Challenges of (Dis) Connectedness in the “Big Questions” Methodologies in Public Administration

A series of Public Administration Review articles proposed big questions of public management and public administration. In a thoughtful approach to the value of developing shared research agendas, Robert Behn (1995) borrowed from physics to invite debate about the big questions of public management. The subsequent exchange (Kirlin 1996a; Neumann 1996) offered alternative perspectives on disciplined inquiry. However, the invitation to debate the big questions has not yet produced a shared research focus like that found in physics. The PAR discussion has yielded a total of 13 divergent big questions. These authors' starting points account for the divergence. In asking the big questions, Behn begins at the organizational level, while Kirlin starts at the institutional level. The resulting differences present at least two alternatives for advancing the debate: One option is to slug it out, arguing for primacy of institutional or organizational questions in shaping research and noting the insufficiency of problem solving at only one level, whether organizational or institutional. A second option is to build on the discussions of Behn and Kirlin, to analyze their approaches, and to develop questions that link divergent starting points. Developing questions that connect these levels offers the potential to overcome the limitations of problem solving on only one level. It is useful to build on the strengths of both big-question methodologies and on the specific questions developed by Behn and Kirlin. Valuing both levels simultaneously rejects the primacy of organizational or institutional research as sufficient to respond to challenges of connectedness and cooperation in public affairs. These challenges in public administration include facilitation of constitutional democracy, responsible market economies, and social self-governance. Understanding varied levels of problems is essential to such endeavors. Formulation of questions for inquiry need not subordinate either level of research. Rather, an integrative approach suggests the importance of extending each level of research to explore connections between organizations and institutions. For example, linkages are suggested in both Behn's concern for facilitating trust among elected officials and appointed public managers and Kirlin's concern for promoting societal learning. Questions that connect organizational and institutional levels of analysis explore a territory that might be more theoretical than empirical at this point. This is perhaps analogous to physicists predicting a feature of the universe that experimental physics has not fully captured, but which is suggested by theoretical and empirical work to date. Questions linking organizations and institutions include the following four, which are analyzed in this article: 1. What links institutions and public organizations to facilitate cooperation needed for collective problem solving? 2. What are the linkages between organizational and institutional levels that promote democratic self-governance and constitutionally empowered and limited government? 3. What features of public management facilitate public trust in public organizations and institutions? 4. What promotes institutional adaptation through organizational learning in the public sector? Behn notes that physicists investigate big questions both theoretically and experimentally. This suggests that the big questions in public administration should incorporate theoretical and empirical findings on organizations and institutions. The need to understand organizational and institutional performance in relation to each other must be acknowledged. Theoretical and empirical research by multiple disciplines, using a variety of analytical tools at different levels and in different modes of inquiry, can draw together research characteristic of public administration. Linking varied research interests may address long-standing critiques of public administration as fragmented, irrelevant, and sometimes in crisis. …