What Are “Great Books” in the Study of Public Administration? Some Polemic Thoughts About the Surveys of Sherwood and Kasdan

Abstract

In this article, the author reflects upon the two “Great Books” articles that were published in Public Administration Review (1990) and in Administration & Society (2012). In Sherwood’s article, the top-five books all presented an original argument, contributed to the intellectual development of the study of public administration, and had lasting influence. The same cannot be said for some of the books in Kasdan’s top five list. Some of the respondents with both Sherwood and Kasdan wondered whether books are still the primary and critical main medium of influence. This author believes that it is the type of research and argument that determines what venue (article or book) is the most suitable. To state that articles are more important may be true in terms of quantity, but does not imply that it represents original research.

Keywords

public administration scholarship empirical studies normative studies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Candler

G. G.

Azevêdo

Albernaz

R. O.

(2010). Towards global scholarship in public affairs. Public Administration 88, 836-850.

Catlaw

T. J.

(2007). Fabricating the people: Politics and administration in the biopolitical state. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Cooper

T. L.

(2011). Building ethical community. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 3-22.

Davis

(2010). Fascism by any other name. Retrieved from http://www.channelingreality.com/The_Coup/reinvention_of_america_part_5a.htm

Fry

B. R.

Raadschelders

J. C. N.

(2008). Mastering public administration: From max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Gore

(1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and costs less (Report of the National Performance Review). New York, NY: Times Books.

Green

R. T.

Hubbell

(1996). On governance and reinventing government. In Wamsley

G. L.

Wolf

J. F.

(Eds.), Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges (pp. 38-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gurwitt

(1994, May). Entrepreneurial government: The morning after. Governing, 34-40.

Kasdan

D. O.

(2012). “Great books” of public administration, 1990-2010: Revisiting Sherwood’s survey in the wake of reinventing government. Administration & Society 44, 625-639.

10.

Klaes

Sent

E.-M.

(2005). A conceptual history of the emergence of bounded rationality. History of Political Economy, 37, 27-59.

11.

Lindblom

C. E.

(1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.

12.

Lindblom

C. E.

(1993). Concluding remarks: A case study of the practice of social science. In Redner

(Ed.), An heretical heir of the enlightenment: Politics, policy, and science in the work of Charles E. Lindblom (pp. 343-372). Boulder, CO: Westview.

13.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational basis of public service. Public Administration Review, 70, 367-373.

14.

Raadschelders

J. C. N.

(2011). Public administration: The interdisciplinary study of government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

15.

Ramos

(1981). The new science of organizations: A reconceptualization of the wealth of nations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

16.

Sherwood

F. P.

(1990). The half-century’s “great books” in public administration. Public Administration Review, 50, 249-264.

17.

Starbuck

W. H.

(2006). The production of knowledge: The challenge of social science research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

18.

Ventriss

Candler

G. G.

(2005). Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, 20 years later: A new science still unrealized in an era of public cynicism and theoretical ambivalence. Public Administration Review, 65, 347-359.

19.

Wilson

E. O.

(1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.