Philosophical analysis of public administration theories in the framework of sociological paradigms

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate professor Department of Management,faculty of Economic and Management, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.

2 PhD student in public administration, , Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.

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).
Conclusion
It 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

References

منابع فارسی
ابراهیم پور، حبیب. (1385). مبانی فلسفی نظریه های سازمان و مدیریت با رویکرد کارکردگرایی و ساختارگرایی. فرهنگ مدیریت،(13)4، 112-73.
الوانی، سیدمهدی؛ دانایی فرد، حسن. (1382). گفتارهایی در فلسفه نظریه های سازمان حکومت، تهران، انتشارات صفر.
الوانی، سیدمهدی؛ دانایی فرد، حسن. (1376). مدیریت دولتی از منظر انتقادی. مطالعات مدیریت بهبود و تحول، 7 (25)، 12-40
آهنچیان، محمدرضا. (1391). پایان مدیریت، فروپاشی روایات مدرن در عصر مدیریت. تهران: انتشارات نی.
حاجیلو، محمد؛ محمدی، نبی الله؛ درودی، هما؛ منصوری، علی. (1390). طراحی الگوی توسعه منابع انسانی مبتنی بر آموزش با حکمرانی خوب در دانشگاه‌های علوم پزشکی ایران: یک پژوهش کیفی. استراتژی آموزش پزشکی، 14 (4): 161-171.
حشمت زاده، محمدباقر؛ حاجی یوسفی، امیر محمد؛ طالبی، محمدعلی. (1396). بررسی موانع تحقق حکمرانی خوب در فرهنگ سیاسی ایران. مقالات سیاسی معاصر، 8(23)،1-24.
حیدری، حمید؛ ایمن، محمدتقی؛ احمدی، حبیب؛ غفاری نسب، اسفندیار. (1390). تحلیل مبانی هستی شناختی پژوهش های جامعه شناختی در ایران. مجله مطالعات تحقیقات اجتماعی ایران، 4(10)، 1149-1179.
خالقی، امیرحسین. (1391). تحقیق در مورد رویکردهای چند پارادایم و فراپارادایمی در مطالعات سازمانی، فصلنامه فرآیند مدیریت توسعه، 2(25) 141-165.
خرمشاد، محمدباقر؛ نوذری، محمداسماعیل. (1396). تحلیل سیر تحول و تحول فلسفه سیاسی در دیدگاه پارادایمیک، مقالات سیاسی معاصر، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، 3(8)، 83-53.
خلوصی، محمدحسین. (1395). تبیین مفهوم و مولفه های شهروندی در فلسفه سیاسی ارسطو و فارابی، فصلنامه بین رشته ای پژوهش های بنیادی علوم انسانی، (2)3 ، 73-96.
دانایی فرد، حسن. (1386). پارادایم های رقابتی در علم سازمان و مدیریت: رویکردی تطبیقی به هستی شناسی، ریشه شناسی و روش شناسی. دانشور رفتار/ دانشگاه شهید، (26) 4، 104-89.
دانایی فرد، حسن و الوانی، سیدمهدی و آذر، عادل. (1383). روش تحقیق کیفی در مدیریت: رویکردی جامع، تهران: انتشارات صفر.
رهنورد، فرج اله. (1390). یک مدل مدیریت دولتی برای عمومتحقق چشم انداز 1404 . مجله چشم انداز مدیریت دولتی،2(12)،43-58.
زرقانی، سیدهادی؛ احمدی، ابراهیم. (1396).حکمرانی خوب در دولت های محلی: تمرکززدایی. فصلنامه دولت پژوهی، (19)5، 138-107.
سالارزهی، حبیب الله. (1399). مدیریت ارزش عمومی: پارادایم جدیدی در مدیریت دولتی مبتنی بر ارزش های عمومی، مطالعات مدیریت دولتی، 13(45)، 218-189.
سالارزهی، حبیب الله؛ ابراهیم پور، حبیب. (2012). بررسی تحول پارادایم های مدیریت دولتی: از پارادایم سنتی مدیریت دولتی تا پارادایم حکمرانی خوب. مدیریت دولتی، 4(9)، 43-62.
سرمدی، محمدرضا؛ پاک سرشت، محمدجعفر؛ صفایی مقدم، مسعود؛ مهرعلیزاده، یداله. (1388). نقدی بر انسان شناسی تیلوریسم و پیامدهای آن در مدیریت آموزشی. مطالعات تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه فردوسی، 19(1)، 213-197.
غفاری، مسعود؛ امینیان، مهدی. (2015). درآمدی بر ارتباط نظریه سیاسی افلاطون با دولت مدرن، رویکردهای سیاسی و بین المللی، 7(2)، 156-185.
گاینی، امیر؛ حسین زاده، امیر. (1391). پارادایم های سه گانه پوزیتیویسم، تفسیر و هرمنوتیک در مطالعات مدیریت و سازمان، راهبر فرهنگ، 6(19). 111-98.
گرجی، علی اکبر؛ جلیلوند، محمدشهاب. (1397)بررسی تطبیقی معیار مشروطیت در دولت مدرن و جمهوری اسلامی ایران، مطالعات کشوری، (16)4، 145-174.
گنجعلی، اسدالله؛ رحیمی­خورزوقی، احسان. (1395). تحلیل مبانی انسان‌شناختی پارادایم‌های جامعه‌شناختی سازمان و مدیریت از منظر اندیشه‌های علامه طباطبایی. مجله علمی تخصصی اسلام و مدیریت، 5(8)، 133-159.
نرگسیان، عباس. (1386). نگاهی به تحولات مدیریت دولتی، فرهنگ مدیریت، 4(17)، 195-157.
یوسف جمالی، محمدیوسف؛ بیژنی، مسلم. (1392).سیر تکوینی دولت مطلقه مدرن در ایران. فصلنامه علمی تخصصی پژوهش های سیاسی در ایران،(10)4، 78-60.
References
Ahanchian, M. (2012). The end of management, the collapse of modern narratives in the era of management. Tehran: Nei Publications.(In persian)
Akindele, S. T., Olaopa, O. R., & Obiyan, A. S. (2002). The theory of public administration and its relevance to Nigerian administrative ecology. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 247-256.
Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39-43.
Alvani, M., Danaei Fard, H. (1997). Public administration from a critical perspective. Studies of improvement and transformation management,7 (25), 12-40.(In persian)
Andresani, G., & Ferlie, E. (2006). Studying governance within the  British public sector and without: Theoretical and methodological issues. Public Management Review, 8(3), 415-431.
Bartels, L. M. (2009). Economic inequality and political representation. The unsustainable American state, 167-196.
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2022). All you need is… a network: The rise of interpretive public administration. Public Administration, 100(1), 149-160.
Bovaird, T. (2002). Public management and governance: Emerging trends and potential future directions. Public adminestration and public management-, 99, 345-376.
Burrell, A., & Morgan, G. (1979). Introduction', in. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis.
Cameron, R. (2003). Politics–administration interface: The case of the city of Cape Town. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(1), 51-66.
     Cavalcante, P. L. (2019). Trends in Public Administration after Hegemony of the New Public Management: a literature review.
Chandler, R. C. (1989). Public administration pedagogy: evolutionary paradigms in theory and practice. Handbook of public administration, 633-655.
Clegg, S. (1990). Modern organizations: Organization studies in the postmodern world. Sage.
Cotesta, V. (2018). Max Weber on China: Modernity and Capitalism in a Global Perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Danaei Fard, H. (2007). Competing paradigms in organization and management science: a comparative approach to ontology, etymology and methodology; Daneshvar Behavat/Shahid University, (26) 4, 104-89. (In Persian)
Danai Fard, Alvani, and Azar, A. (2004). Qualitative Research Methodology in Management: A Comprehensive Approach, Tehran: Safar Publications.(In persian)
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: serving, not steering. Language, 13(222), 24-35.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public administration review, 60(6), 549-559.
Drechsler, W. (2020). Good bureaucracy: Max Weber and public administration today. Max Weber Studies, 20(2), 219-224.
Drechsler, W., & Fuchs, L. (2022). Max Weber and the Neo-      Weberian State: A workshop and a Max Weber Studies Theme Issue. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(2), 197-198.
Ebrahimpour, H. (2006). Philosophical foundations of theories of organization and management with the approach of functionalism and structuralism. Culture of Management, 4(13), 83-112.(In persian)
Alvani, M.; Danae Fard, H. (2003). Speeches in the philosophy of theories of government organization, Tehran, Safar Publishing House.(In persian)
Fromm, H. (2009). The nature of being human: From environmentalism to consciousness. JHU Press.
Ghaffari,M.Aminian,M., (2015) .An Introduction to the Relevance of Plato’s Political Theory to Modern State, Political and International approaches, 7(2), 156-185.(In persian)
Gaini, A.; Hosseinzadeh, A. (2012). Triple paradigms of positivism, interpretation and hermeneutics in management and organization studies, Rahbar Farhang, 6(19). 111-98.(In persian)
Ganj Ali, A., Rahimi, A. (2016). Analyzing the anthropological foundations of the sociological paradigms of organization and management from the perspective of Allameh Tabatabai's thoughts. Specialized Scientific Journal of Islam and Management, 5(8), 133-159.(In persian)
Ghosh, L. K., Rammohun, R., & Mahavidyalaya, R. O. Y. (2021). New Public Service Approach in Public Administration. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), 9(1), 1862-1865.
Gorji, A.,  jalilvand m.,(2019).A comparative study of the Constitutionality criterion in the modern state and the Islamic Republic of Iran, State Studies, 4(16), :145-174.(In persian)
Grachev, M., & Rakitsky, B. (2013). Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor's scientific management. Journal of Management History, 19(4), 512-527.
       Hajiloo,M., mohammadi,N., doroudi, H., mansori ,A.(2021). Designing aneducation-based human resource development model with good governance in Iranian medical universities: A Qualitative Research. Educ Strategy Med Sci,14 (4) :161-171.(In persian)
Handy, C. B. (1994). The age of paradox. Harvard Business Press.
        Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Indiana University Press.
Heshmatzadeh, M., HajiYousefi, A., Talebi, M. (2017). Investigating the obstacles to the realization of good governance in Iranian political culture. Contemporary political essays, 8(23),1-24.(In persian)
Heydari, H., Ayman, M., Ahmadi, H., Ghafari Nasab, A. (2021). Analyzing the ontological foundations of sociological research in Iran. Journal of Social Research Studies in Iran, 4(10), 1149-1179.(In persian)
Horodecka, A. (2014). The meaning of concepts of human nature in organizational life in business ethics context. Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym, 17(4), 53-64.
Houlihan, B., & Policy, S. (2013). Accountability and good governance. Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations.
Javanmardi, E., Liu, S., & Xie, N. (2020). Exploring the philosophical paradigm of grey systems theory as a postmodern theory. Foundations of Science, 25(4), 905-925.
Jun, J. S. (2007). The social construction of public administration: Interpretive and critical perspectives. SUNY Press.
Kernaghan, K. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as centerpiece. Public administration review, 63(6), 711-719.
Khaleghi, A. (2012). Research on multi-paradigm and trans-paradigm approaches in organizational studies, Development Management Process Quarterly, 2(25) 141-165.(In Persian)
Kholoosi, mohammad hossien (2016) Explaining the concept and components of citizenship in the political philosophy of Aristotle and Farabi, The Interdisciplinary Quarterly of Fundamental Researches on Humanities,Volume 2, Issue 2. P: 73-96  .(In Persian)
Khorramshad, M., Nowzari, M. (2017). Analysis of the evolution and evolution of political philosophy in a paradigmatic perspective, contemporary political essays, Research Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 3(8), 83-53.(In persian)
Kuhn, T. (1995). The structure of scientifc revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Lamidi, K. O. (2015). Theories of public administration: an anthology of essays. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 6(6.3), 1-35.
Langer, J. (2022). Bureaucracy and the Imaginal Realm: Max Weber, Rationality and the Substantive Basis of Public Administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(2), 122-134.
Lather, P. (1990). Reinscribing otherwise: The play of values in the practices of the human sciences. The paradigm dialog, 315-332.
Nabatchi, T. (2011). Exploring the public values universe: understanding values in public administration. Public Management Research Association.
Naim Azimi, M., & Reza Farzam, M. (2019). Paradigm Shift: Robust Response of Reinventing Government Movement to New Public Administration Using Econometrics. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 9(2),191-201.
Nargesian, A. (2007). A look at the evolution of public administration. Culture of Management, 4(17), 157-195.(In persian)
Pfiffner, J. P. (2005). Presidential decision making: Rationality, advisory systems, and personality. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 217-228.
Rahnavard, F. ( 2011). A Public Administration Model for Public
Realization of the Vision of 1404. Journal of Public Administration
Perspaective,2(12),43-58,(In persian)
Richardson, L. (2003). Writing: A method of inquiry. Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief, 2, 379.
Rizzello, S. (2002). Herbert Simon's heritage. Rivista internazionale di scienze economiche e commerciali, 49(3), 289-304.
Roberts, A. (2018). The aims of public administration: Reviving the classical view. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1), 73-85.
Salarzahi, H. (2020). Public value management: a new paradigm in public administration based on public values. Public management studies, 13(45), 218-189.(In persian)
Salarzahi, H., Ebrahimpour, h. (2012). Examining the evolution of public administration paradigms: from the traditional public administration paradigm to the good governance paradigm. Public administration, 4(9), 43-62.(In persian)
Sarker, S. I., & Khan, M. R. A. (2013). Classical and neoclassical approaches of management: An overview. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 14(6), 1-5.
Sarmedi, M., Pak Sarasht, M., Safai Moghadam, M., Mehralizadeh, Y. (2009). A critique on Taylorism's anthropology and its consequences in educational management. Ferdowsi University Educational and Psychological Studies, 19(10), 213-197 .(In persian)
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189-213). SAGE Publishing.
Silva, P. A., & Santos, A. C. B. D. (2022). Epistemological Possibilities of Public Administration Theories: from Paradigms to Epistemic Matrices. Organizações & Sociedade, 29, 277-296.
Simon, H. A. (2013). Administrative behavior. Simon and Schuster.
Smit, P. J., Cronje, G. D., Brevis, T., & Vrba, M. J. (Eds.). (2011). Management principles: A contemporary edition for Africa. Juta and Company Ltd.
Stevenson, L., & Haberman, D. L. (1998). Ten theories of human nature. Oxford University Press.
Stillman, R. J. (ed.), (1980). Public Administration: Cases and Concepts, 2 nd Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?. The American review of public administration, 36(1), 41-57.
Sullivan, J. J. (1986). Human nature, organizations, and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 534-549.
Tomori, S. (1985). “Public Administration and Economic System” in L. Adamolekun (ed.), Nigerian Public Administration, 1960-1980; Perspectives and Prospects. Ibadan: Heineman Educational Books Nig. Ltd.
Turkel, E., & Turkel, G. (2016). Public value theory: Reconciling public interests, administrative autonomy and efficiency. Review of Public Administration and Management, 4(2).35-51.
Vares,S.H(2001),Metaparadigm View to Public Administration,
Management Knowledge Journal , Volume 55, Issue 14.35-51 (In Persian).
Walliman, N. (2017). Qualitative data analysis. In Research Methods (pp. 148-166). Routledge.
Weber, M. (1958). Politics as a Vocation. From Max Weber. HH Gerth and CW Mills.
Youesfjamali, M. Bizhani M (2014).Evolutionary Course of the Modern Absolute Government in Iran, political reseraches journal,4(10), 60-78. (In Persian)
Zarghani, H., Ahmadi, A. (2019). Good governance in local governments: decentralization. State Research Quarterly, Faculty of Law and Political Science Magazine. 5(19), 107-138.(In Persian)
 
Public Management Researches
Volume 16, Issue 62 - Serial Number 62
February 2024
Pages 161-198

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics