Under Threat? Methodological Pluralism in Public Administration

Abstract

A consensus appears to be emerging on the desirability of methodological pluralism in public administration research. Scholars as diverse as Riccucci and Meier see it as inevitable in a multidisciplinary, practice-oriented field, and both endorse it as key to advancing theory. Yet it is not always clear what is meant by “methodological pluralism” nor how it is related to scientific progress. I argue that Dryzek’s conceptualization of progress as “lateral” is supportive of a robust methodological pluralism. Then, I analyze three threats to methodological pluralism in public administration: prior ethics review, transparency movements, and the metric mania characteristic of corporatized universities. I conclude that some methodologies and methods, primarily those that are positivist and quantitative, are advantaged over others, which are interpretivist and qualitative. To protect methodological pluralism, the tolerance that Dryzek recommends needs to be extended to structural changes, e.g., requiring a qualitative-interpretive methods course in doctoral programs. More broadly, scholarly autonomy to design and conduct research is increasingly being curtailed by these intertwined threats. Collective action is needed to reverse this worrisome trend. Autonomy for individuals and epistemic communities nourishes the pluralism in research approaches which is essential for understanding and responding to an uncertain, possibly turbulent future.