See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322675673

Theories for research in Public Administration

Article · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

2 8,425

1 author:

Gerrit Van der Waldt

North West University South Africa
74 PUBLICATIONS   149 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Local Governance View project

Cultural/diversity issues in Public Administration teaching View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gerrit Van der Waldt on 24 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Theories for research in Public Administration
G van der Waldt
Research Professor: Public Governance
North-West University

[Van der Waldt, G. 2017. Theories for research in Public Administration. African Journal of
Public Affairs. 9(9):183-202]

Key words:
Theory, Public Administration, research, discipline, meta-approach, sense-making, science,
paradigm

ABSTRACT

Theory underpins social science endeavours by providing the philosophical assumptions on

the following aspects: aspects that constitute social reality (ontology); is accepted as valid
evidence of that reality (epistemology); the means to investigate the context (methodology);
and the manner in which evidence is gathered (methods). Both positivists and interpretivists
generally concur that theory occupies a central role in scientific inquiry into the social world.
In disciplines of applied social science such as Public Administration, research generally
fosters the transition from theory to practice. In this respect, theory underlies the designs,
methods, and findings of the research process.

The purpose of this article was to identify and categorise theories for the analysis of key
domains in Public Administration as a field of study. A further aim entailed contributing to
the discourse on scientific rigour of Public Administration research in general, and
postgraduate studies in particular. For these purposes, desktop research and an extensive
literature survey were utilised.

INTRODUCTION

The construction of theories is a major goal of the sciences. Scientific observations generally
are guided by pre-existing theories and only become “scientific” through continual
experimental testing (Tomic 2010:714). Fisher (1978:37) contends that it is only possible to
understand the scientific theories of a given discipline until that discipline develops a
substantial body of knowledge in the form of empirical generalisations and underlying
principles. In the absence of well-articulated theories, neither qualitative nor quantitative
research data have real significance. Research findings thus have little scientific sense when
presented outside the context of a particular theory or of certain theories in combination. For
scholars in Public Administration, it is thus important to build a constant corpus of
knowledge of this emerging and applied discipline within the social sciences. Furthermore, it
should be appreciated that there is multiple theories applicable to analyse phenomena of a
particular domain.

Public Administration as an interdiscipline entails the convergence of organisational theory,

social theory, political theory and related studies. In this regard, Pollitt (2010:292) maintains
that Public Administration “suffers from multiple personality disorder”. It focuses in general
on the meaning, structures and functions of the public-sector domain in all its forms. Public
Administration is thus characterised by diversity and finds its origin in various theoretical

1
schools of thought, which Golembiewski (1977) refers to as a “family of miniparadigms”.
From a theoretical perspective, Public Administration recounts historical foundations for the
study of government as well as epistemological matters associated with public service as a
profession and an academic field. Research in this field is generally complicated by the fact
that governance-related phenomena are complex and require multiple dimensions,
approaches, models and theories to analyse them. As interdiscipline, Public Governance can
probably best be described as a multi-dimensional field of study involving various research
traditions and approaches focusing on governmental, political, economic, technological,
legal, social, and cultural systems.

The primary purpose of this article is to pinpoint and categorise relevant theories for the
study of key domains in the field of Public Administration. The secondary purpose is
contributing towards improving the scientific rigour of research within Public Administration
in general, and postgraduate studies (i.e. Master’s and doctoral research) in particular. This is
done by reflecting on the significance of incorporating theory into research designs, methods,
and findings. Furthermore, the article intends to underscore the importance of theory
development (i.e. grounded theory) to enhance the maturity level of Public Administration’s
corpus of knowledge. For these purposes, desktop research and an extensive literature survey
were used. Although the author fully recognises the paradigmatic developments of Public
Administration as study domain (e.g. postmodernism, managerialism and governance), the
term “Public Administration” is used in this article. It should thus be regarded as an umbrella
term that includes recent trends and developments in the field.

THE CONCEPT OF “THEORY”

The concept of “theory” originates from the Greek theoria, meaning “contemplation” or
“speculation” (Bell and Bryman 2011:34). It is generally a systematic and formalised
expression of previous observations, and is predictive, logical and testable. In principle,
scientific theories typically are tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a wider
theoretical structure (Bell 2005:26). The basic functions of theory are thus to describe,
explain, predict, or control phenomena in a variety of contexts.

Theory generally consists of philosophical assumptions, which can be classified in terms of

the following categories: epistemology (questions of knowledge), ontology (questions of
existence), and axiology (questions of values) (Littlejohn and Foss 2005:18). Epistemological
questions deal with the way in which phenomena are explained, whilst ontological
underpinnings of a theory refer to what the researcher believes is real and considers to exist.
Based on a person’s ontology, knowledge is created by constructing such an individual’s own
reality (i.e. constructivism) (Littlejohn and Foss 2005:19).

A theory’s foundational building blocks, according to Caiden (1991:205), consist of four

components:

 Suppositions (assumptions/convictions/axioms): Entails an assumption that nothing has

yet been proven directly. An assumption points out possibilities, and encourages people
to achieve them.
 Definitions: Describe the terminology used in these suppositions. Elaborate definitions
develop into theoretical frameworks.

2
 Propositions: Indicate the relationship between concepts/terms derived from
suppositions and definitions. These inferences point out what would happen if certain
demands were met.
 Hypothesis: A hypothesis measures the propositions and as such are highly applicable
to a particular subject. Only the practical environment could prove a hypothesis as true,
partly true or false. The hypothesis can, in other words, be right or wrong. If a
hypothesis is proved wrong it means that the practices, on which the theory is based,
could also possibly be proven false. In this case, the theory would have to be revised in
order to render the statement true. A theory is, therefore, only valid if it has been
proven as such.

Over time scholars developed classifications or levels of theories. Below, a brief summary
are provided of the respective levels. These levels should be seen as a continuum ranging
from the simplest ones to the more sophisticated, complex levels of theory. According to
Grover and Glazier (1986:233-235), Grinnell (1993:94), and O’Leary (2013:45), the
following levels of theory can be distinguished:

 substantive theory: a set of propositions, which furnish an explanation for an applied

area of inquiry;
 formal theory. a set of propositions, which furnish an explanation for a formal or
conceptual area of inquiry, that is, a discipline;
 generalisations: typically more data connected than grand theory or paradigms;
 grand theory: a set of theories or generalisations that transcend the borders of
disciplines to explain relationships among phenomena;
 paradigm: a framework of basic assumptions with which perceptions are evaluated
and relationships (and values) are delineated and applied to a discipline or profession;
and
 world view: an individual’s accepted knowledge, including values and assumptions,
which provide a “filter” for the perception of phenomena.

Popper (1963:246) furthermore draws a distinction between strong, “thick” theories and
weak, “thin” theories. Staats (1991:908) in turn distinguishes “framework” theory from
“interlevel” or “interfield” theory. Framework theory is generally used when the detailed
treatment of knowledge elements is not possible. The aim of framework theory is to develop
a set of basic principles and extend them to selected (sampled) problems (phenomena)
through the range of the different fields of the mentioned theory’s purview. Interlevel or
interfield theory in turn aims to construct “bridging” theories in order to connect separated
problem areas or fields. In the case of Public Administration for example, the different major
subject fields may be related in a hierarchical or causal manner. One field may contain more
elementary principles, whilst others may hold more advanced principles.

According to Ponterotto (2005:128), researchers have established various paradigms to help

conceptualise, guide and classify their research. Ritzer (1996:637) defines a paradigm as the
broadest unit of consensus within a science that serves to differentiate between scientific
communities. A research paradigm can be regarded as an all-encompassing system of
interrelated practice and thinking (i.e. theories) that define the nature of enquiry. In a
scientific context, Thomas Kuhn (1970) explains that a paradigm denotes a conceptual
framework that a community of scientists share and which provides them with a model to
examine problems and find solutions. According to Kuhn, the term paradigm refers to a
research culture with a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions on the nature and conduct of

3
research that a community of researchers has in common (Kuhn 1970). A paradigm thus
implies a pattern, structure and framework or system of scientific and academic ideas, values
and assumptions (Olsen, Lodwick and Dunlop 1992:16). The main paradigms that form the
basis of research in both the natural and social sciences are the positivist (logical-empirical),
interpretative, and critical approach (Guba and Lincoln 1994:110; Ponterotto 2005:128).
Other theoretical approaches in paradigms include:

 phenomenology;
 grounded theory;
 ethnomethodology;
 symbolic interactionism;
 feminism; and
 post-modernism.

Theory can be regarded as the philosophical dimension of a phenomenon, while an approach

refers to the concrete methods and techniques applied to reach a certain objective. The theory
of a subject will, therefore, determine which approach a researcher will pursue. Generally,
approaches are categorised in terms of three main groups, namely normatism, empiricism and
behaviourism. These groups can be used as tools to analyse a phenomenon, In the case of
Public Administration, twelve approaches generally are applied (Gladden 1966:20; Shafritz
and Hyde 1997:3; Mautner 2000:166; Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2002:5). These approaches
are:

 politics/administration dichotomy;
 historical;
 institutional (bureaucratic);
 behavioural systems;
 public policy;
 business management (managerialism);
 comprehensive;
 conventional;
 political and political economy;
 structural functional;
 generic administrative; and
 legal.

These approaches in turn guide the development of theory in the respective subfields of the
discipline.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THEORY IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

The general purpose of science is to expand knowledge through the discovery of facts.
Theory building in this regard can be seen as the main instrument by which researchers strive
to achieve this purpose (Kelly 2010:286). Science is built on existing knowledge and can be
grouped into two broad categories, namely natural and social sciences (Bryman 2012:4).

Theory, science and research have a complex interrelationship. Both theory and research
form part of the scientific method, a process by which knowledge is acquired, corrected and
integrated into a totality of verifiable knowledge. Theories generate hypotheses that can be

4
proven or disproven by research, the results of which may enhance the theory. The results of
research may also call a theory into question, causing it to be rejected or revised. According
to Mullins (1973:34), Polkinghorne (1983:14), and Zanetti (1997:147), a theory can be
regarded as “scientific” if it is tentative, correctable and dynamic, allowing for changes when
new data are discovered, rather than asserting absolute certainty. Furthermore, the particular
theory should be the most parsimonious explanation of a phenomenon.

According to Mitchell and Cody (1993:170), knowledge is theory-laden and research

methods are theory-driven. This assertion illustrates the significance of theory in research
endeavours. The general conception is that these two concepts are direct opposites: theory
concerns speculation, whilst research focuses on facts (Creswell 2009:8). However, when
scientists engage in research, it is evident that theory and fact are not diametrically opposed,
but inextricably intertwined. Furthermore, scientists are concerned with both theory and fact
(research). Therefore, research produces facts, from which theories can be generated.
Mitchell and Cody (1993:172) view theories as “soft mental images” whereas research covers
the empirical world of hard, settled, and observable things. In this way, theory and fact
(research) contribute mutually. This unified form of investigation is characterised as a
structured inquiry that utilises an acceptable scientific methodology to collect, analyse, and
interpret information that help solve problems or answer questions and create new knowledge
that is generally applicable (Grinnell 1993; Burns 1997).

In the same vein, Kumar (2011:12) argues that research can be viewed as an original and
systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject to gain knowledge and understanding of a
specific phenomenon. Research can, therefore, simply be described as a journey embarked on
that leads to the discovery of new knowledge or revision of facts, theories, and applications.
Thus, any research that is conducted must make an original contribution to the existing body
of knowledge in the relevant discipline. The essential features of academic research are that it
should, as far as possible, be controlled, rigorous, valid and verifiable, empirical, critical,
reliable, systematic, arguable, and challengeable (Kumar 2011:12).

Theories should be tested iteratively in the field as well as in more controlled empirical
settings. In the process, theory, research, and practice may converge. The usage of theory in
applied social sciences such as Public Administration, can be placed on a continuum ranging
as follows:

 Informed by theory: a theoretical framework is identified, but none or limited

application of the theory used in specific study components and measures.
 Applied theory: a theoretical framework is specified, and several of the constructs
applied in components of the study.
 Tested theory: a theoretical framework is specified, and more than half the theoretical
constructs measured and tested explicitly, or two or more theories compared in a
study.
 Building/creating theory: new or revised/expanded theory is developed by using
constructs that are specified, measured, and analysed in a study.

An investigation by Wessels (2008) and Cameron (2013) on the scientific rigour of Public
Administration research in South Africa, illustrate that more than two-thirds of the studies in
the review used theory to inform a study. From these, 17.9% of the theories were applied;
3.6% were tested, and only 9.4% involved building new theory. These findings underscore
the importance of more thorough application, testing and building of theories to advance

5
knowledge production in the applicable field. This is critical to take the field forward, build
its maturity as a discipline, and ensure its relevance, not only in practice, but also in terms of
scholarly efforts.

Utilising theory in research design and methodology

According to Moore (1991:2), theory is basic to practices of knowledge construction and

knowledge production. Theory generally underpins research designs since it provides
understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. In this regard, theory functions as a
mental model attempting to explain how aspects of social reality work.

A research design, according to Kerlinger (1986:279) and Phillips (in Cooper and Schindler
1998:130), can be seen as a blue print for the collection, measuring and analysis of data.
According to Mitchell and Cody (1993:173), theory influences research designs, including
decisions about possible research and the development of research questions. Theory
furthermore informs methodology and has implications for the way in which data are
analysed and interpreted. Theory about a particular issue may be developed, contributing to
facts that are already known about the matter. Research methodology is based on the
particular design, qualitative, quantitative or mixed method. The nature of a study can be
exploratory (e.g. what is going on?) and descriptive (e.g. why is it going on?). According to
Babbie and Mouton (2001:272), exploratory research is inductive in nature and aims to
achieve a dense description of the phenomenon under enquiry. Descriptive research aims to
describe events or situations and infers that the representation of participants’ realities should
be described clearly.

Kelly (2010:286) argues that theory guides a research design and methodology at least in four
ways:
 Provides a contextual orientation for the study by focusing attention on the specific
aspects under investigation.
 Serves as instrument to conceptualise and classify concepts and constructs.
 Summarises what is already known about the object of study, including empirical
generalisations, and systems of relationships between propositions; also pinpoints
gaps in existing knowledge.
 Predicts results or findings of research.

Constructing theoretical frameworks

Sound research depends on applying the most appropriate theory to design theoretical,
conceptual and analytical frameworks in order to study certain phenomena. Different theories
are best suited to the diverse units of analysis, such as groups, behaviour, and organisations.
The choice of a suitable theory should begin by identifying the problem, research goal, and
units of analysis.

Miles and Huberman (1994:18) describe a theoretical framework as a written or visual

presentation that “explains either graphically, or in narrative form, the main things to be
studied – the key factors, concepts, constructs or variables – and the presumed relationship
among them”. In qualitative research a theoretical framework generally emerges after a
robust literature review was undertaken. This framework then increases in levels of
sophistication as participants’ views and issues are gathered and analysed.

6
A major function of a theoretical framework is that it narrows down the range of facts to be
studied, seeing that phenomena or objects may be studied in various ways (Swanson
2013:34). The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why
the research problem under investigation exists. A theoretical framework typically consists of
concepts and constructs, together with their definitions and references to relevant scholarly
literature. Such a framework should demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts
relevant to the topic of research and how it relates to the broader areas of knowledge. The
selection of a theory should depend on its appropriateness, ease of application, and
explanatory power. A theoretical framework thus supports research since it states the
theoretical assumptions on which the study is based, and aligns the study with existing
knowledge.

A research project such as a Master’s dissertation or doctoral thesis, should describe the
theoretical framework, concepts, constructs, models, or specific theories that underpin the
study. This also means taking note of the key theorists in the field, who have conducted
research on the problem under investigation. When necessary, the historical or paradigmatic
context that supports the formulation of the particular theory should be considered as well.
The overarching framework should be positioned within a broader context of related
theoretical frameworks, concepts, models, and theories.

The choice of a particular theory should be substantiated, thus confirming it as the most
appropriate means to explore the phenomenon under investigation. Furthermore, it is
important that research findings are linked to the fundamental theory to highlight areas where
empirical findings confirm or contradict the theory. However, it should also be noted that the
theory might not enable the researcher to analyse all the findings that emerge. In applied
social science research it is, therefore, important to appreciate the potential limitations of the
selected theoretical framework (e.g. reductionism). This will help the researcher identify
areas or dimensions of the research problem that require further investigation, seeing that the
theory explains a certain phenomenon inadequately.

Scholars generally follow a certain protocol to develop a theoretical framework (Sutton and
Staw 1995:375; Torraco 1997:114-137; Jacard and Jacoby 2010:56). Regarding postgraduate
studies in the social sciences, this convention typically includes the following actions:

 Explore the research title and research problem to ensure that the latter anchors the
study and forms the basis from which to construct a theoretical framework.
 Pinpoint key concepts, constructs and variables in the research by identifying which
factors contribute to the presumed effects.
 List the concepts, constructs and variables that may be relevant to the study, and
group them into independent and dependent categories.
 Review relevant literature to establish whether scholars have addressed the research
problem previously.
 Identify the assumptions from which the authors approached the problem.
 Analyse key theories in social sciences and select the theory or theories that best
explain the relationships between the key concepts, constructs and variables in the
study.
 Assess the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out its relevance to the
research.

7
As stated above, a theoretical framework generally forms the grounding platform from which
constructs associated with the phenomenon under investigation can be studied (Littlejohn and
Foss 2005:189). An example of such a meta-theoretical framework is outlined in Table 1
below. In this example, the researcher aims to investigate the significance of leadership on
efficient service delivery in a particular municipality. The theoretical domains are thus
government, services, and human resources, each with its respective theories.

Table 1: Example of a theoretical framework

Worldview Divine right

Paradigm Postmodern (New) Public Administration
Grand theory General Systems Theory
Theoretical Government Services Human resources
domains (Behaviourism)
Subfields Government systems and Service delivery Political and
within the structures procedures administrative
theoretical leadership
domains
Concepts Local Front-office Supervision, direction,
government/municipality practices mentoring, leading,
guidance
Theories • Dual State Theory • Public • Trait Theory
• Principal-agent Institutional • Contingency Theory
Theory Theory • Situational
• State Autonomy • Theories on Leadership Theory
Theory public • Functional Theory
• Local State Theory accountability • Managerial Grid
Regulation Theory • Public Good Theory
Theory • Leader-member
• Social Contract Exchange Theory
Theory • Transformational
• Decision Theory Theory
• Rational Choice • Behaviour Change
Theory Theory
• Public Value • Theory of Reasoned
Theory Action
• Social Exchange • Social Practice
Theory Theory
• Diffusion of
Innovation
Theory

Source: Author

It should be noted that a complete theoretical framework will only emerge after a thorough
literature review. Just as a research problem requires contextualisation and background
information, a theory requires a framework to help understand its application on the topic
under investigation.

8
THE (THEORETICAL) STATUS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH

As stated previously, the study of Public Administration entails a broad and often
interdisciplinary field (cf. Raadschelders 1999:281) of enquiry. This field comprises the
government and governance systems (e.g. regulatory, institutional and administrative), the
particular social system (e.g. human dynamics in society), the political system (e.g. power
dynamics in society), and the economic system (e.g. accumulation, production, distribution of
wealth). Public Administration as a field of study reflects various research traditions and
approaches. These background elements denote a philosophical and theoretical point of
departure from which to conduct an inquiry into governance-related phenomena. As such, it
provides a research focus and methodological strategy that informs the collection and the
analysis of data.

Through traces of its classical origins in Western and Eastern cultures, Public Administration
has evolved to cover a broad field of scientific inquiry. As interdiscipline, it borrows heavily
from adjacent or reference disciplines (cf. Van der Waldt 2016:213) such as sociology,
political sciences, economics, and law. These are approaches and theories that scholars deem
useful for the study of phenomena related to the public sector. Early scholars in various fields
made significant contributions to theory development. These include authors such as Max
Weber (On bureaucracy), Gulick (POSTCORB), Woodrow Wilson (The study of
administration), Chester Barnard (Functions of the executive), Dwight Waldo (The
administrative state), Lyndall Urvick (Science of Administration Theory), and Herbert A.
Simon (Administrative behaviour). In a postmodern era, more contemporary scholars
expanded the corpus of knowledge to include managerial and broader governance
perspectives. These are scholars such as Bouckert, Bourgon, Frederickson, Hughes, Pollitt,
Raadschelders, and Rutgers.

The theory of Public Administration can be regarded as the convergence of history,

organisational theory, social theory, political theory and related studies focused on the
meanings, structures and functions of public/civil service/bureaucracy in its various forms
(Shafritz and Hyde 1997:13; Mautner 2000:168; Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2002:45). The
study of Public Administration is complicated by the fact that social phenomena are so
complex that they are neither explainable, nor understandable through the analysis of
logically-arranged concepts and variables. Public administration is best thought of as a multi-
dimensional phenomenon involving the interaction, interdependence, and collaboration of
government, politics, economics, technology, legal issues, social, and cultural contexts. Each
of these spheres involves different networks of relations, activities, and human interactions
(cf. Bedeian 1998). A study of the administrative phenomenon cannot simply explain from a
single sphere (or one social situation) what will occur in another one. Each sphere or situation
should be approached separately in order to understand idiosyncratic aspects of institution,
politics, culture, and people from that context.

Both the practice of public administration and the discipline Public Administration are in a
state of flux. This situation is pointed out by eminent scholars such as Greenwood and Eggins
(1995), Rutgers (1998), and Lynn (2008). Their main argument is that practice is not
supported adequately by basic and applied research anymore, mainly due to outdated theory
(cf. Van der Waldt 2016:216). Furthermore, it is evident that research in Public
Administration in general, and postgraduate research in particular, suffers from theoretical
and methodological weaknesses (cf. Wessels 2008:118; Cameron 2013:573). It seems that the

9
applied, practical, and vocational foci that dominate research endeavours are dealt with at the
expense of theory application and theory building.

In a discipline of applied social sciences such as Public Administration, it is essential that the
interface between theory, research and practice is established. This can be done by
implementing the following research strategies:

 Theory – practice – theory: take existing theory in Public Administration (or adjacent
disciplines); apply it to public sector-related phenomena; develop new theory.
 Practice – research – theory: investigate current realities in a public institution;
conduct an empirical investigation; develop theory from research results.
 Theory – theory – research/practice: build on an initial theory to develop a second
theory, then apply and test it.

An analysis of Public Administration theory should consider the chronological development

of paradigms. In this regard, Bourgon (2007:7) underscores the fact that Classic Theory of
Public Administration do not fully support the diverse nature of public sector practices
anymore. Knowledge does not remain static; as new insight come to light, existing theories
either are adjusted, or abandoned totally. Paradigms shift over time and, therefore, the
theories that are in use also undergo shifts in thinking. Theories are thus influenced by
prevailing societal thinking on conceptions of government and governance. As such, theories
generally are divided into classical, neo-classical and contemporary categories.

Furthermore, the specific system of government will influence the design of theoretical
frameworks. Whether a government is capitalistic, decentralised, interventionist,
developmental, et cetera, may make it necessary to consider particular constructs when
building a theory. The theory adopted for purposes of analysis is also influenced by the
particular phenomenon under investigation. Such phenomena may be more complex than the
original constructs for the theory. In such a case, the theory is not developed sufficiently to
describe the phenomenon. This is particularly true about theories in the public sector, which
is highly dynamic and fluid with its interconnected issues. Public Administration Theory is
also influenced by theories and approaches from references of adjacent disciplines.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to identify relevant theories, a number of bibliographic databases (Science direct,

Taylor and Francis online, Google Scholar and Web of Science) were searched by using pre-
determined keywords. Furthermore, online forums were scrutinised such as
ResearchGate.com and the Postgraduate Forum (www.postgraduateforum.com/) as well as
the data bases of the following international and national associations:

 American Society for Public Administration (www.aspanet.org/);

 Asian Association for Public Administration (www.aapa.asia/);
 Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management
(https://www.capam.org/);
 Institute of Public Administration (www.ipaa.org.au/);
 International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (www.iasia.iias-
iisa.org/);
 International Institute of Administrative Sciences (www.iias-iisa.org/iasia);

10
 International Public Policy Association (www.icpublicpolicy.org/);
 National Academy of Public Administration (www.napawash.org/);
 National Forum for Black Public Administrators (www.nfbpa.org/);
 The Global Standard in Public Service Education (www.naspaa.org/students/resources/
journals.asp);
 The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (www.ipac.ca/); and
 South African Association of Public Administration and Management
(www.saapam.co.za/).

This search resulted in the identification of a significant number (>350) of potentially

relevant theories. Given the extensive number of theories, only those with a direct bearing on
main Public Administration domains were reviewed further and eventually included in the
table (Table 2) below. Consideration was given to the disciplinary bias regarding the
application of these theories (e.g. public-sector related focus). Subsequently, a shortlist of
theories was drawn up to cover the most important conceptual dimensions of the field of
study.

Table 2 below, as main focus and contribution of this article, consist of four elements. Firstly,
it lists the main study domains associated with research in Public Administration. These
domains are identified based on the following material:

 a content analysis of topics of Master’s and doctoral dissertations and theses;

 the categories of SAQA-registered unit standards for Public Administration and
Management; and
 the most relevant themes of articles published in two prominent journals in South
Africa, namely the Journal of Public Administration and Administratio Publica.

The listed domains are:

 Policy Analysis and Management;

 Development Management;
 Public Organisational Development and Management;
 Managing public service delivery;
 Financial Management and Procurement;
 Information, Knowledge, Communication and Technology Management;
 Public Management Ethics;
 Public Administration and Management history, theory and research;
 Disaster Studies; and
 Inter-government Relations.

For purposes of this article, Disaster management was excluded (mainly due to the general
absence of modules in current PA curricula concerned specifically with disaster management)
and was replaced with “Government and governance”. This was done to include subdomains
such as “local government”, “co-operative governance”, “goodness” results-based
perspectives, “systems and structures” of government, and “global governance”. Secondly,
the table lists the potential major subdomains within the main domains, as provided above.
Each of these is referred to as “unit of analysis” or “focus of study”. Thirdly, the table
identifies meta-approaches and key issues that researchers should consider when conducting
research in this subdomain.

11
Lastly, Table 2 below identifies grand and substantive theories which should be analysed for
purposes of scientific inquiry, knowledge constructions, and the design of conceptual and
analytical frameworks in the particular subdomain. In practical terms this implies that
researchers at the various levels, including postgraduate candidates, should utilise these
theories (and others not listed here) in their literature survey and theoretical orientation
(typically chapters 2 and 3) to explore the constructs associated with their topic.

It should be noted that these lists are not mutually exclusive. In other words, meta-approaches
and key issues as well as theories listed under “Government and governance” could also be
useful in the domains of “Public Administration” and “Public policy”, and vice versa.
Researchers are thus encouraged to perform desktop research to determine whether other
theories listed under different domains (or not listed at all) may also be useful for their studies
in these fields. It should be noted further that theories related to governance/public
administrative issues flow from a wide range of disciplines within the social sciences.
Disciplinary boundaries often simply serve to demarcate the types and contexts of issues in
which scholars are interested and the methods through which these may be studied.

In this sense, attempting a comprehensive review of theories would not be possible within the
scope of this article. Therefore, the author does not claim that this list is complete. Instead, it
should be regarded as work in progress. The idea is that this table could provide valuable
guidance to researchers in Public Administration, especially those involved in postgraduate
studies. To assist analyses further, where possible, the originator(s) or designer(s) of the
identified substantive (micro-) theory are included as well.

Table 2: Core theories for Public Administration research

Theme 1: Government and governance

Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

focus of study
Origins  Ideal state
 Rule of law
 Treaties of government
 Network governance
 Neo-liberal
 Corporate governance
 Plato, Aristotle, Confucius,
Cicero, Machiavelli
Montesquieu, John Locke,
Thomas Hobbes, Jean
Jacques Rousseau.
 Montevideo Convention on
Rights and Duties of States
(1933)
 Force Theory
 Evolutionary Theory
 Divine Right Theory
 Social Contract Theory
 Conquest Theory
 Coercion Theory of State
Formation
 Polinsky, AM: Public
Enforcement Theory
 Domhoff, GW: State Autonomy
Theory
 Jellinek, G (1900): General
Theory of the State
 Marxist Theory of the State
 Theory of Liberal State
 Bremer’s Theory of
Foundations of the
Constitutional State

12
Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues
focus of study
Goodness of  Outcomes-/results-based;
governance value-for-money
 Basic human rights
 Efficiency & effectiveness
 Economy
 Productivity
 Performance
 State stability
 Law and order
 Social well-being
 Growth
 Merit and spoil systems
 NPM
 Corporate Governance
(King I-III etc.)
Global governance  Systems thinking
 Strong/weak states
 Imperialism
 Core/periphery
 Bretton-Wood institutions
 United Nations
 Washington Consensus
 Treaty of Westphalia
System of  Osborne & Geabler (1992):
government/ Reinventing government
state structures  Corporatisation
 Network Government
 Whole-of-government
 Third-party government
 Collaboration
Grand and substantive theories
 Islamic Government Theory
 Constitutive Theory
 Declaratory Theory
 Moral Government Theory
 Moore, MH: Public Value
Theory
 Rothstein, B, Samanni, M &
Teorell, J: Quality of
Government Theory
 Theories of Governance
 Samuelson, PA: Public Good
Theory
 Korpi (1983); Huber &
Stephens (2001): Power
Resource Theory (PRT)
 Grotius, H: Moral Government
Theory
 Grunig, J: Excellence Theory
 Von Bertalanffy, L (1968):
General Systems Theory
 Wallerstein (1976): World
Systems Theory
 Prebisch (1960): Path-
dependency Theory
 Max Weber: Iron Cage Theory
 World Government Theory
 Game Theory
 International Political Theory
 Complexity Theory
 International Relations Theory
 Davis, G (1950): Theory of
International Integration
 One World Government Theory
(Conspiracy Theory)
 Von Bertalanffy, L (1968):
General Systems Theory
 Wallerstein (1976): World
Systems Theory
 Bureaucratic Politics Theory
 Theory of Bureaucracy
 Big Government Theory
13
Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues
focus of study
 Comparative analyses
Co-operative  Systems of Government
Governance and  Statehood
Intergovernmental  Constitutional dispensation
Relations
Local Government  Constitutional obligations
 Statutory and regulatory
framework
 Functions
 Role-players and
stakeholders
 Developmental mandate
 Provincial oversight
 Grants
Theme 2: Public Administration and Management
Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues
focus of study
Paradigmatic  Three main branches of
perspectives theory: Classical Public
(classical to Administration, New Public
postmodern) Management Theory, and
Postmodern Public
Administration Theory
 Approaches: i.e.
administration/politics
dichotomy
 OECD: Modernising
government
 Minnebrooks Conferences
 (also see Government –
origin)
Grand and substantive theories
 Citizen-over-state theories of
government size and growth
 Mooney, Knox & Schacht
(2007): Functionalist Theory
 Callon, M; Latour, B: Actor
Network Theory
 Political Systems Theory
 Principal-Agency Theory
 Social Exchange Theory
 Saunders (1982): Dual State
Theory
 Public Institutional Theory
 Organisation Theory
 Saunders (1982): Dual State
Theory
 Ross, S & Mitnick, B: Principal-
agent Theory
 Domhoff, GW: State Autonomy
Theory
 Goodwin, M: Regulation
Theory
 Duncan & Goodwin (1982):
Theories of local planning and
spatial development
 Cockburn (1977): Local State
Theory
Grand and substantive theories
 Theories of Luther Gulick:
general principles of
administration
 Theories of Mary Parker Follett
 Theories of Henry Fayol
 Theories of Chester Barnard
 Theories of Herbert A Simon:
Administrative Behaviour
Theory
 Theories of Dwight Waldo
 Theories of Woodrow Wilson:
Administration/politics
dichotomy
14
Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues
focus of study
Public  Curriculum design
Administration  Qualification and
Teaching & educational programmes
Learning  Skills development
 SAQA & NQF
 Vocational/practice
dichotomy
 Blended/mix-mode teaching
 Teaching technology
 Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Cognitive Skills
 Multi-, inter- and
transdisciplinarity
 Approaches: pedagogy,
didactic, androgogy,
experiential, directive,
supportive, facilitating
Grand and substantive theories
 Theories of Max Weber:
Bureaucratic Theory
 Theories of Frederick W Taylor:
Scientific management
 Theories of Lyndall Urvick:
Science of Administration
Theory
 Theories of Rensis Likert: 4
Systems of Management
 Theories of Chris Argyris:
Fusion process theory of
management
 Mayo & Roethlisberger (1927):
Human Relations Theory of
Public Administration
 Theories of political control of
bureaucracy
 Theories of bureaucratic politics
 Public Institutional Theory
 Raadschelders: Public
Administration as
interdisciplinary study
 Frederickson, HG: New Public
Administration Theory
 Bouckert, G & Pollitt, C: Public
Management Reform Theory
 Hughes; Peters & Guy: Public
Management Theory
 Piagetian: Learning Theory
 Bruner: Constructivism
 Watson, JB: Behaviourism
 Vroom (1964): Expectancy
Theory
 Classical Gestalt Theory
 Tolman: Sign Learning Theory
 Active Learning Theory
 Kirkpatrick: Learning and
Training Evaluation Theory
(Four-level)
 Bandura: Social Learning
Theory
 Argyris, C: Double-Loop
Learning
 Deep Profound and Surface
Learning Theory
15
Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories
focus of study
 Connectivism (digital  Learning as Transformation
learning) Theory
 Cognitivist Theory
 Feedback and Reinforcement
Theory
 Staff Development Theory
 Adult Learning Theory
 Continuum Theory
Research  Epistemology  Grounded Theory
(knowledge  Ontology  Critical Theory
construction and  Phenomenology  Feminist Theory
production, and  Theism  Social Sciences Theory
theory development)  Interpretivism  Interpretive Theory
 Constructivism
 Paradigms
 Grand, interlevel and
interfield theories
 Scientific principles
 Positivism (logic)
 Empiricism
 Reductionism
 Induction & deduction
 Logic (argumentation)
 Disciplines
 Multi-, inter- and
transdisciplinarity
 A-priori knowledge
 Hermeneutics
 Qualitative, quantitative,
mixed method research
 Approaches i.e. historical,
legal, institutional,
behavioural systems,
political, structural
functional, public policy,
political economy, and
managerial approaches

Public Management  Managerialism  Taylor, F; Gilbreth, F: Scientific

 Business-like Management Theory
 Functions  Market-based  Gulick, L & Urwick, L (1937):
 Applications  Network Principles of management
 Skills  Rationalisation  Koontz, H & O’Donnell, C
 Techniques and  Reform (1964): Principles of
Tools management
 Drucker, P (1954): Management

16
Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories
focus of study
Practice Theory
 Theories of Public Management
 Classical to modern
management approaches and
theories

Theme 3: Public organisations

Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

focus of study
 Organisational  Structural-functionalism Classical Organisation Theory:
development  Mechanistic and organic  Taylor (1916): Principles of
 Management systems scientific management
 Structure and  Cybernetics  Gullick (1937): Papers on the
design  Learning organisation science of administration
 Bureaucracy  Departmentalisation  Gullick & Urwick (1937):
 Hierarchy Theory of departmentalisation
 Weber (1946): Bureaucracy
 Simon (1946): Proverbs of
administration
 Fayol (1949): General principles
of management

Neoclassical Organisation Theory:

 Merton (1957): Social theory
and social structure
 March, JG & Simon, HA
(1958): Organisations
 Barnard (1966): The functions
of the executive
 Katz, D & Kahn, RL (1966);
Hirokawa, RY (1979):
Organisation Communication
Theory

Modern Structural Organisation

Theory:
 Burns & Stalker (1961): The
management of innovation
 Blau & Scott (1962): Formal
organisations
 Walker and Lorch (1968):
Organisational choice: Product
versus function
 Mintzberg (1979): The Structure
of organisations

17
  Jaques (1990): In praise of
hierarchy
 Adaptive Structuration Theory
 Cooley, Mead and Goffman:
Organisation culture, climate

General:
 Principal-agent Theory
 Theory of bureaucracy
 Public Institutional Theory
 Contingency Theory
 Public Institutional Theory
 Mechanistic and Organic
Systems Theory
 Albert, SA & Whetten, DA;
Cheney and Christensen:
Organisational Identity Theory
 Cox, T & Blake, S: Theory of
prejudice, discrimination,
stereotypes, ethnocentrism
 Grunig, J: Excellence Theory

Theme 4: Human Resource Management

Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

focus of study
 Motivation  Behaviouralism  Maslow (1943): Hierarchy of
 Skills and  Industrial Revolution: needs: Motivation Theory
competencies “worker-as-machine”  Elton Mayo, Kurt Lewin,
 Supervision metaphor Raymond Miles: Human
 Team building  Organisational culture Relations Theory
 Recruitment,  Organisational climate  Herzberg: Motivation-hygiene
selection,  Human motivation Theory
induction, and  Team dynamics  Douglas McGregor: Theory X
placement  Group conflict and Y
 Grievance and  Personnel and staff  Skinner: Behaviourism
discipline  Line and support functions  Vroom (1964): Expectancy
 Career  Human resources Theory
development  Strategic human resource  Rensis Likert: Participative
 Performance management Decision-making Theory
appraisals  Hargreaves, A & Dawe, R: Path
 Remuneration of Professional Development
and Theory
compensation  John Baird (1977); BW
 Talent Tuchman’s Model of Groups
management Theory
 Training and  Cohen and Bailey (1997);
Drexler, A, Sibbet, D and
18
Unit of analysis/ Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories
focus of study
development Forrester, R (2009): Team
 Labour relations, Performance Theory
collective  Jablin, FM (2001); Kramer MW
bargaining, and (2010): Anticipatory
conflict Socialization Theory
resolution  Saks, AM and Gruman, JA
 Equal (2012): Socialization Resources
employment Theory
opportunities  Adams, JS: Equity Theory
 Jablin FM (2001):
Disengagement Theory
 Janis, L (1983): Groupthink
Theory
 Berko, R, Wolvin, A & Wolvin,
D (2012): Team Conflict Theory
 Wanous JP (1980): Self-
Selection Theory
 McGuire, WJ (1961):
Inoculation Theory
 Phillips, JM (1998): Realistic
Job Preview Theory
 Jablin, FM (1984); Klein, HJ &
Polin, B (2012): Assimilating
Theory
 Contingency Theory
Public leadership  Personality  Zaleznik, A (1977): Trait
 Political leadership Theory
 Administrative leadership  Fiedler, F: Contingency Theory
 Leadership approaches and  Hersey, P & Blanchard, K:
skills Situational Leadership Theory
 Organisational culture  Chester Barnard: Functional
 Group dynamics Theory
 Societal values, norms and  Blake, R & Mouton, J:
traditions Managerial Grid Theory
 Graen, G: Leader-member
Exchange Theory
 Burn, JM: Transformational
Theory

Theme 5: Public service delivery

Unit of analysis/focus Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

of study
Systems,  NPM  Samuelson, PA: Public Good
procedures  Customer Theory
 Outsourcing  Maslow’s Hierarchy of human
needs: Motivation Theory

19
  PPPs  Social Equity Theory
 Commercialisation
 Privatisation
Processes  Alternative service  Public Institutional Theory
improvement delivery  Theories on public
 Programme evaluation accountability
 Behaviour Change Theory
 Theory of Reasoned Action
 Social Practice Theory
 Diffusion of Innovation Theory
 Continuum Theory
 Ajzen (1985): Theory of
Planned Behaviour
 Reckwitz (2002): Social
Practice Theory
 Ryan & Gross (1943): Diffusion
of Innovation Theory

Principles  Normative, public sector  Samuelson, PA: Public Good

values Theory
 Professional and ethical  Social Contract Theory
standards  Decision Theory
 Good governance  Homans (1961): Rational
 Administrative fairness Choice Theory
and reasonableness  Public Value Theory
 Service liability  Public Choice Theory
 Responsiveness and  Social Exchange Theory
accountability
 Transparency and
openness
 Batho Pele principles

Theme 6: Public ethics

Unit of analysis/focus Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

of study
 Corruption  Normative, public sector  Nicomachean ethics (classic)
 Maladministration values  Samuelson, PA: Public Good
 Nepotism  Professional and ethical Theory
 Public sector standards  Social Contract Theory
values  Good governance  Moral Government Theory
 Public ethos  Administrative fairness  Sidgwick, H: Meta-ethical
 Professionalism and reasonableness Theory
 Conduct  Service liability  Munroe et al (2007): Theory of
 Responsiveness and Planned Behaviour
accountability
 Transparency

20
Theme 7: Technology in Public Administration

Unit of analysis/focus Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

of study
 Information and  Digital-era governance  Diffusion of Innovation Theory
communication  Early-adopters  Critical Mass theory
technology  Knowledge Gap Theory
 e-Governance  Muted Group Theory
 e-Democracy  Ryan & Gross (1943): Diffusion
 e-Decision-making of Innovation Theory
 Big Data  Callon, M; Latour, B: Actor
 Knowledge Network Theory
Management
 Management
information
systems

Theme 8: Development Management

Unit of analysis/focus Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

of study
Social transformation/  Capitalism  Chaos, Complexity & Non-
change  Socialism linear Theory
 Marxism  Game Theory
 Max Weber: Protestant  Stewardship Theory
Ethic  Growth and Catch-up Theories
 Liberalism  Underdevelopment Theory
 Bretton-Wood Institutions  Modernisation
 UNDP  Human development
 Sustainable Development
Goals
Developmental state/  City resilience  Stewardship Theory
developmental local  Adaptation
government  Urbanisation

Ecological/environ-  Sustainable Development  Stewardship Theory

mental (protection) Goals  Environmental Theories
 International treaties,
protocols and conventions
 Climate change
 Ecological approach
 Entropy
 Green Economics

Theme 9: Public policy

21
Unit of analysis/focus Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories
of study
Design  Administrative law  Lippmann (1922): Public
Implementation  Constitutional Opinion Theory
Analysis dispensation  McCombs & Shaw (1986):
Statutory & regulatory  Public good Agenda-Setting Theory
framework  Well-being  Mass-elite Theory
 Societal values and norms  Tankard et al. (1991): Framing
 Political dynamics and Priming Theory
 Social Contract Theory
 Contingency Theory
 Public Value Theory
 Public Choice Theory
 Rational Choice Theory
 Whitney & Becker (1982): Gate-
keeping Theory
 Public Good Theory
 Democratic Theory
 Jowett, Jowett & O’Donnell
(2012): Propaganda Theory
 Public Persuasion Theory
 Political Systems Theory
 Game Theory
 Social Exchange Theory
 Dependency Theory
 Dialogic Communication Theory
 Knowledge Gap Theory
 Group Theory
 Social Interaction Theory
 Muted Group Theory
 Spiral of Silence Theory
 Expectancy Value Theory
 Social Penetration Theory
 Political Systems Theory
 Principal-Agency theory
 Organization Theory

Local democracy/  Principles of good  Herodotus: Classical

Public participation in governance Democratic Theory
policy-making  Transparency  Pateman, C; Mosca; Michaels;
 Democratic dialogue Dahl, R: Modern Democratic
Constitutional and Theory
statutory obligations  Davies; Elazar, D: Participatory
Democratic Theory
Ward Committee  Follet; Dewey: Social Reform
System Theory
 Lippman; Schumpeter; Mill, JS:
Citizenship and Public Service

22
 Theory
 Gate-keeping Theory
 Agenda Setting Theory
 Social Exchange Theory
 Media Richness Theory
 Medium Theory
 Dependency Theory
 Argumentation Theory
 Expectancy Value Theory
 Social Penetration Theory
 Dialogic Communication
Theory
 Cognitive Dissonance Theory
 Priming and Framing
 Hypodermic Needle Theory
 Cultivation Theory

Theme 10: Financial Management and Supply Chain Management

Unit of analysis/focus Meta-approach/key issues Grand and substantive theories

of study
 Procurement  Keynesian economics  Public Value Theory
 Budgeting  Smith: Wealth of nations  Stewardship Theory
 Allocation  Weber: Protestant ethic  Public Choice Theory
 Distribution  Karl Marx: Das Capital/  Economic Theory
 Revenue Communist Manifesto  Theories on public
generation and  Wildavsky: Budgeting as accountability
collection political instrument  Decision Theory
 Auditing and  Welfare versus  Agent Theory
accounting prosperity/market-driven  Rational Choice Theory
economic approaches  Human Capital Theory
 Fiscal and monetary  Contingency Theory
policy approaches  Scientific Management Theory
 Stabilisation
 Economic growth/wealth
creation

CONCLUSION

Science is by definition cumulative, involving periods of paradigm shifts that occur when
current theories fail to explain certain phenomena. In applied social sciences the application
of existing theories to address a problem should generate new knowledge as a form of theory-
testing research. Research projects should thus test existing theories, and build new or
improved theories. Endeavours of Public Administration research such as postgraduate
studies, should develop, test, and advance theory. As such, it should have well-articulated and
sound theoretical foundations.

23
It was the basic premise of this article that the research community in public sector settings
are in dire need of more scientific rigor in the developing of theory. In this respect, the main
contribution of the article is a detailed list of meta-approaches as well as grand and
substantive theories to guide scholarly analyses of public sector-related study domains.
Postgraduate studies should start off with robust literature surveys on these potential theories,
and continue to construct sound theoretical frameworks. Such frameworks in turn should
inform research design and methodological decisions. It is recommended strongly that more
basic research should be focused on to foster the scientific rigour of research practices and to
build the corpus of knowledge for the discipline.

REFERENCES

Babbie, E. and Mouton, J.J. 2001. The practice of social research. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Bedeian, A.G. 1998. Exploring the past. Journal of Management History, 4(1):4-15.

Bell, E. and Bryman, A. 2011. Business research methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Bell, J. 2005. Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education,
health and social science. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Bourgon, J. 2007. Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a New Public
Administration theory. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1):7-26.

Bryman, A. 2012. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burns, R.B. (Ed.) 1997. Introduction to research methods. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Longman
Cheshire.

Caiden, G.E. 1991. Administrative reform comes of age. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Cameron, R. 2013. The state of Public Administration as an academic field in South Africa.
Politikon, 40(3):565-583

Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. 1998. Business research methods. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Creswell J.W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method

approaches. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Fisher, B.A. 1978. Perspectives on Human Communication. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Gladden, E.N. 1966. Approach to public administration. London: Staples Press.

Golembiewski, R.T. 1977. Public Administration as developing discipline: Organizational

development as one of a future family of mini-paradigms. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

24
Greenwood, J. and Eggins, H. 1995. Shifting sands: teaching Public Administration in a
climate of change. Public Administration, 73(1):143-163.

Grinnell, R. (Ed.) 1993. Social work research and evaluation. 4th ed. Itasca, IL: FE Peacock.

Grover, R. and Glazier, J.D. 1986. A conceptual framework for theory building in library and
information science. Library and Information Science Research, 8(1):227-242.

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N.

and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. pp. 105-
117.

Jacard, J. and Jacoby, J. 2010. Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical
guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Guilford.

Kelly, M. 2010. The role of theory in qualitative health research. Family Practice, 27(3):285-
290.

Kerlinger, F.N. 1986. Foundations of behavioural research. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

Kumar, R. 2011. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.

Littlejohn, S.W. and Foss, K.A. 2005. Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Lynn, L.E. 2008. New frontiers of Public Administration: The practice of theory and the
theory of practice. Political Science & Politics, 41(1):3-9.

Mautner, T. 2000. The Penguin dictionary of philosophy. London: Penguin Books.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book.
2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, G.N. and Cody, W.K. 1993. The role of theory in qualitative research. Nursing
Science Quarterly, 6(4):170-178.

Moore, M. 1991. Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 5(3):1-6.

Mullins, N.C. 1973. Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New
York, NY: Harper and Row.

O’Leary, N. 2013. The essential guide to doing your research project. 2nd ed. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.

25
Olsen, M.E., Lodwick, D.G. and Dunlap, R.E. 1992. Viewing the world ecologically.
Boulder, CO: Westview.

Polkinghorne, D. 1983. Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of Inquiry. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Pollitt, C. 2010. Envisioning Public Administration as a scholarly field in 2020. Public

Administration Review, (Dec. Special Issue), S292-S294.

Ponterotto, J.G. 2005. Qualitative research in counselling psychology: A primer on research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2):126-136.

Popper, K.R. 1963. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New
York, NY: Basic.

Raadschelders, J.C.N. 1999. A coherent framework for the study of Public Administration.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2):281-304.

Ritzer, G. 1996. Classical sociological theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rosenbloom, D.H. and Kravchuk, R.S. 2002. Public administration: Understanding

management, politics and law in the public sector. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Rutgers, M.R. 1998. Paradigm lost: Crisis as identity of the study of Public Administration.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 64(4):553-564.

Shafritz, J. and Hyde, A. 1997. Classics of Public Administration. New York, NY: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.

Staats, A.W. 1991. Unified positivism and unification psychology: Fad or new field?
American Psychologist, 46(9):899-912.

Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40(1):371-384.

Swanson, R.A. 2013. Theory building in applied disciplines. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehlers.

Tomic, T. 2010. The philosophy of information as an underlying and unifying theory of

information science. Information Research, 15(4):714-728.

Torraco, R.J. 1997. Theory-building research methods. In Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F.
(Eds.) Human resource development handbook: Linking research and practice. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 114-137.

Van der Waldt, G. 2016. A unified public administration? Revisiting the prospects of
constructing a grand theory for the field. Journal of Social Sciences, 48(3):213-224.

26
 Wessels, J.S. 2008. The challenges of knowledge production by researchers in Public
Administration, a South African perspective. Administratio Publica, 15(2):97-120.

Zanetti, L.A. 1997. Advancing praxis: Connecting critical theory with practice in Public
Administration. American Review of Public Administration, 27(2):145-167.

AUTHOR DETAILS
Gerrit van der Waldt
Research Professor: Public Governance
Focus Area: Social Transformation
North-West University
Private Bag X6001
Potchefstroom
2520
Tel 018 2991633
Email: Gerrit.vanderwaldt@nwu.ac.za

27

View publication stats