This article explores the development of three features of positivism from the 1800s to the present: the unity of science, the verification criterion of meaning, and the empiricist observation language. The development of these features is demonstrated in the mid-20th century public administration (PA) literature and in the self-reflective literature of the last three decades. Contemporary positivism has been substantially moderated: The verification criterion of meaning has been abandoned, but the unity of science remains a presupposition, and the empiricist observation language remains an important tool. By presenting this intellectual history, some clarity may be added to the philosophical discourse in PA.
ActonH. B. (1951). Comte’s positivism and the science of society. Philosophy, 26, 291-310.
2.
AdamsG. B. (1992). Enthralled with modernity: The historical context of knowledge and theory development in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52, 363-372.
3.
AdamsG. B.WhiteJ. D. (1994). An assessment of methods and quality. Public Administration Review, 54, 565-576.
AyerA. J. (Ed.). (1959). Logical positivism. New York, NY: Free Press.
6.
AyerA. J. (1990). Language, truth, and logic. London, England: Penguin Books.
7.
BabbieE. (2010). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
8.
BaileyM. T. (1992). Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public administration research. Public Administration Review, 52, 47-54.
9.
BergmannG. (1967). Logical positivism, language, and the reconstruction of metaphysics. In RortyR. (Ed.), The linguistic turn: Recent essays in philosophical method (pp. 63-71). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
BoxR. C. (1992). An examination of the debate over research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52, 62-69.
12.
BrewerG. A.DouglasJ. W.FacerR. L.IIO’TooleL. J.Jr.(1999). Determinants of graduate research productivity in doctoral programs of public administration. Public Administration Review, 59, 373-382.
13.
CallahanD.JenningsB. (1983). Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis. New York, NY: Plenum.
14.
CarnapR. (1995). An introduction to the philosophy of science (GardnerM., Ed.), Mineola, NY: Dover.
15.
ClearyR. E. (1992). Revisiting the doctoral dissertation in public. Public Administration Review, 52, 55-61.
16.
ClearyR. E. (2000). The public administration doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation of the dissertations of 1998. Public Administration Review, 60, 446-455.
17.
CruiseP. L. (2006). Positively no proverbs need apply: Revisiting the legacy of Herbert A. Simon. In LynchT. D.CruiseP. L. (Eds.), Handbook of organization theory and management: The philosophical approach (pp. 395-415). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
18.
DanekeG. A. (1990). A science of public administration?Public Administration Review, 50, 383-392.
19.
DeLeonP. (1997). Democracy and the policy sciences. Albany: New York Press.
20.
DepewD. (1999). Introduction. In HollingerR.DepewD. (Eds.), Pragmatism: From progressivism to postmodernism (pp. 109-121). Westport, CT: Praeger.
21.
DobuzinskisL. (2006). From positivism to postpositivism: An unfinished journey. In LynchT. D.CruiseP. L. (Eds.), Handbook of organization theory and management: The philosophical approach (pp. 555-593). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
22.
DryzekJ. (1982). Policy analysis as a hermeneutic activity. Policy Sciences, 14, 309-329.
23.
EvansK. G. (2000). Reclaiming John Dewey: Democracy, inquiry, pragmatism, and public management. Administration & Society, 32, 308-328.
24.
FarmerD. (1995). The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
25.
FelbingerC. L.HolzerM.WhiteJ. D. (1999). The doctorate in public administration: Some unresolved questions and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 59, 459-464.
26.
FischerF.ForesterJ. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
FoxC. J.MillerH. T. (1996). Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
FriedmanM. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In FriedmanM. (Ed.), Essays in positive economics (pp. 3-46). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
FriedmanM. (2006). Reconsidering logical positivism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GalavottiM. C. (2007). Confirmation, probability, and logical empiricism. In RichardsonA.UebelT. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to logical empiricism (pp. 117-135). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GiddensA. (1976). Classical social theory and the origins of modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 703-729.
32.
HammondT. H. (1990). In defense of Luther Gulick’s notes on the theory of organization. Public Administration, 68, 143-171.
33.
HarmonM. M. (2006). Public administration’s final exam: A pragmatist restructuring of the profession and the discipline. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
34.
HassardJ. (1993). Sociology and organization theory: Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HempelC. G. (1959). The empiricist criterion of meaning. In AyerA. J. (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 108-129). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1950)
36.
HoustonD. J.DelevanS. M. (1990). Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review, 50, 674-681.
37.
HummelR. P. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51, 31-41.
38.
JohnsonJ. (2006). Consequences of positivism: A pragmatist assessment. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 224-253.
39.
KasdanD. O. (2011). A neopragmatist approach to administrative authority. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 566-584.
40.
LasswellH. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In LernerD.LasswellH. D. (Eds.), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method (pp. 3-15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
41.
LasswellH. D.KaplanA. (1965). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
LaudanL. (1971). Towards a reassessment of Comte’s “method positive.”Philosophy of Science, 38, 35-53.
43.
LaudanL. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.
MorganD.KirwanK.RorhJ.RosenbloomD.SchaeferD. (2010). Recovering, restoring, and renewing the foundations of American public administration: The contributions of Herbert J. Storing. Public Administration Review, 70, 621-633.
53.
NeurathO. (1959). Protocol Statements. In AyerA. J. (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 199-208). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1932)
54.
NeurathO. (1959). Sociology and physicalism. In AyerA. J. (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 282-317). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1931)
55.
OppenheimP.PutnamH. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In FeiglH.ScrivenM.MaxwellG. (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 2, pp. 3-36). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
56.
PerryJ. L.KraemerK. L. (1986). Research methodology in the “public administration review,” 1975-1984. Public Administration Review, 46, 215-226.
57.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2005). Government and public administration: Challenges to and need for connecting knowledge. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27, 602-627.
58.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2008). Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration. Public Administration, 86, 925-949.
59.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2011a). Public administration: The interdisciplinary study of government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
60.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2011b). The future of the study of public administration: Embedding research object and methodology in epistemology and ontology. Public Administration Review, 71, 916-924.
61.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N.LeeK.-H. (2011). Trends in the study of public administration: Empirical and qualitative observations from public administration review, 2000-2009. Public Administration Review, 71, 19-33.
62.
RiccucciN. (2011). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
63.
SchlickM. (1959). Positivism and realism. In AyerA. J. (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 83-107). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1932)
64.
SchlickM. (1959). The turning point in philosophy. In AyerA. J. (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 53-59). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1930)
65.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334-347.
66.
SchroederL.O’LearyR.JonesD.PoocharoenO.-O. (2004). Routes to scholarly success in public administration: Is there a right path?Public Administration Review, 64, 92-105.
67.
ShieldsP. M. (1996). Pragmatism: Exploring public administration’s policy imprint. Administration & Society, 28, 390-411.
68.
ShieldsP. M. (1998). Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public administration. Research in Public Administration, 4, 313-334.
69.
ShieldsP. M. (2003). The community of inquiry: Classical pragmatism and public administration. Administration & Society, 25, 510-538.
70.
ShieldsP. M. (2008). Rediscovering the taproot: Is classical pragmatism the route to renew public administration?Public Administration Review, 68, 205-221.
71.
SimonH. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1948)
72.
SimonH. A.PeterW. F.WaldoD. (1952). Development of theory of democratic administration: Replies and comments. American Political Science Review, 46, 493-503.
73.
SmithL. D. (1986). Behaviorism and logical positivism: A reassessment of the alliance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Library Press.
74.
StadlerF. (2007). The Vienna Circle: Context, profile, and development. In RichardsonA.UebelT. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to logical empiricism (pp. 13-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
StallingsR. A.FerrisJ. M. (1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940-1984. Public Administration Review, 48, 580-587.
TorgersonD. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Science, 18, 241-261.
78.
TorgersonD. (1986). Between knowledge and politics. Policy Science, 19, 35-59.
79.
WaldoD. (1948). The administrative state. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
80.
WaldoD. (1965). The administrative state revisited. Public Administration Review, 25, 5-30.
81.
WerkmeisterW. H. (1937). Theses of logical positivism critically examined. Philosophical Review, 46, 276-297.
82.
WhetsellT. A. (2013). Theory-Pluralism in Public Administration Epistemology, Legitimacy, and Method. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 602-618.
83.
WhetsellT. A.ShieldsP. M. (2011). Reconciling the varieties of pragmatism in public administration. Administration & Society, 43, 474-483.
84.
WhiteJ. D. (1986a). Dissertations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46, 227-234.
85.
WhiteJ. D. (1986b). On the growth of knowledge in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46, 15-24.
86.
WhiteJ. D.AdamsG. B.ForresterJ. P. (1996). Knowledge and theory development in public administration: The role of doctoral education and research. Public Administration Review, 56, 441-452.
87.
WhyteW. H. (1956). The organization man. Garden City, NY: Simon & Schuster.
88.
WilsonD. J. (1999). Fertile ground: Pragmatism, scientism, and logical positivism. In HollingerR.DepewD. (Eds.), Pragmatism: From progressivism to postmodernism (pp. 122-140). Westport, CT: Praeger.
89.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
90.
ZaldM. N. (1995). Progress and cumulation in the human science after the fall. Sociological Forum, 10, 455-479.
