Interrogating hegemonic embraces: Representative bureaucracy, methodological Whiteness, and non‐West exclusions

Abstract

The United States' racial history infrequently defines the representativeness of bureaucracies outside of the United States. This article explores how selective historical memories and insufficiently critical concept importations limit disciplinary understandings. We articulate how policy transfer assumptions, narrow administrative histories, methodological Whiteness, and incomplete considerations of non‐West administration alter our understanding of what is or is not representative bureaucracy. We encourage scholars to recall how concepts like representative bureaucracy may lack exact comparability outside the West and to be open to its potential alteration by contextual circumstances. The implications for further exploration of the representative bureaucracy concept and the challenges for pedagogy are also discussed. Evidence for Practice West‐derived hegemonic understandings of the public administration discipline limit the development of public administration practice and scholarship outside the West. Insufficient historical and comparative circumspection is a frequent output of West‐based scholars seeking to implement their concepts in non‐West administrations. The discipline and practice of public administration may increase its global dialogues by conversing with non‐West actors and recognizing the limitations of Western data and theories. Like many administrative concepts, the representative bureaucracy concept as developed in the West may not operate similarly in other contexts.

Reimagining race and gender in public administration and public policy: Insights from an interdisciplinary systematic review

“…Nearly three‐quarters of scholarship focuses on problems of representation and discrimination, which are surface‐level indicators of racial inequity and gender inequity. Absence of deeper analysis of social constructions around race and gender limits the scope and value of public administration knowledge base for addressing social equity (DeHart‐Davis et al, 2020; Gooden & Portillo, 2011; Moloney et al, 2022; Portillo et al, 2022).…”

“…Historical accounts of public administration, however, render women's contribution invisible and paint gender stereotypical accounts of public administration as men's work. Stivers (1995, p. 523) makes this point eloquently, “… what sense we have today of the history of the field of public administration traces its origins to the proceduralism of the bureau men, rather than to the openly substantive approaches of settlement residents and reform club members, so many of whom were women.” The domineering influences of maleness and whiteness are pervasive (Bhati, 2022; Moloney et al, 2022; Portillo et al, 2022).…”

Epistemic decolonization of public policy pedagogy and scholarship

“…We were inspired by the academic attention to epistemic decolonization and have offered some ideas about the comparatively simpler matter of disciplinary decolonization of public policy pedagogy and scholarship. The power differentials between academic communities supporting public policy pedagogy and scholarship pale in comparison to power differentials epistemic decolonization seeks to address (Candler et al, 2010; Moloney et al, 2022; Nisar, 2022; Smith, 1999; Tuck & Wayne Yang, 2021). We very much hope that public policy pedagogy and scholarship will, in due time, become a vibrant independent domain by rightsizing the intellectual footprint of different contributory bodies of knowledge.…”

“…6 There are other ways to draw boundaries. Some may seek to draw boundaries to delineate US scholarship (and other dominant formerly colonial western nations) in all relevant policy and administration domains from national contexts in the global south (Candler et al, 2010;Moloney et al, 2022;Nisar, 2022). 7 Although we present these as simple uncontroversial demarcations of disciplinary domains, we recognize that our choices, although useful in broad terms for simplifying, may obscure some details.…”

“…6 6 There are other ways to draw boundaries. Some may seek to draw boundaries to delineate US scholarship (and other dominant formerly colonial western nations) in all relevant policy and administration domains from national contexts in the global south (Candler et al, 2010; Moloney et al, 2022; Nisar, 2022). …”