In this week’s forum we look at the difference between theory and practice.
I would say probably one of the most glaring differences is that in theory
especially within literature and examples used in education they are solely just
examples and as well all know situations are unique. These situations not only
change over geography, resources, situations, personnel, and time but they also
change as the result of changes in goals, priorities, and the attainment or
experimentation with the administrative theories themselves. In the genre of
public administration theory, I feel as if the theory is general guidelines on
investigating and gathering the required information to formulate informed and
educated plans for administrative tactics. Even in our readings we read out
administrative discretion, such as in the valuation of criteria in the
development of the meaning of efficiency to an organization or program by H.
Simon, he notes that it is up to the administrator evaluate and compile the
valuation on these efficiency criteria from his or her own perspective against
the perspective of other interested parties that have their own valuation on the
criteria (McKevitt and Lawton, 2004).
This however highlights the great amount of both objective and subjective
data elements that are present within the practice of public administration
which never fully aligns with the theory of it. In fact the theory literature
often categorizes a lot of these data elements to be covered under “politics”
and other bureaucratic phenomena. Because bureaucracy and politics changes based
on the players involved and those players change consistently both in their
convictions as well as who holds those positions it can’t be firmly identified
how these political forces and influences will necessitate a variant of an
administrative plan or choice to adhere to this political factors. The theory
portion highlights to keep these factors in mind but doesn’t necessarily
highlight how one is supposed to overcome such challenges. When we look at some
of the issues David Ammons proposes as hindrances to productivity improvements
in local governments we see a lot of them are political or individuality factors
that theory is not able to address in practice for example: “political
factors…”, “perceived threat to job security”, “managerial alibis”, “supervisory
resistance”, etc. (Kearney and Berman, 1999).
Another difference between theory and practice is that of measurement. As
Gloria Grizzle noted there is a tendency to measure towards what one can
control, seeing as public administrators are potentially and usually measuring
and developing quantifiable measurement parameters and matrices that they are
likely to want to know or measure that they have control over (Kearney and
Berman, XXXXXXXXXXIn a theoretical framework a third party or observational
scientist or observer would be more potentially unbiased and produced more
neutral and useful parameters for performance measurement. Lovie Sandy notes
this sort of mathematical manipulation as “tunnel vision” as she advocates a
wide variety of performance measurements and calculations in order to view same
data elements under a variety of mathematical presentations in order to achieve
even greater hidden data elements of the measurements you’re looking at (Lovie,
2005). However, as this week’s readings noted we don’t always have limitless
amounts of funds to devote towards the performance monitoring and evaluation
portions of agency duties or else I’m sure they would create more measurement
matrices. Since again theorists are working under the understanding that a
majority of their positions or suggestions have funds to implement them we are
working under and ideal situation that just isn’t realistic in most practical
situations.
Another situation comes under the old saying “use it or lose it” which in
if you do not consistently use a practice, skill, or action that you will lose
your ability to perform it or at least to perform it as well. Symonds and Chase
describe this problem in detail but promotes the need for practice and methods
to make practice both palatable and verifiable (Symonds and Chase, XXXXXXXXXXWhat
this means is that public administrators are not always constantly or
consistently using the variety of the public administration theories and
practices nor do they always have opportunities to utilize them as well. As
such it would not be expected that they could accurately or appropriately
implement any and every theory in practice consistently, as suggested, or with
intended results. Which in my mind this means that public administrators need to
be given more opportunities to practice their craft with more discretion and
flexibility.
Citations:
Kearney, R. C. & Berman, E. M XXXXXXXXXXPublic Sector Performance:
Management, Motivation, and Measurement. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lovie, S XXXXXXXXXXMeasurement theory and practice: The world through
quantification. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,
58, XXXXXXXXXXRetrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/ XXXXXXXXXX?accountid=8289
McKevitt, D. & Lawton, A XXXXXXXXXXPublic Sector Management: Theory,
Critique & Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Symonds, P. M., & Chase, D. H XXXXXXXXXXPractice vs. motivation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 84(3), XXXXXXXXXXRetrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/ XXXXXXXXXX?accountid=8289