A RESPONSE TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION'S LACK OF A GENERAL THEORY OF UNCERTAINTY: A THEORETICAL VISION OF UNCERTAINTY

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Public administration is diverse and complex discipline which finds itself awashed in an abundance of paradigms which have led to multiple theories, models, and techniques, few of which ever originated within public administration.l Some of the more noted paradigms in public administration were recently presented during panel discussion on the Great Ideas in Public at the 1997 National Conference for the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) in Philadelphia. A legal/constitutional paradigm was discussed by David Rosenbloom. Organization systems paradigm was presented by William Wolf. Robert T. Golembiewski laid out an overview of public administration paradigms: politics/administration dichotomy; efficiency/effectiveness; behaviorism, decision-making, policy making, and administrative values and ethics. The question and answer session immediately following the presentations revealed an even more diverse opinion of how public administration should be studied. Some talked about post-modernism approach, others emphasized an historical approach, and still others contended that public administration is mixture of other disciplines and has to be tied to actual practice. Throughout all the previously-mentioned paradigms within which public administration is involved, there is one common denominator--uncertainty. Decision-making and organizational theory have viewed uncertainty as: (1) a lack of knowledge of the situation (Barnard, 1940; Simon, 1847, 1969, 1965, 1977, 1980; Allison, 1971; Nutt, 1990; Stinchcombe (1992); (2) bias interfering with rational decision-making and needs to be controlled (Art, 1967; Aiginger, 1987; Baird, 1989; Nutt, 1990; Hey, 1993); and (3) psychological perception that creates fear of indecision that is best reduced through heuristic techniques or procedures (Bachrach and Baratz, 1963; Gore, 1964; Schroeder and Suefeld, 1971; Agor, 1986; Simon, 1987; McCalla, 1992; Nigel, 1993; Covey, Merrill, and Merrill, 1994). Most recently in public budgeting and financial management and strategic management, uncertainty is seen as: (1) factor within Bayeasian probabilistic models (Churchman, 1963; Quade, 1964, 1975; Asher, 1978; Madansky, 1979; Bronner, 1993; Horvitz et al., 1995; Kyburg, 1987, 1994, 1996) and (2) as an attribute of complexity that, at first, appears unpredictable but, with correct analysis and modeling, is predictable (Bullard and Butler, 1993; Kellert, 1993; Keil, 1995). Furthermore, the behavioral sciences approach has presented uncertainty as: (1) mental perception that can be reduced (Edwards, 1954; Becker and McClintock, 1967; Baron, 1994; and (2) as factor which influences communication. In all the above mentioned areas, the concept, uncertainty, is epistemologically biased in that uncertainty is viewed as an attribute of how we know what we know. This epistemological bias has led to the development of four branches of uncertainty literature based on an actor's (individual, group or organization): (1) ability to gather and process information; (2) ability to predict consequences of actions; (3) use of intuition; or (4) perception of the environment (Weber, 1997:455). In addition, in each case uncertainty is viewed as factor within the context of much larger picture. Thus, uncertainty is conceptualized as factor in Bayesian model (Kyburg, 1996; Horvitz et al., 1995; an heuristic technique (Agor, 1986; Nutt, 1990; or as nondescript feeling or emotion (Jamis and Mann, 1977; Einhorn and Hograth, 1985). In these instances, uncertainty is implied to have an obvious meaning which requires no explicit definition so that the focus becomes how to make sure one is sure or at least make oneself feel sure. Uncertainty is much larger phenomenon that can be captured in single limited conceptualized factor. It is one of the foundation stones of existence. Uncertainty is both the tormentor and motivator of life. …