پژوهشهای مدیریت عمومی (Feb 2024)
Philosophical analysis of public administration theories in the framework of sociological paradigms
Abstract
Abstract Public management theory in the field of public administration has been influenced and dominated by the knowledge of political science, economics, law, behavioral sciences, and social psychology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Since the emergence of theoretical and applied knowledge of public management, theories of public management have been classified and introduced within the same paradigms and theories of classical public management, managerialism or new public management, good governance, new public service, public value management, and so on. This article aims to explore the main paradigms and theories of public management within the framework of Barl and Morgan. Contemporary theories of public management, under the titles of classical public management paradigm, bureaucratization, managerialism or new public management, have to a large extent roots in functionalist sociology and carry values of objectivity, hierarchical obedience, positivist epistemology, and a tendency towards universalizing theories of public management beyond cultures, emphasizing the preservation of the existing state. Modern orientations in public management, with a focus on human-centricity by shifting attention from economics to culture and cognitive processes, carry values of mentalism, inter-mental relationships, meta-positivism, voluntarism, and conscious choice of actors, and emphasize the space of interpretation, discourse, and social constructions.Introduction The history of science has witnessed numerous revolutions, leading to the replacement of old perspectives with new ones, a phenomenon referred to by Thomas Kuhn as paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1995). A paradigm is the broadest accepted unit in a scientific field that distinguishes scientific communities and defines what should be studied, the probable questions, and how to answer them (Nargesian, 2007: 157).Management, as a social science, is not exempt from this rule and has experienced multiple transformations throughout history. Public management is a combination of theory and practice. According to Estilman (1980), there is no specific point in history for its theoretical aspect, but its practical aspect dates back as far as human existence (Lamidi, 2015: 1). Various authors and researchers argue whether public management is a science or an art. While many accept management as an art, a few researchers such as Anderson (2002), Shafritz (2006), and others believe it to be purely a science (Cavalcante, 2019). In its true sense, public management can be considered a collection of interdisciplinary theories and functions designed to enhance the understanding of the relationship between the government and society (Azimi & Farzam, 2019: 191).Although discussions on the diversity and identity crises of existing perspectives in management research are prevalent, the truth is that by examining and researching the approaches to public management, it is possible to arrive at a typology of the evolution of public management theories from a paradigmatic perspective. A paradigm refers to a comprehensive and pervasive pattern and structure of dominant mindsets and scientific commitments that encompasses the assumptions, concepts, methods, tools, and foundations accepted by scholars in a specific period, establishing a framework that entails insight into existence, knowledge of it, and a particular interpretation of humans in a historical period, setting the overall direction for research and evaluation criteria in a particular era (Khoramshad & Nozari, 2017: 53). As mentioned earlier, paradigms are constantly changing, and the changes within them are based on a return to ground zero, where everything is recreated anew in the new paradigm (Kuhn, 1995).Discussion and Results In the field of philosophy, a paradigm is a distinct set of concepts, models, or scientific contributions that includes theories, research methods, hypotheses, and criteria that are accepted by experts in a particular field, providing solutions to specialists (Kuhn, 1995). Therefore, paradigms can be said to lead to scientific revolutions and encompass a set of fundamental beliefs and assumptions that guide individuals' actions in personal and scientific life (Danaei Fard, 2007: 89). In 1979, Burrell and Morgan introduced a theoretical framework for categorizing paradigms in the social sciences, which gained significant attention (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This model may be the most influential method invented for this purpose and has influenced two generations of organizational studies researchers in understanding organizational phenomena (Andresani & Ferlie, 2006: 415). The Burrell and Morgan framework has two axes: the horizontal axis represents assumptions related to the social sciences based on a kind of objectivism-subjectivism dichotomy (ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and methodology).The functionalist paradigm represents a perspective that is entirely derived from sociological order and views the phenomenon under study through an objective lens. Functionalists, emphasizing the preservation of the existing state, social order, harmony, social integration, cohesion, and actuality, seek to understand the social world and its existing relationships using scientific methods (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).The theoretical foundations of the functionalist paradigm can be found in scientific management theories, administrative principles, bureaucracy, and administrative behavior. Scientific management aims to find the best method of performing work, and although it can be applied at all levels, it is most applicable to lower-level organizational managers. It is primarily influenced by the works of Frederick Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, and Henry Gantt (Sarker, 2013:1).The theorists situated within the interpretive paradigm, within the fabric of the interpretive paradigm, have embraced an approach that is consistent with the principles of sociological order with a mental perspective. Their main concern is how to understand the world as it truly is through mental experiences. They believe in the spiritual nature of the world, and they argue that reality, as we know it, is shaped through meanings and mental perceptions and manifested socially and empirically. Interpretivism indicates that researchers cannot separate themselves from the phenomenon under study, and the values of the researcher influence all stages of the research. In their approach to the social sciences, they embrace hermeneutics, anti-positivism, constructivism, and ideography (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).ConclusionIt cannot be said that one paradigm is superior to another; depending on the organizational functions, one can utilize each of these paradigms. For example, in sections of the organization where emphasis is mainly placed on tangible measures, such as the technical and operational departments, the functionalist paradigm would be more effective. In communication sections of the organization with the community, environment, and citizens, such as human resources management, customer relationship management, etc., one can benefit from the capacities of the interpretive and humanistic paradigms. The functionalist paradigm encompasses a significant volume of management studies and seeks to provide rational explanations for social affairs. This paradigm places great emphasis on social control and the preservation of the existing order, based on a sociological perspective. Traditional and modern management approaches such as scientific management, administrative principles, and bureaucracy find their place within the most tangible form of this framework. They have a completely pragmatic viewpoint and consider organizations and phenomena within them as natural phenomena in their analyses. By briefly reviewing classical management theories, one can observe the predominance of rational, formal, and legal actions within them.In continuation, the interpretive paradigm emerges, which emphasizes the mental approach to social organization. They contrast the functionalist perspective in ontology, epistemology, methodology, and anthropology. The theories of public management, good governance, value-based management, and modern public services are analyzable within this framework. In these approaches, we witness a diminishing role of governments and a greater focus on civil society based on values. For example, good governance holds governments accountable and responsible to the general public. Therefore, the type of action in this paradigm differs from the functionalists, who are rational and law-oriented. The emphasis on interactions and the increased communication between governments and societies bring emotional, social, and relational actions to the forefront in the interpretive paradigm.The next two paradigms under examination stand in contrast to the functionalist and interpretive orientations and criticize their excessive conformity. The fundamental humanistic paradigm is analyzed in two dimensions. One dimension leans towards absolute self-belief and ultimately leads to anarchy and disorder, making it unsuitable for administrative structures. The other part of the fundamental humanistic paradigm seeks to reform the existing state of affairs. The humanistic paradigm, which was examined in this study through critical theory and postmodern analysis, has recently emerged as the dominant perspective. Their nature is evident in critiquing the modernists, replacing traditional methods with discourses and communications. From a cognitive standpoint, they resemble the interpretive paradigm, with their difference lying in their viewpoint towards society.
Keywords
