today. Fukuyama (2004), for example, has argued that public administration is not and can never be a science because of its inability to establish universal principles. Using this stringent standard, however, few, if any, social sciences would achieve science status. Although the very defi nition of science and how to distin- guish between science and nonscience (commonly referred to as the “demarcation problem”) has long been debated (Curd, Cover, and Pincock 2012; Riccucci 2010), many argue that it is impos- sible to identify a universal set of necessary and suffi cient criteria for something as heterogeneous as science (Dupré 1993; Laudan 1983) or that a defi nition is only possible when using discipline-specifi c criteria (Pigliucci and Boudry 2013).

Although there are disagreements over how best to operational- ize science, some level of agreement on the general meaning does exist at a higher level of abstraction. Th e Science Council, a U.K. umbrella organization for scientifi c societies and professional bodies whose member organizations represent more than 400,000 scien- tists, has defi ned science as “the pursuit and application of knowl- edge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence” (see http://www. sciencecouncil.org/defi nition). Th is defi nition, while broad, is con- sistent with other sources that defi ne science in terms of its process

Consistent with commonly held principles of good governance, science encourages accountabil- ity and truth through competi- tive and transparent discourse.

The Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities 797

often used to describe a body of knowledge that strives for universal understanding, it also describes a systematic and transparent process by which ideas are tested against evidence in ways that invite critical scrutiny through replication and peer review. Second, by this defi ni- tion, public administration qualifi es as a science, and, even though there remains considerable room for improvement (Perry 2012), there has been considerable progress in its use of scientifi c process and methods.4

Dahl’s Three Problems of Public Administration In addition to critiquing the unrealistic claims regarding a science of public administration, Dahl also identifi ed three problems that characterize the study of public administration: normative values, human behavior, and the sociocultural setting. Th e use of these problems serves two main purposes. First, they illustrate how the conditions under which public administration operates preclude the development of a set of universal principles that are equivalent to those that guide the natural sciences. Second, the discussion of these three problems helps identify and highlight specifi c issues within public administration that would benefi t from more recognition and research attention. After discussing the implications of each problem for a science of public administration, Dahl did not conclude that a science of public administration was not possible. Instead, he argued how “a science of public administration might proceed” (1947, 3) or what “the study of public administration inevitably must become” (11). According to Dahl, the fi eld was not “a long way from a sci- ence of administration” (11) because it could not establish universal principles or a better understanding of values, behavior, or culture. It was a long way off because public administration often failed to recognize, study, and understand the importance of normative values, human behavior, and the sociocultural setting.

In the following sections, I review the fi eld’s progress regarding the three problems identifi ed by Dahl. In each area, the fi eld has made some progress in recognizing, if not addressing, the problem. Even so, I also note some current presumptions or omissions that, if challenged, might create new possibilities to advance the science of public administration. While the issues raised and examples used are not a comprehensive list of all the progress made or future possibili- ties for growth, they do highlight some important ways in which Dahl’s three problems continue to infl uence our fi eld.

Problem 1: Normative Values In the nearly 70 years since Dahl’s writing, the study of values has played an increasing role in the public administration literature. Th e importance of studying values can be seen at both the individual and group levels. While individual-level studies have investigated the important roles that values play in infl uencing public employee behaviors and decision making, group-level studies have investi- gated the values that should guide collective action and defi ne the public interest. Given that Dahl discussed individual behavior and sociocultural factors as problems somewhat distinct from values, this section will primarily focus on values as they relate to the provision of government goods and services.

When thinking about the importance that values play in design- ing, delivering, and evaluating government policies and programs, considerable progress has been made toward answering Dahl’s call. In contrast to administrative management’s nearly exclusive focus on

weaknesses in the fi eld as part of an eff ort to improve rather than condemn or classify public administration research.

As a result of these eff orts, there is evidence of increasing rigor in both the qualitative (Stout 2013) and quantitative (Cleary 2000; Moynihan 2008) research conducted in the fi eld. In particular, there is strong evidence that public administration has become much more scientifi c in the nearly 70 years since Dahl’s critique. In a review of 65 years of Public Administration Review (PAR) articles, it was noted that between 1940 and 1984, PAR published very few, if any, “more conventional social science-type studies,” while the percentage of such articles increased substantially during the time that Simon (1946) and Dahl (1947) wrote their critiques (Stallings and Ferris 1988). Th ere is good reason to believe these trends have continued. Cleary (2000), for example, found that a substantial improvement in the nature and quality of public administration dissertations over a 20-year period from 1981 to 1998, including both the rigor of research designs and the focus on cause-and-eff ect relationships. Similarly, a more recent study found that nearly 70 percent of all conference papers presented at Public Management Research Association conferences engaged in hypotheses testing, and 75 percent were empirical (“uses data to make claims”) in nature (Pitts and Fernandez 2009).

Evidence of progress toward a stronger science of public admin- istration can be seen with regard to other specifi c examples or issues noted by Dahl. For example, Dahl raised concern that our understanding of behavior would be hindered by the diminished possibility of using experimental procedures. While the fi eld’s use of such procedures has been very limited, the use of experiments and the understanding gained from them has increased consider- ably in the last fi ve years. Margetts (2011) found only 10 experi- mental studies published in major public administration journals between 1960 and 2009, but there have been more than three times as many experimental studies published since 2009 in just four journals (the Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory, International Public Management Journal, Public Administration, and Public Administration Review). Similarly, Dahl also noted the need for public administration scholars to rely on relevant investigations outside our fi eld. Although recent studies continue to raise concerns that public administration scholarship is still too often isolated from other relevant fi elds (Vogel 2014; Wright 2011), there is evidence of progress, as the frequency with which PAR articles cited publica- tions in the top management and political science journals increased substantially between 1977 and 2007 (Wright 2011).3

Drawing from the foregoing discussion, two conclusions can be made about the status of public administration as a science. First, it is unreasonable to evaluate public administration’s status as a science based on its ability to establish universal principals. Few, if any, social sciences would meet such standards. In fact, other fi elds men- tioned as role models in Dahl’s 1947 article—sociology, psychol- ogy, and political science—face the same underlying problems as public administration in that they, too, search to understand human behavior and are similarly plagued not only by its variability but also by assumptions that are inherently value laden and often culture bound. A critical diff erence between those fi elds and public admin- istration was the extent to which they embraced rather than ignored the three problems highlighted by Dahl. While the term “science” is

798 Public Administration Review • November | December 2015

Wright 2010). For example, even with the growing recognition of important public values such as equity, transparency, privacy, liberty, and due process, many fear that the values of effi ciency and eff ec- tiveness still dominate much of the empirical research on and the practice of performance management (Moynihan et al. 2011). As a result of such concerns, some have proposed the development and promotion of safeguards such as the use of impact statements and performance assessments to show the impact of government policies and practices on democratic-constitutional values (Rosenbloom 2007). Such arguments not only highlight potential dangers but also encourage a better balance of competing values.

Scholars continue to call for more empirical research to under- stand values themselves (Williams and Shearer 2011), but there are concerns that the research on values suff ers from aspirational bias (Van der Wal, Nabatchi, and de Graaf 2015) and that there should be greater emphasis on developing and testing empirically testable propositions. In that vein, there are a number of promis- ing possibilities. Future research on values, for example, may be able to help validate recommended guidelines about when and how public participation can be used to identify, understand, and resolve value confl icts (Nabatchi 2012). Additional research can also help us understand how public values may infl uence individual and policy preferences and behaviors. Although a common set of public values can be diffi cult to establish, research suggests that individu- als draw from these values to create hierarchies of personal values that predict their policy preferences (Witesman and Walters 2015). Other studies have highlighted ways in which values infl uence how performance is evaluated or interpreted (Baekgaard and Serritzlew, forthcoming; Tetlock et al. 2013). While empirical studies can- not resolve inherently normative questions regarding the relative importance of diff erent values, it is possible that they can better to inform our discussions and decisions by investigating what values are important to consider, how can they best be measured (recogniz- ing that the measurement itself requires balancing competing objec- tives of cost-effi ciency, responsiveness, and transparency), and under what conditions each value is more or less important to diff erent constituencies.

Problem 2: Human Behavior A second concern that Dahl raised about the status of the science of public administration is that it must derive from and contribute to an understanding of human behavior. Th e importance of human behavior, in itself, did not necessarily confl ict with administrative management and its search for universal principles. Th ere was,

however, confl ict in how human behavior was viewed. Dahl argued that behavior is highly variable and that the factors infl uencing behavior are vast and complex. Th is variation in behavior and the inherent irrationality of humans would likely frustrate the search for a “one best way” approach to organizational and task structure. Fortunately, as with the concern that Dahl raised regarding values,

the fi eld of public administration has made considerable progress in recognizing the diffi culty of establishing universal principles of behavior as well as conducting research to help understand the con- ditions that make universal principles of human behavior so hard to establish.

effi ciency and eff ectiveness, public administration scholars and prac- titioners have increasingly recognized that public organizations have multiple and confl icting goals driven by competing, albeit equally valid, values (Brown, Potoski, and Van Slyke 2006; Jørgensen and Bozeman 2007; Moynihan et al. 2011; Nabatchi 2012). One could even argue that the existence and importance of values other than effi ciency and eff ectiveness is now universally accepted in the fi eld. Rosenbloom’s 1983 article that described the political, historical, and legal underpinnings of the multiple confl icting values in public administration not only is one of PAR’s most infl uential articles but also provides the foundation for one of the most popular introduc- tory public administration texts. We also see the concern for non- mission-based (Rosenbloom 2007) or contextual (Wilson 1989) outcomes becoming the focus of more discussion in literatures typi- cally dominated by effi ciency and eff ectiveness concerns. Research, for example, has gone beyond investigating leadership’s infl uence on effi ciency and eff ectiveness to also study its infl uence on ethical behavior more commonly associated with the values of integrity, transparency, and accountability (Hassan, Wright, and Yukl 2014). Other research has used mission-based eff ectiveness and effi ciency measures to assess progress in establishing social equity (Atkins and Wilkins 2013; Meier and Nicholson-Crotty 2006; Wilkins and Keiser 2006). Still other recent empirical evidence has highlighted the importance of studying values by noting that a manager’s prefer- ence for outcome or process accountability mechanisms is not only infl uenced by political ideology but also moderated by whether the performance being evaluated focuses on equity or effi ciency out- comes (Tetlock et al. 2013).

Current presumptions and future possibilities. Although there has been signifi cant growth in the literature on the importance of public values, there continues to be little agreement on how to defi ne, identify, and prioritize such values (Moynihan et al. 2011; Nabatchi 2012; Rutgers 2015; Van der Wal, Nabatchi, and de Graaf 2015) or the extent to which they have been adequately recognized in research and practice (Meier 1997; Piotrowski and Rosenbloom 2002; Radin 2006; Rosenbloom 2007; Wichowsky and Moynihan 2008). One content analysis of the literature identifi ed more than 500 different public values (Van der Wal et al. 2006), and efforts to categorize or establish a hierarchy of values have been unsuccessful (Rutgers 2015; Witesman and Walters 2015). As a result, the literature has been characterized as “scattered and fragmented” and unlikely to provide a clear focus for theory to predict or guide action (Rutgers 2015).

Although the lack of a clear consensus on the defi nition, identifi cation, and prioritization of values limits our ability to guide behavior, this does not mean that the study of values lacks value or importance. In noting that “[i]f pur- poses and normative considerations were con- sistently made plain, a net gain to the science of public administration would result” (1947, 3), Dahl only called for value recognition, not value consensus or resolution. In fact, the inability to achieve consensus makes the study of values even more important because it promotes a discussion of competing interests so that scholars, practi- tioners, and citizens can better understand and weight the potential costs and benefi ts of specifi c government actions (Rutgers 2015;

Th e fi eld of public administra- tion has made considerable

progress in recognizing the dif- fi culty of establishing universal

principles of behavior.

The Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities 799

guarantee equitable service provision. Far from negating the impor- tance of representative bureaucracy, such fi ndings only highlight the need to identify the conditions under which it is more or less eff ec- tive. As a result, there is growing understanding of how competing social identities, organizational socialization, and procedural con- straints limit and even reverse the expected benefi ts of representative bureaucracy (Naff and Capers 2014; Watkins-Hayes 2011; Wilkins and Williams 2008).

When taken together, these fi ndings put the progress and possibili- ties of a science of administrative behavior into better perspective. On one hand, they clearly support Dahl’s concern that individual diff erences handicap the ability to establish simple, universal princi- ples of administration. Individuals diff er not only in the values and identities that drive their behavior but also in how they interpret their shared environments. On the other hand, these same fi ndings support the importance of individual diff erences in understand- ing human behavior and our ability to study them. Even though individual diff erences prohibit the establishment of broad, universal principles of behavior, behavior tends to follow predictable, albeit more complicated, patterns. While we may not always be able to predict or even understand how a specifi c individual thinks or behaves, we can predict and infl uence how individuals under similar circumstances and with similar characteristics are often likely to think or act.

Current presumptions and future possibilities. Although public administration research exhibits an increasing recognition of the importance and complexity of human behavior, more work still needs to be done in this regard. Notably absent, for example, is a discussion of the role of personality in understanding human

behavior, even though it was specifi cally and repeatedly mentioned by Dahl. Admittedly, this may be because Dahl used this term broadly to represent a wide range of individual-level factors, including perceptions and attitudes. Even so, there is considerable evidence that an individual’s personality (narrowly defi ned as a person’s innate patterns of cognition and emotion) can infl uence his or her perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Fleeson and Gallagher 2009; Judge, Heller, and Mount 2002; Judge and Ilies 2002; Oh and Berry 2009). The research on personality

published in public administration journals, however, is not only very limited but also too often fails to incorporate more contemporary and valid personality frameworks such as the fi ve-factor model (Cooper et al. 2013). As noted by Dahl nearly 70 years ago, the fi eld would benefi t from more research on personality, and such benefi ts can be better realized by incorporating current research and theory produced by psychologists and sociologists.

A second worrying presumption in much of the current research and theory in public administration is that increasing character- istics, conditions, and behaviors widely accepted as benefi cial will always produce increasingly desirable outcomes. In other words, if some is good, then more is even better. Th is common assump- tion in organizational behavior is increasingly being challenged (Pierce and Aguinis 2013). Studies have found that the benefi cial

Over the years, the fi eld has proposed its share of universal princi- ples about human behavior as it relates to the actions and perfor- mance of government agencies. Many of those claims, however, have been tempered, if not tamed, over time through research. Take, for example, the research on public service motivation (PSM). In an article published in PAR 25 years ago, Perry and Wise (1990) made a number of strong, universal claims about government employee behaviors that have served as the main inspiration for this popu- lar and growing area of research (Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise 2010). Defi ning PSM as the “predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organi- zations” (Perry and Wise 1990, 368), they posited that individu- als with greater PSM are (1) more likely to work for government organizations, (2) more likely to perform better in government jobs, and (3) less motivated by extrinsic or monetary rewards. Although these assumptions guided both the interest and content of PSM research, recent empirical evidence and theoretical development no longer supports claims that public service motivation will have universally benefi cial infl uences on employee behavior. Studies have found that PSM will not always increase the likelihood that an indi- vidual works for government (Kjeldsen 2014; Kjeldsen and Jacobsen 2013; Wright and Christensen 2010) given that public service motives are not the only or even the most important considerations when choosing a job and that there is no certainty such motives will be satisfi ed by the specifi c characteristics of the public sector job or organization. Similarly, the expected benefi cial eff ects of PSM on government employee performance are now recognized to depend on employees’ perceptions that their work has suffi cient prosocial impact and importance (Bellé 2013, 2014; Wright, Hassan, and Christensen, forthcoming). Other studies have failed to fi nd strong, consistent evidence that public employees value extrinsic mon- etary rewards less than their private sector counterparts (Bullock, Stritch, and Rainey 2015; Crewson 1997) and that the impor- tance that individuals place on income fails to predict whether respondents desire to or even actually work for government (Lewis and Frank 2002; Tschirhart et al. 2008; Wright and Christensen 2010). While this research illustrates how studies have challenged broad, universal principles of behavior, it is equally important to note how the investigation of such claims has improved our understanding of such behavior by identifying the conditions under which PSM is more or less helpful in recruiting, retaining, and motivating public employee behavior (Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise 2010).

Th e importance of individual diff erences in complicating the search for universal principles of behavior can also be found in other research areas of particular interest to public administration scholars and practitioners. Th e research on representative bureaucracy, for example, is driven by the underlying assumption that the more the public workforce is representative of the people it serves (in terms of race, ethnicity, and sex), the better it will represent and serve the interests of those groups. Although this is an inherently attractive notion for many public administration scholars given the concern for social equity, the evidence in support of this claim has been mixed, suggesting that representative bureaucracy by itself does not

As noted by Dahl nearly 70 years ago, the fi eld would ben- efi t from more research on per- sonality, and such benefi ts can

be better realized by incorporat- ing current research and theory produced by psychologists and

sociologists.

800 Public Administration Review • November | December 2015

example, have concluded that cultural diff erences do not have a very strong infl uence on individual attitudes, a much weaker infl uence on behavior, and very little, if any, infl uence on performance (Naor, Linderman, and Schroeder 2010; Taras, Kirkman, and Steel 2010; Tsui, Nifadkar, and Ou 2007). Still other scholars have argued that the recent trend toward globalization may have weakened the importance of cultural diff erences as people from other cultures are increasingly embracing individualistic and Western cultural values (Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier 2002).

Th ese fi ndings suggest that Dahl’s concerns regarding public admin- istration’s tendency to ignore culture may have been overempha- sized. Th ere are, however, reasons for caution, as these conclusions are driven by research that often fails to consider the cultural vari- ation within nations and primarily focuses on the direct eff ects of culture without suffi cient attention given to the situational factors that may moderate its infl uence (Chen, Leung, and Chen 2009). Th e infl uence of cultural values, for instance, is stronger as people age, for males more than females, and for employees more than students (Taras, Kirkman, and Steel 2010). Even more important, there is also growing evidence that cultural values may weaken or strengthen the eff ects of other variables on behavior. One important illustration of this is a meta-analysis that found that performance appraisal practices varied by country and that employee turnover and absenteeism were lower when such practices were more consist- ent with their societal cultures (Peretz and Fried 2011).

Reviews of the public administration research suggest mixed success in responding to Dahl’s call for more studies to determine how the operation of public administration may vary by national and social setting. Although there seems to be increasing recognition of the importance of studying context and culture, most of the existing research continues to be conducted in the United States and United Kingdom (Fitzpatrick et al. 2011; O’Toole and Meier 2015). Even among the growing comparative literature, culture did not appear as a major concept in more than 60 percent of recently published articles (Fitzpatrick et al. 2011). Th at said, there are areas in which research has begun to discover the generalities that transcend national boundaries as well as identify important diff erences pro- duced by cultural and historical factors. Although PSM may be an important concept that infl uences behavior across cultures (Bullock, Stritch, and Rainey 2015), for example, there is increasing evidence that the meaning and prevalence of public service motivation can diff er across national cultures (Kim et al. 2013; Vandenabeele and Van de Walle 2008). Just as important, research suggests signifi cant ways these diff erences can be explained if not predicted by culture (Houston 2011; Kim et al. 2013). Similarly, the interest in and use of performance management is becoming more universal, and initial evidence suggests that the factors that infl uence the extent to which central ministries play a role in setting targets and monitor- ing performance are similar across countries (Pollitt 2006). Even so, consistent with the research noted earlier on performance appraisals (Peretz and Fried 2011), culture seems to play an important role in predicting which performance management practices are imple- mented and how well they are accepted (Pollitt 2006). In addition to diff erences in how performance management is implemented, cultural diff erences lead to disagreements regarding the relative meaning and importance of diff erent performance objectives (Arndt 2008; Moynihan et al. 2011). One recent study, for example, found

eff ects of personal characteristics such as conscientiousness (Le et al. 2011) and job experience (Sturman 2003) have infl ection points after which their eff ects cease to be linear or even desirable. Greater recognition of this possibility could benefi t many popular streams of research in public administration. Evidence exists, for example, that commonly touted leadership practices (Ames and Flynn 2007; Harris and Kacmar 2006; Peterson 1999) or even organizational citizenship behaviors (Bergeron 2007; Bolino et al. 2013) are not always benefi cial. Th ere is also growing evidence of a similar eff ect for PSM. As an employee’s PSM increases, for example, it might increase his or her feelings of work stress (Giauque, Anderfuhren- Biget, and Varone 2013), disillusionment (Kjeldsen and Jacobsen 2013) or dissatisfaction (Vinzant 1999).

A fi nal presumption that could be challenged to spur possible growth is that attitudes, perceptions, and self-reported behavior are a good proxy for behavior. At present, a great deal of our under- standing of human behavior has been derived from research inves- tigating the antecedents of and relationships between the attitudes, values, and perceptions of public employees and citizens. Most of the research investigating the consequences of PSM, red tape, or transformational leadership has relied not only on cross-sectional data but also self-reported employee behavior, performance, or attitudes (Bellé 2014; Bozeman and Feeney 2011; Wright and Grant 2010). Admittedly, there is often good reason to suspect that these self-reported behaviors and attitudes will refl ect or predict actual behavior. Even so, this relationship is far from certain. PSM research, for example, has found that the desire to work for govern- ment does not necessarily translate into actual government employ- ment (Kjeldsen 2014; Kjeldsen and Jacobsen 2013; Wright and Christensen 2010) and has increasingly argued that the study of behavior itself is needed to validate if not advance our understand- ing (Bellé 2014; Wright and Grant 2010). Similarly, the previously noted increase in experimental research being conducted in public administration has relied heavily on survey or vignette experiments measuring opinions or behavioral intentions rather than actual behaviors in more realistic settings. A greater reliance on actual behavior as a dependent variable would allow public administration scholars to conduct studies that, like Dahl, recognize the important ways in which human decision making deviates from the rational model and how cognitive shortcuts and social infl uences help us understand, if not shape, behavior (John et al. 2011; Jones 2003; Sunstein 2013).

Problem 3: Social/Cultural Setting In many ways, much of the discussion of the previous two prob- lems remains relevant here as culture represents shared values and meaning which, in turn, infl uence individual behavior. While shared values and meaning can exist at many levels and in many forms, Dahl distinguished his discussion of culture by primar- ily focusing on diff erences across nation-states. Keeping with the general argument regarding the diffi culty of establishing universal principles of administration, Dahl argued that the political or social institutions that develop over time as a result of the shared values and experiences in one country will not necessarily be as accepted or successful in nations with diff erent values and experiences.5 Even so, the view that administrative science can be developed independ- ent of the cultural or social setting continues to exist and receive some support. Several recent reviews of cross-cultural research, for

The Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities 801

of administrative management that were of such concern to Dahl nearly 70 years ago. In doing so, considerable progress also has been made toward the establishment of a science of public administration in a number of fundamental areas. First, the fi eld has developed a more realistic understanding of and expectations for what it means to have a science of administration. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of social science–type studies with a focus on cause-and-eff ect relationships and the methodological rigor used to test them. Second, the fi eld has advanced its recognition and understanding of the three fundamental problems that Dahl identi- fi ed as necessary to develop a science of public administration. We have made progress in recognizing the place that normative values play in the provision and evaluation of government goods and services. We also have a better understanding of human behavior in public administration as well as the diffi culties faced when try- ing to predict, explain, and infl uence it. Finally, there is increasing recognition that the knowledge developed about public administra- tion in one sociocultural environment may not be as applicable in other environments. Taken together, these discussions suggest that public administration has done much of what a science needs to do. While a science of administration does not require universal truths, it does require some level of generalization (concepts and relation- ships abstract enough to be applicable to or testable across a variety of settings; Th ompson 1956). Public administration scholars have focused on relationships, abstract concepts, and the development of operational defi nitions that make both generalization and independ- ent verifi cation possible. While there are conceptual and theoretical disagreements about many prominent theories in public administra- tions, concepts such as PSM, representative bureaucracy, and red tape seem to be abstract enough to be applicable to or testable across a variety of settings.

Th at said, the fi eld cannot look to this progress and claim mission accomplished. Science is an ongoing and self-correcting process. Th eories, concepts, and methods commonly accepted today will be challenged, altered, and even displaced overtime. As with any other social science, the science of public administration will forever struggle to uncover all of the nuances stemming from values, human

behavior, and social/cultural setting. Th e issues and examples discussed here illustrate just a small portion of the work that still to be done and the possibilities of what can be accomplished. Th ere is still much we do not know about public administration, and considerable improvement in research theory and rigor is still needed (Meier 2015; O’Toole 2015; Rubin 2015). Many of the biggest challenges facing public administration today would not have been as important or read-

ily apparent at the time of Dahl’s writing. While most of these new challenges (e.g., e-government, managing complex contracts, coproduction) provide new opportunities to explore the implica- tions of the three problems—values, behavior, and culture—noted by Dahl, some may also require the recognition of new problems and approaches. Public administration, for example, must address the challenges associated with missions that not only require manag- ing within but also across organizations and cultures, whether that be through collaborative governance or service delivery networks (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; O’Toole 2015; Provan and

that the eff ects of transparency diff er across cultures and only reduce perceptions of government competency in high-power-distance cultures (Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2013). Such fi ndings illustrate the benefi ts of and at least some modest progress toward heeding Dahl’s call that scholars must confi rm rather than assume that the theory and fi ndings generated in one country will be appropriate to under- standing the attitudes and behaviors in another country.

Current presumptions and future possibilities. While there has been research investigating how culture infl uences public agencies and employees, this topic seems to have received relatively limited attention (Fitzpatrick et al. 2011; O’Toole and Meier 2015). There is a need for both more research investigating cross-cultural differences and greater recognition of even the potential importance of culture. The public administration literature, for example, has often touted the importance of transformational (Bellé 2014; Wright, Moynihan, and Pandey 2012) and participatory leadership (Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2013) without doing enough to recognize whether some of their underlying mechanisms and benefi ts may be culture specifi c. While evidence exists to support claims that transformational leadership can have universally positive effects across different cultures, research also suggests that its effects are not only enhanced in collectivist cultures but also moderated by trust in individualistic cultures (Jung, Yammarino, and Lee 2009). With regard to participatory leadership, the benefi ts of empowerment practices also seem to vary by national culture (Brockner et al. 2001; Dorfman et al. 1997; Robert et al. 2000; Sagie and Aycan 2003), in part because employees in high-power-distance cultures are more comfortable accepting and committing to assigned tasks and performance expectations (Sue-Chan and Ong 2002). These fi ndings suggest that public administration scholars, students, and practitioners outside the United States may be underserved, if not misled, by the conclusions that they may draw from the leadership research published in public administration journals.

Th e foregoing discussion is not meant to imply that research on key topics of interest in public administration is not being conducted in diff erent cultural contexts, but rather that more eff ort is needed to both consistently discuss and systemati- cally investigate how, when, and why com- mon theoretical expectations may vary across cultural contexts (e.g., Houston 2011; Kim et al. 2013; O’Toole and Meier 2015). Th e prevalence and importance of both red tape and representative bureaucracy, for example, may diff er between individualistic and col- lectivist cultures as well as between low- and high-power-distance cultures. Similar to the call for impact statements to evaluate public agency decisions and actions in terms of values other than effi ciency (Rosenbloom 2007), the fi eld of public administration would benefi t from more publications recognizing that the theory used or fi ndings produced may have limited external validity and identifying specifi c ways in which key relationships and their importance may vary by culture.

Conclusion As illustrated in the foregoing discussion, the fi eld has made con- siderable progress in addressing the presumptions and problems

As with any other social science, the science of public admin- istration will forever struggle to uncover all of the nuances

stemming from values, human behavior, and social/cultural

setting.

802 Public Administration Review • November | December 2015

———. 2014. Leading to Make a Diff erence: A Field Experiment on the Performance Eff ects of Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 24(1): 109–36.

Bergeron, Diane M. 2007. Th e Potential Paradox of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Good Citizens at What Cost? Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1078–95.

Bolino, Mark C., Anthony C. Klotz, William H. Turnley, and Jaron Harvey. 2013. Exploring the Dark Side of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(4): 542–59.

Bozeman, Barry, and Mary K. Feeney. 2011. Rules and Red Tape: A Prism for Public Administration Th eory and Research. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Brockner, Joel, Grant Ackerman, Jerald Greenberg, Michele J. Gelfand, Anne Marie Francesco, Zhen Xiong Chen, Kwok Leung, et al. 2001. Culture and Procedural Justice: Th e Infl uence of Power Distance on Reactions to Voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37(4): 300–15.

Brower, Ralph S., Mitchel Y. Abolafi a, and Jered B. Carr. 2000. On Improving Qualitative Methods in Public Administration Research. Administration & Society 32(4): 363–97.

Brown, Trevor L., Matthew Potoski, and David M. Van Slyke. 2006. Managing Public Service Contracts: Aligning Values, Institutions, and Markets. Public Administration Review 66(3): 323–31.

Bullock, Justin B., Justin M. Stritch, and Hal G. Rainey. 2015. International Comparison of Public and Private Employees’ Work Motives, Attitudes, and Perceived Rewards. Public Administration Review 75(3): 479–89.

Chen, Y. R., Kwok Leung, and Chao C. Chen. 2009. Bringing National Culture to the Table: Making a Diff erence with Cross-Cultural Diff erences and Perspectives. Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 217–49.

Cleary, Robert E. 2000. Th e Public Administration Doctoral Dissertation Reexamined: An Evaluation of the Dissertations of 1998. Public Administration Review 60(5): 446–55.

Cooper, Christopher A., H. Gibbs Knotts, David M. McCord, and Andrew Johnson. 2013. Taking Personality Seriously: Th e Five-Factor Model and Public Management. American Review of Public Administration 43(4): 397–415.

Crewson, Philip E. 1997. Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Eff ect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 7(4): 499–511.

Curd, Martin, J. A. Cover, and Christopher Pincock. 2012. Philosophy of Science: Th e Central Issues. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton

Dahl, Robert A. 1947. Th e Science of Public Administration: Th ree Problems. Public Administration Review 7(1): 1–11.

Dorfman, Peter W., Jon P. Howell, Shozo Hibino, Jin K. Lee, Uday Tate, and Arnoldo Bautista. 1997. Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and Diff erences in Eff ective Leadership Processes. Leadership Quarterly 8(3): 233–74.

Dupré, John. 1993. Th e Disorder of Th ings: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Emerson, Kirk, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh. 2012. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 22(1): 1–29.

Favero, Nathan, and Justin B. Bullock. 2015. How (Not) to Solve the Problem: An Evaluation of Scholarly Responses to Common Source Bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 25(1): 285–308.

Fernandez, Sergio, and Tima Moldogaziev. 2013. Employee Empowerment, Employee Attitudes, and Performance: Testing a Causal Model. Public Administration Review 73(3): 490–506.

Fitzpatrick, Jody, Malcolm Goggin, Tanya Heikkila, Donald Klingner, Jason Machado, and Christine Martell. 2011. A New Look at Comparative Public

Lemaire 2012). Th e problems noted by Dahl can certainly inform our understanding of these phenomena given that they are plagued with competing values and expectations, driven by connections established and maintained by individuals, and operate across national boundaries (O’Toole 2015; Provan and Lemaire 2012). Even so, these research questions ultimately raise these problems to a new level of abstraction by moving beyond the study of individu- als and social settings emphasized by Dahl toward a macro or sys- tems approach to understanding how whole networks of multilateral interorganizational relationships develop common goals and provide collective action. As an ongoing and self-correcting process, a sci- ence of public administration will inevitable identify new problems, challenge old presumptions, and promote future possibilities.

Notes 1. Cited by Maria Popova, “Isaac Asimov on Science and Creativity in Education,”

Brain Pickings, January 28, 2011, http://www.brainpickings.org/2011/01/28/ isaac-asimov-creativity-education-science/ (accessed September 13, 2015).

2. Even its ability to do this is being questioned and strengthened by scientifi c study (Ionnadis 2012; Yong 2012).

3. While the management journal articles likely represent much of the research conducted in sociology and psychology relevant to a science of administra- tion, looking at the Journal Citation Reports suggests that sociology and psychology publications are cited with the same frequency as political science publications. PAR articles published in 2007 cited research published in the top three sociology journals (Annual Review of Sociology, American Sociological Review, and American Journal of Sociology) 31 times, the top three applied psychology journals (Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management and Personnel Psychology) 39 times, and the top three political science journals 37 times.

4. While this argument for public administration as a science is made primarily on epistemology, others have argued that public administration may not be a sci- ence for other reasons. In such arguments, the concern is often more about the fi eld’s lack of theoretical focus or what it studies rather than how its studies are conducted. It is not clear, however, that such a core theory or framework does not exist (Kettl 2000; Lan and Anders 2000; Raadschelders 2008; Rosenbloom 1983) or even exist in other fi elds of study (Riccucci 2010).

5. While some sociologists and many economists view institutions as distinct from culture in that they represent codifi ed external norms or preferences, a more common view is that institutions are cultural in that they are a product of (as well as a way to reinforce and sustain) shared values and meaning conferred through social interaction (Patterson 2014; Wildavsky 1987).

References Ames, Daniel R., and Francis J. Flynn. 2007. What Breaks a Leader: Th e Curvilinear

Relation between Assertiveness and Leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(2): 307–24.

Arndt, Christiane. 2008. Th e Politics of Governance Ratings. International Public Management Journal 11(3): 275–97.

Atkins, Danielle N., and Vicky M. Wilkins. 2013. Going beyond Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic: Th e Eff ects of Teacher Representation on Teen Pregnancy Rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(4): 771–90.

Baekgaard, Martin, and Søren Serritzlew. Forthcoming. Interpreting Performance Information: Motivated Reasoning or Unbiased Comprehension. Public Administration Review 76(1).

Bellé, Nicola. 2013. Experimental Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Performance. Public Administration Review 73(1): 143–53.

The Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities 803

Kim, Sangmook, Wouter Vandenabeele, Bradley E. Wright, Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Francesco Paolo Cerase, Robert K. Christensen, Céline Desmarais, et al. 2013. Investigating the Structure and Meaning of Public Service Motivation across Populations: Developing an International Instrument and Addressing Issues of Measurement Invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(1): 79–102.

Kjeldsen, Anne Mette. 2014. Dynamics of Public Service Motivation: Attraction‒ Selection and Socialization in the Production and Regulation of Social Services. Public Administration Review 74(1): 101–12.

Kjeldsen, Anne Mette, and Christian Bøtcher Jacobsen. 2013. Public Service Motivation and Employment Sector: Attraction or Socialization? Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(4): 899–926.

Konisky, David M., and Christopher Reenock. 2013. Case Selection in Public Management Research: Problems and Solutions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(2): 361–93.

Lan, Zhiyong, and Kathleen K. Anders. 2000. A Paradigmatic View of Contemporary Public Administration Research: An Empirical Test. Administration & Society 32(2): 138–65.

Laudan, Larry. 1983. Th e Demise of the Demarcation Problem. In Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum, 111–27. Boston: Kluwer.

Le, Huy, In-Sue Oh, Steven B. Robbins, Remus Ilies, Ed Holland, and Paul Westrick. 2011. Too Much of a Good Th ing: Curvilinear Relationships between Personality Traits and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(1): 113–33.

Lewis, Gregory B., and Sue A. Frank. 2002. Who Wants to Work for the Government? Public Administration Review 62(4): 395–404.

Margetts, Helen Z. 2011. Experiments for Public Management Research. Public Management Review 13(2): 189–208.

Meier, Kenneth J. 1997. Bureaucracy and Democracy: Th e Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy. Public Administration Review 57(3): 193–99.

———. 2015. Proverbs and the Evolution of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 75(1): 15–24.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Jill Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: Th e Case of Sexual Assault. Public Administration Review 66(6): 850–60.

Merson, Francis. 1923. Public Administration: A Science. Public Administration 1(3): 220–27.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. Public Management in North America: 1998–2008. Public Management Review 10(4): 481–92.

Moynihan, Donald P., Sergio Fernandez, Soonhee Kim, Kelly M. LeRoux, Suzanne J. Piotrowski, Bradley E. Wright, and Kaifeng Yang. 2011. Performance Regimes amidst Governance Complexity. Supplement 1, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i141–55.

Nabatchi, Tina. 2012. Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Administration Review 72(5): 699–708.

Naff , Katherine C., and K. Juree Capers. 2014. Th e Complexity of Descriptive Representation and Bureaucracy: Th e Case of South Africa. International Public Management Journal 17(4): 515–39.

Naor, Michael, Kevin Linderman, and Roger Schroeder. 2010. Th e Globalization of Operations in Eastern and Western Countries: Unpacking the Relationship between National and Organizational Culture and Its Impact on Manufacturing Performance. Journal of Operations Management 28(3): 194–205.

Oh, In-Sue, and Christopher M. Berry. 2009. Th e Five-Factor Model of Personality and Managerial Performance: Validity Gains through the Use of 360 Degree Performance Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1498–1513.

Administration: Trends in Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review 71(6): 821–30.

Fleeson, William, and Patrick Gallagher. 2009. Th e Implications of Big Five Standing for the Distribution of Trait Manifestation in Behavior: Fifteen Experience- Sampling Studies and a Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(6): 1097–1114.

Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 2000. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: Worth.

Fukuyama, Francis. 2004. Why Th ere Is No Science of Public Administration. Journal of International Aff airs 58(1): 189–201.

Giauque, David, Simon Anderfuhren-Biget, and Frédéric Varone. 2013. Stress Perception in Public Organisations: Expanding the Job Demands–Job Resources Model by Including Public Service Motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration 33(1): 58–83.

Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan, Gregory Porumbescu, Boram Hong, and Tobin Im. 2013. Th e Eff ect of Transparency on Trust in Government: A Cross-National Comparative Experiment. Public Administration Review 73(4): 575–86.

Gulick, Luther H., and Lyndall F. Urwick, eds. 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.

Harris, Kenneth J., and K. Michelle Kacmar. 2006. Too Much of a Good Th ing: Th e Curvilinear Eff ect of Leader-Member Exchange on Stress. Journal of Social Psychology 146(1): 65–84.

Hassan, Shahidul, Bradley E. Wright, and Gary Yukl. 2014. Does Ethical Leadership Matter in Government? Eff ects on Organizational Commitment, Absenteeism, and Willingness to Report Ethical Problems. Public Administration Review 74(3): 333–43.

Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2007. Evidence-Based Policy and Performance Management: Challenges and Prospects in Two Parallel Movements. American Review of Public Administration 37(3): 255–77.

Hoover, Kenneth R. 1992. Th e Elements of Social Scientifi c Th inking. 5th ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Houston, David J. 2011. Implications of Occupational Locus and Focus for Public Service Motivation: Attitudes toward Work Motives across Nations. Public Administration Review 71(5): 761–71.

Houston, David J., and Sybil Delevan. 1994. A Comparative Assessment of Public Administration Journal Publications. Administration & Society 26(2): 252–71.

Ioannidis, John P. A. 2012. Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6): 645–54.

John, Peter, Sarah Cotterill, Liz Richardson, Alice Moseley, Gerry Stoker, Corinne Wales, and Graham Smith. 2011. Nudge, Nudge, Th ink, Th ink: Experimenting with Ways to Change Civic Behaviour. London: Bloomsbury.

Jones, Bryan D. 2003. Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 13(4): 395–412.

Jørgensen, Torben Beck, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public Values: An Inventory. Administration & Society 39(3): 354–81.

Judge, Timothy A., Daniel Heller, and Michael K. Mount. 2002. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3): 530–41.

Judge, Timothy A., and Remus Ilies. 2002. Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 797–807.

Jung, Dongil, Francis J. Yammarino, and Jim K. Lee. 2009. Moderating Role of Subordinates’ Attitudes on Transformational Leadership and Eff ectiveness: A Multi-Cultural and Multi-Level Perspective. Leadership Quarterly 20(4): 586–603.

Kettl, Donald F. 2000. Public Administration at the Millennium: Th e State of the Field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 10(1): 7–34.

804 Public Administration Review • November | December 2015

———. 2007. Reinventing Administrative Prescriptions: Th e Case for Democratic- Constitutional Impact Statements and Scorecards. Public Administration Review 67(1): 28–39.

Rubin, Irene. 2015. Past and Future Budget Classics: A Research Agenda. Public Administration Review 75(1): 25–35.

Rutgers, Mark R. 2015. As Good as It Gets? On the Meaning of Public Value in the Study of Policy and Management. American Review of Public Administration 45(1): 29–45.

Sagie, Abraham, and Zeynep Aycan. 2003. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Participative Decision-Making in Organizations. Human Relations 56(4): 453–73.

Simon, Herbert A. 1946. Th e Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review 6(1): 53–67.

Stout, Margaret. 2013. Preparing Public Administration Scholars for Qualitative Inquiry: A Status Report. Public Administration Research 2(1): 11–28.

Stallings, Robert A., and James M. Ferris. 1988. Public Administration Research: Work in PAR, 1940–1984. Public Administration Review 48(1): 580–87.

Sturman, Michael C. 2003. Searching for the Inverted U-Shaped Relationship between Time and Performance: Meta-Analyses of the Experience/Performance, Tenure/Performance, and Age/Performance Relationships. Journal of Management 29(5): 609–40.

Sue-Chan, Christina, and Mark Ong. 2002. Goal Assignment and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Roles of Goal Commitment and Self-Effi cacy and the Moderating Role of Power Distance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89(2): 1140–61.

Sunstein, Cass R. 2013. Simpler: Th e Future of Government. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Taras, Vas, Bradley L. Kirkman, and Piers Steel. 2010. Examining the Impact of Culture’s Consequences: A Th ree-Decade, Multilevel, Meta-Analytic Review of Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(3): 405–39.

Tetlock, Philip E., Ferdinand M. Vieider, Shefali V. Patil, and Adam M. Grant. 2013. Accountability and Ideology: When Left Looks Right and Right Looks Left. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122(1): 22–35.

Th ompson, James D. 1956. On Building an Administrative Science. Administrative Science Quarterly 1(1): 102–11.

Tschirhart, Mary, Kira K. Reed, Sarah J. Freeman, and Alison L. Anker. 2008. Is the Grass Greener? Sector Shifting and Choice of Sector by MPA and MBA Graduates. Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37(4): 668–88.

Tsui, Anne S., Sushil S. Nifadkar, and Amy Yi Ou. 2007. Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations. Journal of Management 33(3): 426–78.

Vandenabeele, Wouter, and Steven Van de Walle. 2008. International Diff erences in Public Service Motivation: Comparing Regions across the World. In Motivation in Public Management: Th e Call of Public Service, edited by James L. Perry and Annie Hondeghem, 223–44. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Van der Wal, Zeger, Tina Nabatchi, and Gjalt de Graaf. 2015. From Galaxies to Universe: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Analysis of Public Values Publications from 1969 to 2012. American Review of Public Administration 45(1): 13–28.

Van der Wal, Zeger, Leo Huberts, Hans Van Den Heuvel, and Emile Kolthoff . 2006. Central Values of Government and Business: Diff erences, Similarities and Confl icts. Public Administration Quarterly 30(3–4): 314–64.

Vinzant, Janet C. 1998. Where Values Collide: Motivation and Role Confl ict in Child and Adult Protective Services. American Review of Public Administration 28(4): 347–66.

Vogel, Rick. 2014. What Happened to the Public Organization? A Bibliometric Analysis of Public Administration and Organization Studies. American Review of Public Administration 44(4): 383–408.

O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr. 2015. Networks and Networking: Th e Public Administrative Agendas. Public Administration Review 75(3): 361–71.

O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2015. Public Management, Context, and Performance: In Quest of a More General Th eory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 25(1): 237–56.

Oyserman, Daphna, Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmelmeier. 2002. Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Th eoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 128(1): 3−72.

Patterson, Orlando. 2014. Making Sense of Culture. Annual Review of Sociology 40: 1–30.

Peretz, Hilla, and Yitzhak Fried. 2012. National Cultures, Performance Appraisal Practices, and Organizational Absenteeism and Turnover: A Study across 21 Countries. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(2): 448–59.

Perry, James L. 2012. How Can We Improve Our Science to Generate More Usable Knowledge for Public Professionals? Public Administration Review 72(4): 479–82.

Perry, James L., Annie Hondeghem, and Lois Recascino Wise. 2010. Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service Motivation: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review 70(5): 681–90.

Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. Th e Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review 50(3): 367–73.

Peterson, Randall S. 1999. Can You Have Too Much of a Good Th ing? Th e Limits of Voice for Improving Satisfaction with Leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25(3): 313–24.

Pierce, Jason R., and Herman Aguinis. 2013. Th e Too-Much-of-a-Good-Th ing Eff ect in Management. Journal of Management 39(2): 313–38.

Pigliucci, Massimo, and Maarten Boudry, eds. 2013. Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Piotrowski, Suzanne J., and David H. Rosenbloom. 2002. Nonmission-Based Values in Results Oriented Public Management. Public Administration Review 62(6): 643–57.

Pitts, David W., and Sergio Fernandez. 2009. Th e State of Public Management Research: An Analysis of Scope and Methodology. International Public Management Journal 12(4): 399–420.

Pollitt, Christopher. 2006. Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16(1): 25–44.

Provan, Keith G., and Robin H. Lemaire. 2012. Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public Administration Review 72(5): 638–48.

Raadschelders, Jos C. N. 2008. Understanding Government: Four Intellectual Traditions in the Study of Public Administration. Public Administration 86(4): 925–49.

———. 2011. Th e Future of the Study of Public Administration: Embedding Research Object and Methodology in Epistemology and Ontology. Public Administration Review 71(6): 916–24.

Radin, Beryl A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Riccucci, Norma. 2010. Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Robert, Christopher, Tahira Michelle Probst, Joseph J. Martocchio, Fritz Drasgow, and John J. Lawler. 2000. Empowerment and Continuous Improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting Fit on the Basis of the Dimensions of Power Distance and Individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(5): 643–58.

Rosenbloom, David H. 1983. Public Administration Th eory and the Separation of Powers. Public Administration Review 43(3): 219–27.

The Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities 805

Wright, Bradley E. 2010. Public Administration in 2020: Balancing Values as a Journey, Not a Destination. Special issue, Public Administration Review 70: s312–13.

———. 2011. Public Administration as an Interdisciplinary Field: Assessing Its Relationship with the Fields of Law, Management, and Political Science. Public Administration Review 71(1): 96–101.

Wright, Bradley E., and Robert K. Christensen. 2010. Public Service Motivation: A Test of the Job Attraction-Selection-Attrition Model. International Public Management Journal 13(2): 155–76.

Wright, Bradley E., and Adam M. Grant. 2010. Unanswered Questions about Public Service Motivation: Designing Research to Address Key Issues of Emergence and Eff ects. Public Administration Review 70(5): 691–700.

Wright, Bradley E., Shahidul Hassan, and Robert K. Christensen. Forthcoming. Observational Analyses of Job Choice and Performance: Revisiting Core Assumptions about Public Service Motivation. International Public Management Journal.

Wright, Bradley E., Lepora J. Manigault, and Tamika R. Black. 2004. Quantitative Research Measurement in Public Administration an Assessment of Journal Publications. Administration & Society 35(6): 747–64.

Wright, Bradley E., Donald P. Moynihan, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Pulling the Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Valence. Public Administration Review 72(2): 206–15.

Yong, Ed. 2012. In the Wake of High Profi le Controversies, Psychologists Are Facing Up to Problems with Replication. Nature 483: 298–300.

Waldo, Dwight. 1948. Th e Administrative State: A Study of the Political Th eory of American Public Administration. New York: Ronald Press.

Watkins-Hayes, Celeste. 2011. Race, Respect, and Red Tape: Inside the Black Box of Racially Representative Bureaucracies. Supplement 2, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i233–51.

Wichowsky, Amber, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2008. Measuring How Administration Shapes Citizenship: A Policy Feedback Perspective on Performance Management. Public Administration Review 68(5): 908–20.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1987. Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Th eory of Preference Formation. American Political Science Review 81(1): 3–21.

Wilkins, Vicky M., and Lael R. Keiser. 2006. Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: Th e Case of Child Support Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16(1): 87–102.

Wilkins, Vicky M., and Brian N. Williams. 2008. Black or Blue: Racial Profi ling and Representative Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review 68(4): 654–64.

Williams, Iestyn, and Heather Shearer. 2011. Appraising Public Value: Past, Present and Futures. Public Administration 89(4): 1367–84.

Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why Th ey Do It. New York: Basic Books.

Witesman, Eva M., and Lawrence C. Walters. 2015. Modeling Public Decision Preferences Using Context-Specifi c Value Hierarchies. American Review of Public Administration 45(1): 86–105.

Public Administration Review wants you to be the fi rst to know about

upcoming research in public administration.

Sign up to receive content alerts of recently released articles by going to

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-6210.

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.