The impossibility of a universal public service perspective
| Author | Margaret Stout |
| DOI | 10.1177/0144739417738953 |
| Date | 01 October 2018 |
| Published date | 01 October 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Teaching Public Administration
The impossibility of a
2018, Vol. 36(3) 222–236
ª The Author(s) 2017
universal public service
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0144739417738953
perspective
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpa
Margaret Stout
West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
Abstract
The international accrediting organization for public service pedagogy, the Network
of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration, has established and adopted
“universal competencies” that Master of Public Administration degree programs are
expected to develop to establish a “global standard in public service education”
(http://www.naspaa.org/). This lofty goal suggests that there is one best way to
prepare public administration students to: (a) lead and manage in public governance;
(b) participate in and contribute to the policy process; (c) analyze, synthesize, think
critically, solve problems, and make decisions; (d) articulate and apply a public
service perspective; and (e) communicate and interact productively with a diverse
and changing workforce and citizenry. While the universality of these competencies
is not disputed, there are definitely competing ways to approach these various tasks.
There are many different theories of leadership and management. Differing roles for
public administrators in the policy process are each considered legitimate. Based on
these differences, what can be articulated and successfully applied as a public service
perspective will also differ situationally, particularly when considering the dynamic
and diverse global context. This article explores this challenge and the implications it
represents for instructors seeking to socialize students into the profession of public
service and build their capacity “to articulate and apply a public service perspective”
in consideration of “a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry.” Successful
pedagogical approaches to this conundrum are explored and the article concludes
with discussion of the potential usefulness of this approach in the global context,
given the diversity of public service contexts in which graduates may find
themselves.
Corresponding author:
Margaret Stout, Department of Public Administration, John D. Rockefeller IV School of Policy and Politics,
West Virginia University, PO Box 6322, Morgantown, WV 26506-6322, USA.
Email: Margaret.Stout@mail.wvu.edu; Telephone: (304) 293-7978
Stout
223
Keywords
Universal competencies, accreditation, democratic public administration, public service
perspective, diverse citizenry
Introduction
The suggestions made in the call for papers in this symposium on Democracy and the
Teaching of Public Administration are quite compelling. Can there be a one-size-fits all
approach to democratic public service when considering global diversity in governance
systems? If we are preparing students to engage in state-building in emerging or non-
democratic societies, what type of democracy should we be promoting? Following the
answers to these questions, how do we prepare students accordingly? These questions
speak directly to the role of public administration in democratic governance—an issue
that has been debated since the emergence of public administration as a self-aware field
of study (Waldo, 1984).
The Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA),
has taken on responsibility for determining “a generic core of knowledge” that can “be
imparted through education and assessed through examination” (Hays and Duke, 1996:
425). NASPAA establishes educational standards through peer deliberations and peer
volunteers guide academic programs through a process of self-study, peer review, and
accreditation determination (Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and
Administration, 2017). As a result of these efforts, Master of Public Administration
(MPA) degree programs are fairly uniform in their admission requirements, curricula,
and teaching approaches (Denhardt, 2001). While NASPAA began in the United States,
it has recently expanded its scope to become the international accrediting organization
for public service pedagogy. In fact, the organizational tag line reads, “The global
standard in public service education.” This lofty goal demands that all accredited MPA
programs prepare students for “universal competencies” to:
lead and manage in public governance;
participate in and contribute to the policy process;
analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems, and make decisions;
articulate and apply a public service perspective; and
communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce
and citizenry.
While these competencies may indeed be comprehensive and universal, there are
definitely competing ways to interpret their meanings and approach the various tasks
described. For example, there are many different theories of leadership and management,
each of which may or may not be appropriate in varying contexts. Differing roles for
public administrators in the policy process are each considered legitimate, based on
whether authority is grounded in political representation, expertise, or democratic sover-
eignty (Stout, 2013). While we wish all administrators to have critical analytical skills in
224
Teaching Public Administration 36(3)
problem solving, the degree to which we empower them in decision-making varies
widely. Based on these differences, what can be articulated and successfully applied
as a public service perspective will also differ situationally, particularly when consid-
ering the dynamic and diverse global context.
Because some scholars believe definitive answers are not possible or desirable, even
within an individual democratic nation, a catholic approach to teaching the historical and
intellectual foundations of public administration is recommended. The following sec-
tions explore the impossibility of a universal public service perspective before turning to
curricular concerns of the substantive content covered and the pedagogical techniques
used in learning about alternative theories of public administration and exploring their
meanings for practice. A description is provided of a course designed to develop each
student’s capacity “to articulate and apply a public service perspective” in consideration
of “a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry”—a perspective that is individually
developed and chosen through analytical reflection on alternatives in both theory and
practice, considering contextual factors. The article concludes with discussion of the
potential usefulness of this curricular and pedagogical approach in the global context,
given the diversity of public service contexts in which graduates may find themselves.
Rival public service perspectives
Democratic government has been described as a system that “cannot be understood
except in terms of the public employees themselves, their conceptions of their positions,
and the attitudes of the public about what is required in and from our civil servants”
(Appleby, 1945: 3). Due to these complex perspectives on professional identity, Waldo
argues, “No single, agreed, and authoritative definition of Public Administration is
possible” and therefore education for public service “is a confusing and controversial
enterprise” (Waldo, 1980: 58). Yet, MPA programs are charged with helping students
form and adopt an ideation of the public service role that can serve to: (a) bring diverse
occupations into a common sense of purpose, professional identity, and trust; (b)
establish standards for professional action; and (c) provide legitimacy to the public
(Stever, 1988).
Role conceptualizations stem from “legitimating myths”—images of the identity of
the public administrator or the enterprise of public administration within our political
system (Kass, 1990). As noted by Morgan (1986), images and metaphors of this type are
used not only as descriptors, but as prescriptive guides for attitudes and action. In fact, a
historical review of the field “shows that the debate over defining the role of the
administrator in governance has actually been a struggle of political ideology concerning
who has discretion over policy and how this discretion is to be exercised” (McSwite,
1997: 229–230). Thus, role conceptualization implies competing conceptions of dem-
ocratic legitimacy. Public service has been described as “a concept, an attitude, a sense
of duty—yes, even a sense of public morality” (Staats, 1988).
As a result, MPA programs instill the competing ethical standards of both the
bureaucratic ethos and the democratic ethos (Heijka-Ekins, 1988) and both are found in
practice (Pugh, 1991). However, changes in administrative theory and practice demand
Stout
225
new professional identities (van Bockel and Noordegraaf, 2006). The shift from tradi-
tional government agencies to governance networks is creating a new “identity project”
in which the vocational ethos of public service is changing (Considine and Lewis, 1999;
Du Gay, 1996). One emergent ethos is the managerialist or entrepreneurial model pro-
moted by the New Public Management and similar initiatives such as reinventing
government (Horton, 2006). The most recent addition is the ethos of participatory
democracy, “a collaborative approach to government, where experts are simply part of a
cooperative process in which they have no superior role” (McSwite, 2002: 77). Each
ethos has a specific logic, ethical framework, and corresponding role identity for public
administrators...
To continue reading
Request your trial