A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Public Administration Research Universe: Surviving Conversations on Methodologies and Methods

Abstract

Scientific conversations can be riddled with confusion when contributions to the discussion are based on notions about ways of knowing that remain implicit. Researchers often mix different methodological positions in their research designs because they lack an awareness of the distinctions between different ways of knowing and their associated methods. The authors engage and reflect on these differences, with particular attention to four areas: research question formulations, the character and role of concepts and theories, hypotheses versus puzzles, and case study research. They call on all researchers, both academics and practitioners, to be aware of the ways in which scientific terms serve, in research debates, as signifiers of different logics of inquiry. Awareness of these differences is important for the sake of productive scientific discussions and for the logical consistency of research, as both of the ways of knowing discussed here are legitimate scientific endeavors, albeit invoking different evaluative criteria.

How can performance measurement systems empower managers? An exploratory study in state-owned enterprises

“…Taking this into account, the study scrutinized which performance measurement mechanisms supported them in or restricted them from actively contributing to public task fulfilment. Thus, the actual workings of the underlying causal mechanisms were traced Blume, 2008a, 2008b;Blatter and Haverland, 2012;George and Bennett, 2005;Haverland and Yanow, 2012). The richness of the insights as well as the historical familiarity with the sequence of events that were gained from the case study allowed for in-depth exploration of the causal processes.…”

Zwischenstadtland Schweiz. Zur politischen Steuerung der suburbanen Entwicklung in Schweizer Gemeinden

“…Mit der Erfassung von Narrativen können demzufolge individuell geäußerte Verantwortlichkeiten, Ursachen und Wirkungen verschiedener Phänomene, Handlungsnotwendigkeiten und -anweisungen beschrieben und in ihrem Zusammenhang interpretiert werden (Landwehr 2008 (Haverland und Yanow 2012).…”

“…Theoretische Ausführungen sind dazu da, einerseits den State of the Art in einem bestimmten Forschungsfeld abzubilden, die wichtigen politischen und sozialen Phänomene und deren Erklärungs-respektive Interpretationsversuche zu erfassen und einzuordnen und somit an bereits publizierte Arbeiten anzuschließen (Haverland und Yanow 2012). Andererseits ist die Theorie wichtig, wenn es darum geht, die schiere Datenflut, die in jedem Forschungsprozess auftritt, zu strukturieren und den analytischen Blick zu schärfen, was schließlich eine systematische Analyse und Interpretation der gesammelten Daten erst ermög-licht (Blakie 2000 (Patton 2002;Flyvbjerg 2006Flyvbjerg , 2011Ritchie et al 2003a …”

The Consent Paradox: Accounting for the Prominent Role of Consent in Data Protection

“…Second, and at the same time, they provide a broader picture by linking the technical arguments to broader societal discourses, thus explaining their influence (or their lack thereof). 14 However, interpretative studies do not and cannot aspire to the same goals and evaluative standards as positivist research (see Haverland and Yanow 2012). 15 The term "world" is widely used in constructivist social science to foreground the fact that discourses produce different "realities" (see Boltanski and Thévenot 2006, 125).…”