Pragmatism has become a topic of growing discussion in public administration, as demonstrated by ongoing debate within the pages of Administration & Society. Karen Evans recently argued that the pervasive influence of logical positivism has produced a public administration, dominated by an ethically vacuous overemphasis on efficiency. Keith Snider recently responded to Evans by pointing toward confusion arising from debates between competing varieties of pragmatism, arguing that calls for pragmatism may produce unintended consequences under the present paradigm. However, this debate has the potential to produce a more intellectually experienced and mature public administration. Moreover, American pragmatism is uniquely appropriate as a philosophy of public administration in its dual academic/practitioner roles.
AyerA. J. (1952). Language, truth, and logic (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Dover.
2.
BrendelD. H. (2006). Healing psychiatry: Bridging the science/humanism divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
DeweyJ. (1910). How we think. New York, NY: D.C. Heath.
4.
DeweyJ. (1928). The public and its problems. Chicago, IL: Swallow Press.
5.
DeweyJ. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York, NY: Minton, Balch.
6.
DeweyJ. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
7.
EvansK. G. (2005). Upgrade or different animal all together? Why old pragmatism better informs public management and new pragmatism misses the point. Administration & Society, 37, 248-255.
8.
EvansK. G. (2010). Into the woods: A cautionary tale for governance. Administration & Society, 42, 859-883.
9.
FollettM. P. (1918). The new state. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
10.
FollettM. P. (1919). Community is a process. Philosophical Review, 28, 576-588.
11.
FollettM. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
12.
HickmanL. A. (2004). On Hugh T. Miller on “why old pragmatisms needs an upgrade”. Administration & Society, 36, 496-499.
13.
HildebrandD. L. (2005). Pragmatism, neopragmatism, and public administration. Administration & Society, 37, 345-359.
14.
HochC. (2006). What can Rorty teach an old pragmatist doing public administration or planning?Administration & Society, 38, 389-398.
15.
JamesW. (1902). The varieties of religious experience. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
16.
JamesW. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
17.
McSwiteO. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
MillerH. T. (2004). Why old pragmatism needs an upgrade. Administration & Society, 36, 243-249.
19.
MillerH. T. (2005). Residues of foundationalism in classical pragmatism. Administration & Society, 37, 360-374.
20.
PeirceC. S. (1955a). The fixation of belief. In BuchlerJ. (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 5-22). New York, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1877)
21.
PeirceC. S. (1955b). How to make our ideas clear. In BuchlerJ. (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 23-41). New York, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1878)
22.
SalemP.ShieldsP. (2011). Out of the woods: Facilitating pragmatic inquiry and dialogue. Administration & Society, 43, 124-132.
ShieldsP. (2005). Classical pragmatism does not need an upgrade: Lessons for public administration. Administration & Society, 37, 504-518.
27.
ShieldsP. (2008). Rediscovering the taproot: Is classical pragmatism the route to renew public administration?Public Administration Review, 68, 205-221.
28.
SniderK. F. (2005). Rortyan pragmatism: “Where’s the beef” for public administration?Administration & Society, 37, 243-247.
29.
SniderK. F. (2011). On the problem of adopting pragmatism in public administration. Administration & Society, 43, 133-141.
30.
StolcisG. B. (2004). A view from the trenches: Comments on Miller’s “why old pragmatism needs an upgrade”. Administration & Society, 3, 362-369.
31.
WebbJ. L. (2004). Comment on Hugh T. Miller’s “why old pragmatism needs an upgrade”. Administration & Society, 36, 479-495.
