Public Administration

The Reflective Practitioner In this issue, Judith K. Englehart, a practicing administrator, argues that theory and practice are two halves of a whole. She rejects the idea that theory need be considered irrelevant to day-to-day practice. Englehart suggests that in fact administrators do theorize, whether they are aware of doing so or not; often "hidden theories" in policies "shape practitioner actions without their conscious awareness." It may be the scientific model of theory that is putting administrators off, because this type of theory seems to hold itself above the field of practice. But, by broadening our definitions of theory, the field may be able to rejoin theory with practice, and by doing so contribute both to advancing knowledge and to producing knowledgeable public sector leaders. The editors welcome submissions for possible publication in "The Refiective Practitioner." We are particularly interested in articles that explore ways in which theory and/or research did or did not inform practical situations in public agencies. Please send articles for consideration to Camilla Stivers, associate editor ([email protected]). Judith K. Englehart Erie County (OH) Department of Job and Family Services The Marriage between Theory and Practice The idea of a dichotomy between theory atid the professional practice of public administration is a confusing enigma to this well-seasoned social work management practitioner, currently administering a public human service agency. Over 20 years, my practice has been both as a social worker and as an administrator in public agencies. Both my education in the management of social work organizations and the actual practice of my profession have led me to the belief that theory and practice are two halves of a whole. The assumption that practice does not need theory is tantamount to setting sail in a ship without first possessing knowledge of navigation. How would one know that she or he had arrived when there is no course established? How would one know the pitfalls of the journey or even leam from others'journeys when little thought or consideration is given to what has gone before? Practitioners who assume public administration can be effective without parameters set by theory ftnd themselves simply reacting to whatever the day brings. Whatever happens today often seems to have no correlation with similar occurrences nor connection to other parts of the field. The practitioner who does not recognize the impact of theory on finding meaning in situations is a technician—following procedures but failing to understand the deeper "whys," and lacking the ability to apply the "whys" in other situations. Without an understanding of theory, the public administration practitioner becomes merely the user of a "cookbook," a step-by-step guide any person of reason- able intelligence could apply. Practice without theory is a hollow exercise and public management without theory is mere tinkering with systems (Timney 1999). The absence of theory within practice greatly diminishes the perception of public administration as a profession. In a similar way, assuming that theory does not need practice is comparable to setting a course without the ship, confident that the course is right for any ship regardless of its cargo, crew, or ownership. Without practice, where is the ability to field-test? What is there to examine or measure without practice? Do theorists see practice as a "lesser calling?" If there were no administrators, what would theory talk about? Because the brain thinks, is it a more important organ than the heart, which gives it life? The more practitioners recognize the need and role of theory in public administration, the more theorists need to "...devise a mode of theorizing that enhances, rather than destroys, meaning in practice" (Harding 2000, 5). Clearly, with the ever-increasing complexity of public administration practice and the desperate need to apply practice in a meaningful, innovative, progressive manner, it is time for theorists and practitioners to "kiss and make Judifh K. Englebart, director of the Erie County (Ohio) Department of Job ond Fomily Services for 12 yeors, has a master's degree in social work from The Ohio State University and is pursuing her doctorate in public administration at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University. She is a licensed independent social worker (USW) in the State of Ohio, Academy of Certified Social Workers {ACSW) of the National Association of Social Workers, and a certified social work manager (CSWM) of the National Network of Social Work Managers, from w/iom she recently received the national "Exemplar 2000" award. The Reflective Practitioner 371 up." Practitioners and theorists must realize that they are laborers for employment, he had vehemently rejected an married to each other and have been for quite some time. in-depth research review on the subject. Feasibility of the Even if this marriage is not comfortable for all involved, project could have been determined by utilizing the extenneither divorce nor separation is possible. Perhaps, while sive research conducted on economic predictors, as well we in public administration are arguing over the virtues of as specific research into post-depression era govemmental theory versus practice, other professions are finding our leasing of idle factories to "make work" for idled workers. domestic dispute rather amusing. The reconciliation be- Ironically, a similar program, dubbed the "Ohio Plan" between practice and theory for professions like social work cause it was most extensively utilized in that state during the mid 1930s, provided for the lease of factories in which and nursing came long ago. Until our reconciliation comes, goods were produced by people on relief (Rose 1993). Had our status as a profession will remain doubtful. the inventor of this welfare reform program studied the If theory and practice are not a dichotomy, what is the research available regarding the Ohio Plan, he might have problem of joining them? Could it be as simple as per- been able to avoid the pitfalls that beset the first program. ception and/or a lack of communication? Do traditional Because he did not, the colleague was left with a very expractitioners of public administration believe theorists pensive building to maintain and no consumer or contrachave nothing of value for those "in the trenches?" Do tor for products. theorists fear sullying their work with the dirt of those trenches? Are theoretical pearls simply thrown before the Often without acknowledging it, practitioners do review and ponder situations in an attempt to make sense of ocswine of practice? Mary Timney states, "Theory gives practitioners that currences. But too often they reject the notion of a more context and enables them to take a broader view of their systematic type of theory because, "in the messy swampfunctional work" (1999,3). Theory gives the practitioner's lands of practice, problems are not often amenable to soship a plethora of navigational courses, frameworks in lutions using law like formulae" (Miller and King 1998, 46). The practitioner in the example above may have rewhich new methodology can be applied and tested. Pracjected a research review because he felt it might be too tice is theory-in-place. Theory is practice-to-be, waiting to abstract and therefore inapplicable. Clearly though, in the be enacted. Theory, then, is one's understanding of the above example of the purchased abandoned factory, the world. Practice is the enactment of that understanding. practitioner's "swampland" got even more messy without Although they seem to reject the idea of theory, in ev- the research. eryday practice public administrators use theory, whether Another example of the need for better understanding they consciously recognize it or not. Short-term usage of of past policies is the current welfare reform effort. Thanks theory when combined with the presenting problem is of- in part to a booming economy, great strides have been made ten dismissed as mere "problem resolution." Practitioners in reducing welfare rolls since the passage of the Personal theorize in this short-term way in order to improve the suc- Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act cess of practice (Miller 1999). But they need the long-term of 1996. But perhaps a deeper understanding may be necessary. Experience since the earliest phases of social welview as well. fare policy may hold lessons applicable to current efforts. For example, what are the implications of our historic and Theory and Policy continued reliance on distinctions between "worthy" and Here is one example of a practitioner theorizing in a "unworthy" clients? In the year 2001, welfare recipients short-term manner, while rejecting research that would have have an extensive face-to-face interview culminating in a given a much-needed bigger picture. In 1998, as a response self-sufficiency contract outlining required behavior. In to the increasing demands of welfare reform, a colleague contrast, non-working individuals applying for unemployof mine cooperated with a local business organization to ment insurance may make application and continue benefits via telephone or email from the comfort of their homes. develop what seemed an innovative approach to training In this context of past history, does welfare reform look a public assistance recipients. The program, which gained a bit less new? great deal of attention for its novel approach to training Yet another example from social policy has to do with the poor for factory employment, involved the purchase what gets counted as part of the American welfare state and use of an abandoned factory as a training site. Although and what gets left out. Although America's welfare state is considered groundbreaking for the times and nationally often described as limited, this may be because it is usutouted, the project quickly began suffering from a lack of ally defined as including only direct expenditures such as trainees and a lack of contracts with existing businesses. social security and welfare, while indirect tools like loans, This occurred within two years of implementation. loan guarantees, and tax expenditures do not count. While Although the colleague had theorized (in the short-term direct expenditure programs remain in the hands of tradisense) resolutions to the problems of preparing unskilled tional social welfare agencies, subject to patterns of inter372 Public Administration Review • May/June 2001, Vol. 61, No. 3 pretation such as "worthy" and "unworthy" that have persisted in this bailiwick for generations, other programs like tax exemptions are not subject to such judgments. If these policies were counted as part of the "welfare state," average citizens would see themselves as receiving benefits and therefore be less likely to judge other "recipients" harshly. The point in both these examples is that such patterns of interpretation reflect hidden theories in our social policies, ones that shape practitioner actions without their conscious awareness. Would it not be better to draw consciously on theories, to understand that we have choices about which frameworks to subscribe to? A Variety of Frameworks Addressing the issue from a practitioner's perspective, it is difficult to say what creates the perceived rift between theory and practice. Perhaps it is the scientific model of theory that puts off practitioners the most. When faced with the very word "research," some practitioners envision the "slice- 'em, dice- 'em " microscopic slide model used in positivist research. Others see a white robed person floating on a cloud pontificating polysyllables, interspersed with some recognizable words such as "the, and, therefore" but little else familiar. The temptation is to tug on the bottom of the white robe with one's dirty hands and say, "Excuse me. I'm down here—please look at me. Would you tell me, in plain English, what you are saying so I can use it? Humanity is dying down here." These typical practitioner reactions stem from a toonan^ow idea of research. There are a multiplicity of research methods and theories to enable a "fit" between theory and practice for any practitioner. Determination of which approach to apply depends upon the needs of the entity initiating the research, the nature of the situation, and the proficiency, preference, and comfort level of the practitioner. Because of education as a "professional social change agent," a social worker managing a public agency may prefer critical theory. On the other hand, an accountant in public administration may prefer a by-the-numbers model such as positivism, while a jail administrator may need an interpretive approach. Depending on the situation, the public administrator should find that each theoretical approach has its place. The positivist approach is one upon which most of us cut our research teeth. Using this approach, a policy scientist, like an engineer or a physician, can tell the most efficient means to achieve an end because "questions of means are resolvable into questions of fact" (Fay 1975, 23). The positivist framework is built on the premise that the researcher must be strictly an observer, one who lets the facts speak for themselves. In the interpretive framework, in contrast, interaction between the researcher and the sub- ject matter becomes crucial in order to understand the situation from the point of view of those in it. Finally, from the point of view of the human services professional, critical research is often necessary, especially when legislative action threatens to eradicate a lifetime of professional learning. Like critical theorists, social workers often realize the impact of social conditions over which clients have no control. They seek to interconnect social theory with social practice. These three research approaches have differing implications for practice. But even more important, their existence broadens the menu for practitioners. Therefore to throw aside "theory" as such because it feels uncomfortable is to function solely as a technician. It is not as if practitioners have only one kind of theory on which to draw. They must be well versed in the use of a range of theoretical approaches. Just as theory challenges the practitioner to a higher pinnacle of skill, practitioners' increased comfort level with theory permits theories even from outside the realm of public administration to be tested and tried in practice. For example, although social work initially ignored the works of one of its own, Mary Parker Follett, other fields such as public administration recognized her genius and applied it. On the other hand, boundary theory, an important concept in many disciplines, well developed in the physical sciences and in the social and behavioral sciences, is less known and used in public administration or human service administration (Halley 1997). Conclusion Only until the practitioner can comfortably approach and utilize theory in practice and the theorist can realize that there is a wealth of knowledge to be gained from the practitioner will the union between the two be blessed. The progeny of this union will be what the field needs most: organizational leaders who are both competent and committed to furthering knowledge in the field, performing at the highest, most effective level of public administration through the understanding and operationalization of theory. Only our own limitations constrain our achievements. For those who vehemently care about public administration, it is best to heed Michel Foucault: "For us the danger is not that we might fail to become what we are meant to be, but that we might only be what we can see ourselves to be" (quoted in Kajaenman 1991, 93). The Reflective Practitioner 373 References Fay, Brian. 1975. Social Theory and Political Practice. London: Holmes and Meyer. Halley, Alexis. 1997. Applications of Boundary Theory to the Concept of Service Integration in the Human Services. Administration in Social Work 21(3/4): 151. Harding, Russell. 2000. Seen Through the Weeds Dimly. PA Times, February, 5. Kajaenman, John. 1991. Foucault's Art of Seeing. In Philosophical Events of the '80s, edited by John Rajchman, 93. New York: Columbia University Press. 374 Public Administration Review • May/June 2001, Vol. 61, No. 3 Miller, Hugh T. 1999. Theory as the Basis for Action. PA Times, December, 8. Miller, Hugh T, and Cheryl Simrell King. 1998. Practical Theory. American Review of Public Administration 28(1): 46. Rose, Nancy E. 1993. Gender, Race and the Welfare State: Govemment Work Programs from the 1930s to the Present. Feminist Studies 19(2): 326. Timney, Mary M. 1999. The Imperative of Theory in Public Administration Practice. PA Times December, 3.