Research Methods in Public Administration - Positivism, Behavioralism, and New Public Administration - CivicNote

Can Public Administration Be Studied Scientifically?

Public administration is more than just a collection of bureaucratic procedures. It encompasses how governments interact with society, how public organizations make decisions, and how policies are crafted and implemented to serve diverse populations. Because of this complexity, the study of public administration demands more than a surface-level understanding. It requires systematic investigation, grounded in research methods that allow us to interpret and evaluate the real dynamics of administration.

In the early days of public administration as a discipline, descriptive and legalistic approaches were dominant. Researchers primarily focused on institutions, rules, and formal structures. However, as real-world problems became more complex and multifaceted, scholars began to question whether such methods were sufficient. They sought ways to analyze administrative behavior using empirical data, verifiable theories, and structured analysis - essentially applying scientific principles to the realm of public action.

This evolution gave rise to three major research paradigms in public administration: Positivism, Behavioralism, and New Public Administration. Each emerged in a different era, influenced by both academic trends and the socio-political context of the time. Positivism introduced the idea that administrative behavior could be measured objectively. Behavioralism shifted the focus to human behavior and decision-making within organizations. New Public Administration, meanwhile, challenged the value-neutral stance of earlier approaches, advocating for public service values such as equity, justice, and participation.

These approaches are not merely academic theories; they represent different philosophies on how public administration should be studied and practiced. Understanding them is essential for grasping how the field has evolved—and why today’s public administration must integrate all three to respond effectively to modern challenges.

This article explores these three paradigms in depth, explaining their core principles, strengths, limitations, and relevance to contemporary public administration. By the end, you’ll see that research methods are not just tools—they are ideological foundations that shape how we govern and whom we serve.

🟨 Comparing Positivism, Behavioralism, and New Public Administration

1. Positivism: The First Attempt to Make Administration a Science

▣ Philosophical Roots

Positivism, popularized by Auguste Comte in the 19th century, rests on the belief that only observable, empirical facts should be the basis of scientific inquiry. In this view, knowledge must be derived from sensory experience and verified through structured observation or experimentation.

▣ Application in Public Administration

• Emphasis on measurability: Policy outcomes and organizational performance are to be quantified and tested.

• Hypothesis testing: Researchers construct hypotheses and use empirical data to confirm or refute them.

• Objectivity: The research process should be free of values or bias, focusing only on facts.

▣ Limitations

• Public administration is embedded in values, politics, and human judgment—elements that resist pure quantification.

• Positivism’s commitment to value neutrality often neglects social implications and ethical concerns.

2. Behavioralism: Understanding Human Behavior in Administrative Systems

▣ Historical Background

Emerging in the 1930s and gaining prominence by the 1950s, behavioralism called for a shift from normative theory to empirical studies of actual human behavior in political and administrative contexts. Scholars like Herbert Simon and Dwight Waldo were central to this movement.

▣ Key Features

• Focus on real decision-making: Rather than analyzing what institutions are supposed to do, it studies what people actually do.

• Human behavior analysis: Motivation, conflict, leadership, and communication are central themes.

• Use of statistical methods: Surveys, quantitative models, and data-driven studies became standard.

▣ Key Theories

• Bounded Rationality (Simon): Humans are not perfectly rational; they make decisions within limits of time, information, and capacity.

• Behavioral Decision-Making Models: Emphasize patterns in human choices under uncertainty.

▣ Criticisms

• Risk of over-reliance on numbers and tools, neglecting meaning and purpose.

• May reduce human behavior to mere data points, ignoring context and ethics.

3. New Public Administration: A Turn Toward Values and Change

▣ Background

In 1968, the Minnowbrook Conference marked a turning point. Amid civil rights protests, war, and inequality, scholars argued that public administration was failing to address real societal issues. New Public Administration emerged as a call for relevance, activism, and equity.

▣ Core Principles

• Value-conscious research: Neutrality is a myth—administrators must embrace values like justice and inclusion.

• Focus on marginalized communities: Research and policy should prioritize vulnerable populations.

• Change-driven action: The purpose of research is not just understanding but also transforming reality.

▣ Methodological Shift

• Greater use of qualitative methods, case studies, and participatory research.

• Encouraged collaboration between academics, practitioners, and citizens.

▣ Criticisms

• Can be idealistic, risking impractical recommendations.

• Challenges the “scientific” status of administrative research by emphasizing subjective values.

4. Comparative Summary of the Three Approaches

Category	Positivism	Behavioralism	New Public Administration
Primary Focus	Facts	Human Behavior	Values & Reform
Methodology	Scientific Testing	Quantitative Analysis	Qualitative, Participatory Research
Key Scholars	Auguste Comte, F. Taylor	Herbert Simon, Dwight Waldo	Dwight Waldo, H. George Frederickson
Weaknesses	Ignores values, ethics	Reductionist, overly technical	Idealistic, less objective

5. Modern Implications: Toward Integration

Today’s scholars and practitioners rarely rely on a single approach. Instead, integrated, mixed-method research is the norm. 

For example.

• A study on housing policy might use statistics to show affordability gaps (positivism),

• Survey tenant experiences (behavioralism), and

• Evaluate whether the policy promotes social justice (new public administration).

This blended model ensures that research is empirical, realistic, and ethically grounded—all at once. It also allows public administration to respond flexibly to complex, multi-stakeholder environments in a diverse society.

The Evolution of Methodology Reflects the Democratization of Administration

The way we study public administration reflects the kind of society we want to build. Positivism offered a vision of objective, rational governance. Behavioralism added nuance by acknowledging the psychological and social complexities of decision-making. New Public Administration reminded us that values, equity, and citizen participation must never be sidelined.

In modern practice, these approaches are not exclusive; they’re complementary. For example, smart cities and e-government systems rely on big data (positivism), but they also gather citizen feedback (behavioralism) and strive to bridge digital divides (new public administration). The more inclusive our methodologies become, the more inclusive our governance can be.

This integrated mindset is also transforming how we train public servants, design public policies, and engage with the public. Students of public administration must therefore understand that methodology is not just technique—it’s a moral choice. Choosing a method means choosing what to focus on, whom to include, and what values to advance.

Ultimately, administrative research should not just describe the world—it should help improve it. By embracing a mix of positivist rigor, behavioral realism, and value-oriented advocacy, we move closer to building public institutions that are effective, responsive, and just.