"Moving Forward Faster in Public Administration:

Complexity, Interdisciplinarity and Designing Effective Theory-Practice Networks"

Paper presented at
“Ninth ASPA/CPM Texas Annual Conference: Transforming Public Service”,
Austin TX, November 2, 2007

Authors: Adrian S. Petrescu Senol Duman

University of Texas, Brownsville TURKSAT, Ankara Turkey
aspetrescu@alumni.pitt.edu

WORK IN PROGRESS

Please do not cite. Comments encouraged and most welcome

2001-2007
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 1

Abstract

In ecological studies, the Volterra S-shaped curves describe the evolution of the
population of a species, or its subgroups, when they occupy a new territory or when they
are under the pressure of overpopulation or undernourishment in their current territories.
The Volterra S-shaped curves can be used to model phenomena other than the evolution
of populations. In our paper, we will argue that the Volterra curves, together with
Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific paradigms, successfully illustrate the developmental
stages of public administration theory. We shall also explore how the public
administration theory may relate differently to complexity theory at each stage of its
development.
Phenomena evolving in line with Voltera “S Shaped Curves” undergo four
distinct stages in their development: initiation, sustained growth, limited growth, and
saturation. We argue that the rules, conditions and strategies of “populating” a field or
stream of inquiry inside a field with newly created knowledge mirror these stages.
In any scientific discipline, an active search for inspiration in both the
epistemologies and content of other disciplines is a necessity. Throughout its
development, Public Administration Theory has been particularly prone to using such
cross-disciplinary inquiry tools, especially due to its placement at the interconnect of a
number of disciplines, and due to its high dependency on sociology, management,
economics, political science, and so forth. In as much as interdisciplinarity can help
scholars deal with complexity, we argue that there are different optimal “modes of
interdisciplinarity” correlated to a discipline’s stage of development.
Based on Axelrod’s distinction between signalers and followers in social systems,
combined with the population growth metaphor, we propose a model integrating types of
interdiscpllinarity & uses of complexity. Some modes will yield more effective
theoretical advancements while others will yield increased practical applications. We
briefly test this model on Graham Allison’s three models of decision and the scientific
community’s reaction to it. From this model we infer a set of recommendations that may
help theorists to focus more easily in their work on using complexity in support of the
most fitted inquiry tools for the discipline’s current stage. By analyzing the combined
influences of a discipline’s specific conditions by intra-paradigm development stage and
Kuhn-ian meta-paradigm development stage, the community of theorists will know better what
to do and what to avoid in support of the discipline’s growth. Such an approach may in
turn lead to a more effective development of the discipline towards (axiomatic)
formalization or a normal science stage.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 2

Motto 1: “All Science Requires Faith in Harmony of the World”

(Albert Einstein)

Motto 2: “One nutty person throws a rock in the lake,

and a hundred wise people through themselves in the water to retrieve it”
(Romanian Proverb)
Introduction

The stage of development (in Kuhn-ian terms)1 of Public Administration (PA) Theory has
been an issue of contestation for the past few decades2. At the same time, the stages of
development of many disciplines neighboring PA Theory, or even “mother” disciplines to
it, have also been under dispute. While Kuhn‘s model of the scientific development of a
discipline does itself draw objective criticism, in this paper we take the stance that all
these disputes need not be resolved prior to our being able to take active steps directed at
“harnessing complexity” in an attempt at speeding up the development of social science
disciplines in general, and Public Administration Theory in particular.

The realization of the core precepts of complexity theory usually worries practitioners
and theorists in Public Administration. The first reaction is an attempt at controlling, or
eliminating, its influences ”. In contrast, Axelrod finds that as a core characteristic of
social action, complexity can not always be eliminated, offers the more optimistic view,
suggesting that there are ways to tame complexity and use it to ones benefit, either as a
public management practitioner, or as a theorist. In response, various practical
applications of complexity theory in public management have taken off the ground quite
well. In this paper we try to offer a possible somewhat specified model for consideration
by theorists and students in the epistemology of public administration.

We use the metaphor that scientific advancement can be considered to be in line with
Volterra S-shaped curves . In ecological studies, Lotka-Volterra models and equations
describe the growth of the population of a species, or its subgroups, when they occupy a
new territory or when they are under the pressure of overpopulation or undernourishment
in their current territories .

The core reason for using the metaphor stems from the fact that, just as undernourished
populations, scientific communities at times may run out of food for thought, and thus
may send “seekers” into new fields to come back with information as to new territories’
possibility of being effectively populated3. It is rare however that such missions have
been consciously sent out in search of new knowledge. In fact, Kuhn would argue that
successful such attempts are rather anomalies, and not the norm . Thus, one of the
existent critique of Kuhn is nonetheless that, anomalies driven scientific revolutions
cannot necessarily be consciously called for. We disagree, and take instead a stance
1
2
For a strong critique of PA Theory please see Dunn and Fouzouni and Denhardt . Daneke and others
also shed critical views on PA Theory’s stage of development. For one of the many attempts to address the
pitfalls they identify, please see use of the advanced systems theory as one response.
3
This would be in line with Ravetz’s , Dunn’s , and others quest for identifying usable ignorance, in
attempt to determine in advance what is worth studying.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 3

closer to a optimist view such as Axelrod’s , namely that complexity can be used in one’s
favor, and harnessed to make our understanding and quest for knowledge more effective
and far reaching. Just the same as populations under life threatening threats send out
food seekers, communities of scientists could help create and/or abide by conditions that
would favor more of Kuhn’s anomalies, basically by initially sending out more of
Axelrod’s signalers called to find the right inferences and interdisciplinary connections or
“borrowable” pre-knowledge. Once some of these signalers return successfully from
their searches (some would not), the scientific community would mount and consciously
direct teams of Axelrod’s followers to study, interpret and fully integrate the new sources
of information/knowledge, and ultimately put it in the context of the previously known .

So far, the means proposed most often for dealing with complexity in attempts at more
effective scientific advancement have been built around ensuring a high degree of
interdisciplinarity in our scientific endeavors . This is of course true. Moreover, in this
paper we further support the argument with a modest look at how scientific advancement
occurs in neighboring and often intersecting social science disciplines, and how
advancement in one could influence and/or determine advancement in another. However,
we suggest that there are more than one single type of interdisciplinary relations between
scientific fields, and different “modes of interdisciplinarity” can yield differing results.

We organize the paper as follows:

First, we briefly explain why we think reconciling either the assessment of the stage of
development of PA Theory, or Kuhn’s very model of scientific revolutions is not
absolutely necessary prior to developing our complexity theory driven “modes of
interdisciplinarity” model.

Second, we briefly re-state the simplified Volterra population growth model, in order to
familiarize the reader with the characteristics of each phase in the model.

Third, we introduce the way in which the conditions inherited from the Volterra
population growth model can and should be adapted inside an interpretation of evolutions
in a scientific discipline in general, and in PA Theory in particular.

Fourth, we describe a possible interpretation of how related disciplines in social sciences,

with PA at the core, interact epistemologically.

Fifth, we specify the “modes of interdisciplinarity” model. We propose this model

simply by way of integrating one of Axelrod’s distinctions , looked at through the eyes of
the Volterra model, into the prescription for increased interdisciplinarity in the field of
PA Theory. In short, the conclusions of the model imply that some interdisciplinary
modes yield higher theoretical effectiveness, while other interdisciplinary modes yield
higher pragmatic effectiveness.

Sixth, we briefly test the resulting framework against a famous case, namely the
emergence, use and critique of Graham T. Allison’s three models of decisions . Allison’s
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 4

modelles are used so extensively in PA Theory, in spite of (1) their originating with
Foreign Policy Decision Theories, and of (2) the low predicted likelihood of such a
Kuhn-ian anomaly ever occurring and affecting to such a high degree the discipline of
PA. With this case, we find that the appropriate “modes of interdisciplinarity” were used
at the proper times to make more effective scientific advancement possible.

Seven, we propose a more general application to the sustained growth of the PA

discipline of the Thompson and Tuden (1959) and later Donaldson (2000) labeled
“contingency theory in organizations” as a potential means for accelerating development
in theory and practical knowledge consistent with Kuhn’s recommendations and our
“modes of interdisciplinarity” presented herein.

Finally, we conclude by (1) reiterating the recommendations for actions to be taken inside
scientific communities for better results in “harnessing” both complexity and a
positive/optimist view of Lindblom’s cognitive impairement , and (2) proposing further
adaptations of the modest model herein that would take into account already existing
knowledge from population sciences that we have purposefully overlooked in the interest
of simplification.

1. Competing Epistemological Interpretations of PA Theory Should not Stop Us

The state of any scientific discipline, and public administration is no exception, is most
often a contested matter. Moreover, an objective assessment of the state of social
sciences in general, in Kuhn-ian terms, is an issue under even more debate. Objective
assessment may seem to be essential for any epistemological “intervention.” Indeed, a
misrepresentation of the stage in which an “intervention” is performed may easily lead to
the improper intervention and to continued—and amplified—efforts towards a dead end.
We are trying to suggest that disagreement on this issue should not stop us from
developing, testing and possibly applying our “modes of interdisciplinarity” model trying
to make better use of complexity in building effective knowledge advancement in a
scientific discipline affected maybe most by complexity.

1. 1. The Contested State of the Discipline of PA

In spite of the array of possible criticism that can be brought to this over-simplification,
let us consider that there are from an epistemological perspective, only two essentially
different meta-schools of thought in the epistemology of Public Administration Theory.
We shall call them the “classic” school, and the “critical” school.

In short, the “classic” school concedes that the multiple paradigms in existence in PA
build on one another, inheriting and critically adapting findings from the previous ones
into the newer ones. One can consider for example Appleby’s re-bringing in the scene
of the administrative-politics relationship and Merton’s attacks on the ideal (Taylorist)
type of bureaucracies as a paradigm shift from the classic era . Further, the Human
Relations era of Follet, Mayo, Barnard, Simon, March or Cyert has in turn added a new
paradigm shift to the former . The New Public Administration (Marini, Frederickson
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 5

etc.) would in turn add yet another paradigm shift while today we shall deal with yet
another with the Public Management Era .

In contrast, the “critical” school considers in short that “the PA theory is lacks theoretical
foundations of its own”. Dunn and Fozouni in their contested 1976 book start by stating
that “[a]dministrative theory is conveyed today as a chaotic array of fragmented
assumptions, vacuous prescriptions, and disorganized beliefs about public organizations
[…]” . This description can hardly be referring to a normal stage discipline in Kuhn-ian
terms.

1.2. Multiple Epistemologies of the Same Field?

In this context, students of public administration often do not fully know what side to
take, and are therefore bound to consider both as potentially valid. Whether they can or
not co-exist in addressing the epistemology of PA is however of no significance.

The reason has to do with our proto-interpretation of Kuhn’s model of scientific

revolutions, at least as it should be applied to social sciences. Indeed, the positivist era
has left behind a major “shuffle” to use Daneke’s ) words, along with many implications
of physics and economics envy in social sciences in general, and more so of the envy for
the scientific methods of management in PA in particular. We are not going to question
whether this was a proper or improper response. We are just left puzzled and in search of
an understanding on how can there be two different epistemological interpretations of the
same discipline. Probably, the answer can be found somewhere between the argument
that (1) social sciences are a special case, and (2) component social sciences disciplines
interact with one another and with the observed objective reality in ways that are also
specific and not mirroring natural sciences (please also see section 4).

1.3. Social Sciences--A Type of Their Own?

There are of course at least two major distinctions between natural and social sciences
that will always yield any comparison difficult: (1) the moving target of the object of
study in social sciences, and (2) the impact our theories and their application have back
on the reality of the social. Such impact can contribute to the very changing of the laws
of the social, whereas in physics only what we know may change. Progress in what is
known may yield or not scientific revolutions, but never will our knowledge change the
laws under which nature functions.

In other words, social sciences and public administration try to explain and control social
behaviors that constitute a target whose moves may be determined by their very
explanations… Interestingly, physicists and philosophers have found themselves much
puzzled in front of the discovery of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This principle is
indeed possibly the one and only similarity between the social and the natural that is
breaking somewhat the above distinction. Yet, its application in social sciences is much
more complex. In social science, unlike with the Heisenberg principle, not only does
observation affect “naturally” the state of the observed, but the practical application of
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 6

the scientist’s theoretical findings will consciously affect social behaviors. PA, due to its
characteristics, is the first social science discipline to be affected most by this major
difference. The expectation is therefore that even if we agree that PA finds itself in a
normal science stage, this stage is by necessity only temporary. Further developments in
PA will likely determine social change of a nature that is unpredictable now and that will
need further explaining. Therefore, social sciences, and PA in particular will always find
themselves in a meta-pre-paradigm stage from some perspective.

1. 4. Bound to be in the “Cone behind Formalization”?

When trying to determine the conditions specific to a natural science discipline—

thermodynamics—before its full formalization, S. Petrescu has used the metaphor “being
in the cone before the principles”, or before the discipline’s axiomatization. Those
conditions resemble very much those found in a Kuhn-ian pre-paradigm stage of a
discipline.

In view of this metaphor, new social change will always be ahead of us. This yields the
need to constantly adapt our tools of inquiry s to pre-paradigmatic specific conditions in
spite of the unresolved debates or determinations, underlined previously. Therefore, we
should pursue the building of our epistemology-complexity model of “modes of
interdisciplinarity.” In other words, social scientists may be bound to always work in a
meta-cone behind the next set of principles/axiomatixation attempts. They are therefore
in constant need to use more complexity in wiser manners than natural scientists have to.

time
Axiomatization

Cone behind formalization of discipline

Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 7

Figure 1: Cone behind formalization of a scientific discipline

In Figure 1 we have illustrated the cone behind formalization of a scientific discipline.

Before axiomatization, or the paradigmatic stage of a discipline, elements of knowledge
are being developed, not all of which would be incorporated as such in the axiomatization
effort once successful. Some will be discarded, while some will need adaptation and
reshaping to be included. In fact Kuhn argues that most of the pre-paradigmatic
knowledge elements do not survive the axiomatization stage.

Figure 2: Social Sciences Application of "Cone behind formalization" metaphor

In Figure 2 we have illustrated the special case of a social sciences discipline having to
face the “moving target” issue, whereas the known does influence back on the to be
known, namely on social or administrative practices which constitute the object of study.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 8

2. Population Growth Models

In ecological studies, the Volterra S-shaped curves describe the evolution of the
population of a species, or its subgroups, when they occupy a new territory or when they
are under the pressure of overpopulation or undernourishment in their current territories4.
The four distinct stages of the simplified model are (I) initiation, (II) sustained growth,
(III) limited growth, and (IV) saturation, or equilibrium, as depicted in Figure 3. Different
“prime” features of the given population are needed in each stage.

III IV
N
II
I initiation
II sustained growth
III limited growth
I IV saturation

Figure 3: Phases of a Volterra “S Curve” describing

time
population growth in newly populated territories

Species may choose to send sacrifice “seekers” into new territories to search and test for
newly inhabitable places the species can move into when the community as a whole are
faced with over-population or under-nourishment in their currently inhabited territory,.
Many of these seekers will dye of poison or of predators but some will find inhabitable
land and will return to get the bulk of the species. Once they return the species starts
moving into the new territory. This is the initiation stage. With a brand new territory at
their disposal, full of resources, and coming straight out of a crisis situation, the species’
population undergoes massive sustained growth for quite some time before resources in
the new territory become somewhat scarce again. When this happens, growth continues
but becomes limited growth. In time, the new territory becomes overpopulated as well,
leading to a equilibrium in saturation. Conceivably, the cycle most often repeats itself
from here .
The core characteristics of the species’ population, and of individuals proving themselves
successful and useful to their co-specimen, are different across the four distinct stages.
To build a successful new initiation, being a successful seeker venturing into the wild
unknown for the greater good requires courage and risk, but also a sense of belonging and
responsibility to the community. Those individuals will self-select, with the species’
community helping. They will be rewarded upon their return if they find the new
promise land. Otherwise they will get lost. The community needs to build in those

4
The model used here is in fact an over-simplification. For a more detailed analysis of more complete
population growth models available please see Wangersky . Here we chose not to consider several factors
that are important in population studies. In the concluding chapter we offer some possible uses of such
factors in light of further refining our model.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 9

necessary qualities5. Special characteristics of leadership are needed further from other
individuals to convince parts of the population to follow them into the new territory once
it is discovered (during initiation and sustained growth). Further, completely different
sets of skills are needed for maintaining internal order in the population as soon as the
resources start comparatively decreasing in the third stage, limited growth, and especially
the next and last, saturation. With saturation however, a major shift needs to occur in
order for the skills and values needed for sending new “seekers” to be build in the
population in time, before overpopulation and undernourishment strike again in full.

3. The Scientific Community in a Discipline as a Population under Objective Stress

The Volterra S-shaped curves can be used to model phenomena other than the evolution
of populations . We argue that the Volterra curves, if taken in their cyclic application,
can successfully illustrate the developmental stages of public administration theory.
Employing the population growth under stress metaphor can help us understand better
how public administration theory relates to complexity theory at each stage of its
development.
As described above, phenomena evolving in line with Volterra “S Shaped Curves”
undergo four distinct stages in their development: initiation, sustained growth, limited
growth, and saturation . We argue that the rules, conditions and strategies of
“populating” a field or stream of inquiry inside a field with newly created knowledge
mirror these stages.
We propose that the stage of development of a discipline correlates with the type of
relationship it has with other disciplines. Furthermore, the stage of development may
also influence the type of relationships it has with complexity theory and the modes of
inquiry used. There is therefore a correlation between the stage of development on the
one hand and the modes of inquiry and complexity theory usage on the other. An
adapted version of the Volterra curves showing our use of the population growth
metaphor in the case of a scientific discipline is shown in Figure 4.

III IV
N
II I initiation: strong outward(discipline is very thirsty*)
II sustained growth: outward (discipline is thirsty*)
III limited growth: inward (discipline is not thirsty*)
IV saturation: strong inward (discipline is saturated)
I
*) for knowledge/models from other disciplines

Figure 4: Volterra “S Curve” and a discipline’s usage of

time
complexity
3.1 Outward Seeking Mode of Interdisciplinarity

5
Not all species are equally good at this, and this is one weakness of using the metaphor, since we may end
up having to deal with much more specificity than we need if we follow exactly findings from ecology
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 10

Even prior to the initiation stage, the discipline is “thirsty” for imported new knowledge
from outside neighboring disciplines. In this stage, and during sustained growth as well,
a discipline’s focus is outward reaching and supportive of primarily inductive modes of
inquiry. The discipline’s use of complexity should too be mainly outward reaching. The
primary knowledge producers should resemble the food seekers we have encountered
above. The scientific community should value their sacrifice and should promote such
“seeking in the wilderness” behavior. Inferences from other disciplines are the core tool
of inquiry. Many such “imports” may fail however, and the parallels driven may thus not
be perfect, or even applicable at all. Some such parallels will hold water however, and
they will fuel scientific advancement. We could think of these as Kuhn’s anomalies ,
only some of which yield a true scientific revolution or paradigmatic shift.
3.2 Inward Seeking Mode of Interdisciplinarity
In contrast, in limited growth and saturation stages, the discipline does not need any new
knowledge imported from other disciplines. Instead, it grows in depth and builds internal
relationships within the confines of already gathered knowledge. The core purpose is
achieving a better structure and formalization. Scholars would make better use of
complexity if targeting it to be inward reaching and supporting primarily deductive
modes of inquiry. The most successful knowledge seekers would be Axelrod’s
followers . Following criticism is likely to yield many replicated (and yet modified with
each iterated replication) studies that lead in turn to better structure and formalization
inside the discipline.
At a given point however, the focus shifts again. For braking the equilibrium of
saturation new influx of knowledge from neighboring and the “mother” disciplines will
be needed, in an attempt to start a new cycle. Again, knowledge seekers will become the
prime scholarly actors, and Axelrod’s signalers will need to be sent out in the new stage’s
“knowledge wilderness” .
3.3. The Need for a Model of Optimal Modes of Interdisciplinarity?
Thus, we suggest that interdisciplinarity has different optimal applications in different
stages of development of a discipline. While we expect a high yield of scientific
advancement when using highly interdisciplinary modes of inquiry in the first two stages,
initiation and sustained growth, the need for internal formalization suggests lower
degrees of interdisciplinarity in the limited growth and saturation stages to be the norm.
Nonetheless, inter-disciplinary import should probably not stop in these stages either.
Most likely however the inter-disciplinary attempts in these two latter stages should be
differently targeted, primarily at philosophy of sciences related disciplines, at
formalization methodologies, not at importing new pre-knowledge, but rather at adapting
existing theoretical models from disciplines more advanced in their formalization.
Further, we shall discuss some more how disciplines relate to their neighbors and their
“mother” grand discipline—often in PA this translates in grounding in and relating back
and forth with a grand social theory, but this is not the sole case. In doing so, we attempt
to prepare the reader for our next step, which is bringing in Thomas Kuhn’s theory of
scientific paradigms , and thus the modes of interdisciplinarity connection between
differences in stages of development in neighboring disciplines, and the functioning of
pull-push effects between a discipline and some of its “mother” grand disciplines.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 11

4. An Assessment of Inter-Disciplinary Epistemological Interaction

Public administration developed independently6 mainly out of sociology, political
science, organization theory, private management, legal studies and so forth 7 . Its
relationship which each of these disciplines stays very strong to date . Its applied
character can make public administration evolve quicker under pressures from changes in
the society than its more theoretically driven disciplinary counterparts. Such evolution
then reflects back in evolutions in the other neighboring disciplines.

Looking solely at implication of the neighboring disciplines upon PA would not draw the
whole picture. The “reversed arrow” question needs therefore equal attention as the
direct impact question does.

4.1 The Direct Impact of the Disciplines on Public Administration

Being built upon knowledge and theories originating in large part in neighboring
disciplines, public administration theory emerges necessarily as a synthesis of such
knowledge, empowered and enriched8 however with its own practical & often problem
solving focus of study, and development of specific inquiry methodologies. While
Linblom may disagree, we argue that just the same as with complexity, there are ways to
harness cognitive impairment too.

In a very illustrious discussion, public administration scholars have debated a lot about
how political science and public administration should interact when they need to borrow
or lend constructive concepts, analytical tools, and practical methods. Even since the
inception of public administration as an independent field, the earlier scholars of public
administration ponder about how management practices should be demarcated from
political involvements and judgmental or value-laden calls. Frank Goodnow in his
seminal work “Politics and Administration” argues that ‘the expression of the will of the
state and the execution of the will of the state must be separated.’ On the other hand,
6
Some would argue it never did develop as a fully independent discipline. For instance, Waldo argues that
public administration is neither discipline nor a subdiscipline of political science. Peters also points out
that public administration as a discipline has no overarching theoretical paradigm, not even close, to study
public administration. However, we rather argue that public administration always as a pragmatic approach
developed over time independently either inside or at the intersection of its neighbor disciplines in social
science.
7
Please see more for heated discussions between the earlier frontiers of public administration .
8
With his cognitive impairment, Lindblom considers that a scholar’s primary disciplinary focus impairs
their knowledge or analytic abilities, affecting their ability to perform objective analysis. Of course
Lindblom and Cohen further argue that exactly because of such cognitive impairment our quest for
objective science is futile, even more so considering that ordinary, non-professional scientific inquiry
produced knowledge may be as important as, if not more important than such (unachievable) objective
scientific knowledge. We need to fight our cognitive impairment, argues Lindblom , by tracing down and
eliminating our inherent subjective influences from our education, culture, identity or the disciplines we
have come to public administration from. We find Lindblom and Cohen’s concept of usable knowledge ,
as well as their need for awareness and action against cognitive impairment that affects us laudable, but we
still tend to find his approach overly pessimistic. In other words, it is true that our theoretical
presuppositions (in post-positivist terms) necessarily affect us, but there are also positive impacts here, not
only negative ones, as we will try to point out below.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 12

political science, or politics in general, is a value-laden discipline. Key argument from

earlier scholars such as Wilson and Goodnow is that if everybody brings their values,
belief systems, and judgments into the practice of public administration, government
cannot be run as “business-like” . Furthermore, very interestingly, Goodnow (1900)
argued that ‘there is no Republican way to build a road; you can bring engineers and find
the best solution, and do the job successfully.’ However, Paul Appleby ”criticized the
notion of politics-administration dichotomy. He further argued that administration must
deal with politics and values that cannot be separated from the practice of government at
all.

Appleby also attacked Goodnow’s notion of ‘Republican way of road building’ by

arguing “there is no Republican way to build a road. It is true. However, there is a
Republican way where to build a road, how to build, how to collect money to build a
road, which priorities come first.” Furthermore, political scientists attacked the notions
of administrative principles and value-free approaches. Waldo argued that “there is no
realm of ‘factual and judgmental decisions’ from which values are excluded. To decide is
to choose between alternatives; to choose between alternatives is to introduce values“(p.
97). Simon ) replied to Waldo’s assertions by arguing that there are ‘value decisions’
and ‘factual decisions’; the term ‘judgment’ refers to an element of decision, not to a
decision as a whole” (p. 495). Simon also criticized Waldo’s rhetoric: by saying that
“the history of human error demonstrates repeatedly philosophers will inevitably reach
the conclusions they wish to reach unless they subject themselves to a merciless
discipline of rigor –and the chances are good that they will fall into error even “ (p. 495).

In essence Waldo believed that the influence of the public administration field by certain
disciplines (private management in particular) and their specific inquiry methodologies
had been too high, as compared to influence by other fields, such as politics (or political
science), sociology and history. Such differences in influences have made public
administration theory to concentrate too much on rational decision making which, in
Waldo’s opinion, did not properly reflect the policy process, which is much more
affected by politics than rationalists believe or can grasp or explain with their methods.
Waldo’s solution is roughly that the balance of influence has to be realigned, while the
public managerial process should eventually be better managed.

Public Administration draws not only its underlining theories from the disciplines, but
also its methodologies. Phronesis, the method of inquiry of choice for post-positivists, as
well as the much more criticized hypotetico-deductive model, or more particularly the
falibilist approach, all rely heavily on the use of knowledge and methods developed in an
inter-disciplinary setting . Eventually, pragmatic pluralists (Dunn and others) will chose
to use only a subset of phronesis in their inquiry, recognizing the lack of practical
applicability or of time and cost effectiveness of applying the whole in practical settings.
In this view, we believe this approach is not only more optimistic, but it is also broader
and more practical than the relatively limited approaches of Lindblom . Public
administration is therefore called to integrate knowledge (and, according to Ravetz and
Dunn , ‘usable ignorance’) from the disciplines, in an effort to make social problem-
solving activities more effective. In this endeavor, public administration makes a
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 13

combined use of and needs to refine the methods developed in and borrowed from
disciplines for its own practical scopes. For example, methods employed by Cook and
Campbell or Dunn in their quasi-experimental inquiry designs rest heavily on rival
hypothesizing and elimination of threats to validity (among several other principles of
inquiry). Often, such methods need input from different disciplines simply to make
possible the conscious and purposive avoidance of Lindblom-ian cognitive impairment.

4.2 The impact of developments in Public Administration on the disciplines

The use in public administration of knowledge and methods borrowed from the
disciplines enriches the practical applicability of phronesis itself. The pragmatic inter-
disciplinary setting forced upon other disciplines by public administration is likely to
enhance their very ability to produce more knowledge.

The complexity of real life social problems has demanded from social sciences to build
interdisciplinary bindings. Building upon theories and methods developed in political
science, economics, psychology, sociology, history etc., public administration theorists
and practitioners have been able to better understand the functioning of society and the
effectiveness of political systems they have studied.

Refining borrowed knowledge and methods, PA is able to influence back the disciplines
by offering them more complex, inter-disciplinary methodologies and theories likely to
increase advancement of knowledge in the disciplines as well. Nevertheless, disciplines
are not all equal and thus both influences may introduce field variance in both the amount
of knowledge contributed to public administration and/or learned back from it.

Different disciplines, or fields and sub-fields, in social sciences tend to develop

independently once they have based themselves originally on one grand social theory or
the other, or a combination thereof. The directions these fields and sub-fields will take
are adapted to the particularities of the respective discipline's focus or to the
characteristics of the social sub-system they are analyzing. In doing so, phronesis is key
offering flexible yet possible pragmatic adaptive set of inquiry tools of choice.

In a discipline's development, there are timed "re-connections" to the evolutions in the

mother grand theoretical approach developed jointly and meta-theoretically outside the
particularities of a discipline, but this is not to say that any social sciences sub-field has
its core theories connected continuously with the developments in grand theoretical
sociology. Moreover, the mentioned successive re-connections might not be done in the
same original distribution with everyone of the mother sociological theoretical
approaches the discipline has originated in.

Accordingly, in the Public Administration Theory, the classic rational choice theory has
been evolving in time. The reconnection to the advancements in private management has
resulted in human relations paradigm earlier and new public administration paradigm
later, while their reconnection to critical theory has resulted very recently in some degree
of shift within these two mainstream paradigms towards accepting some marginal
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 14

compromises with new public management paradigm. The "re-connection" process is by

no means either (1) a one way only set of influences, or (2) a one, two or a limited
number of times only process. The connected - independent development process should
therefore be seen as more of a continuous double influence between grand theoretical
field and more applied pragmatic theories or just paradigms developed in sub-fields of
social systems analysis.

Next, we will look at how this relates directly to the building of our modes of
interdisciplinarity model.

4. 3. Volterra S-Shaped Curves Across Disciplines

As we pointed out in the introduction, the stage of development of PA in Kuhn-ian terms
is a contested and highly debated matter. Consequently in part 1 we have tried to explain
why this should not stop us from building our model of “modes of interdisciplinarity”.
The relationships between neighboring disciplines influencing each other, and the
successive reconnections with a discipline’s meta- or “mother” disciplines, viewed from
the Volterra S-Curves metaphor perspective, are illustrated in Figure 5.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 15

III IV
N
II
KIV
KIII

I
III IV

II

KII

I
III IV

II

I
KI

Figure 5: Consecutive Cycles of Voltera “S Shaped Curves”, Interdisciplinarity

time
and Thomas Kuhn’s model

While a discipline undergoes consecutive cycles of the initiation-saturation phases in its

development, both neighboring and “mother” disciplines undergo similar cycles. The
cycles’ periodicity and the volume of disciplinary advancement may not be the same
though. In addition, it is for certain that advancement will not be in sync across different
disciplines. If we choose to import knowledge from a neighboring discipline, or inherit
some from a “mother” meta-discipline, there are of course implications that discipline’s
stage of development will have on the success of the import attempt. Similarly, our own
discipline is likely to have more or less valid and important knowledge to export to a
neighboring or “mother” discipline in certain stages of its own development.
We may experience however useful pull and push effects from one discipline to another
in situations where the two are in the proper relative stages of development. Identifying
such “higher yield” knowledge import/export situations and avoiding the “lower yield”
situations should be part of a discipline’s scholarly community strategy for self
advancement.
If we take for example sociology as one “mother” discipline to PA, the connections and
reconnections underlined above could be better interpreted in light of Figure 5.
The relationship between the application of the outward/inward preferred use of
complexity in one discipline based on its own stage of development and the
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 16

outward/inward preferred use of complexity in one of its “mother” disciplines is

suggested in Figure 6. In drawing both Figure 5 and Figure 6 we make the assumption
that the saturation stage represents a Kuhn-ian normal science stage, when the discipline
is ripe for a paradigmatic shift/scientific revolution drawn by major new advancements in
the form of a new initiation occurring.
In quadrant (A), both our discipline and its “mother” are in initiation or strong growth
stages at the same time. Complexity usage should be outward reaching in both. There is
therefore little already formalized knowledge our discipline can import from above.
Instead, the two, say PA and sociology in our example can develop jointly, but in doing
so both should be careful to import knowledge from other more evolved neighboring
disciplines.
Overarching discipline Kuhnian stage
I. Init II. SG III. LG IV. Sat
(absolute or relative)PA Stage

I. Init O O O O O I O I

II. SG O O O O O I O I
(A) (C)
III. LG I O I O I I I I

IV. Sat I O I O I I I I
(B) (D)
Legend: O: primarily Outward oriented, I: primarily Inward oriented uses of complexity
(in a cell, left O and I referr to row headings; right O and I referr to column headings)
Figure 6: Combined effects of PA stage of development and contextual/environment
(surrounding relevant disciplines) Kuhn-ian stage on the discipline’s use of complexity

Somewhat similar, in quadrant (D) both our discipline and its “mother” are concentrating
towards internal formalization. The studying of complex relationships should be
therefore targeted at refining intra-discipline connections. There is a strong possibility
for benefits from in sync development of such formal models, whereby the modes can be
transferred from where there are developed (in PA or in sociology) to the other
“partner” (i.e. to sociology, or to PA respectively).

In quadrant (C), the discipline under study, public administration in this case, finds itself
in initiation or sustained growth stages. Meanwhile, its “mother” discipline finds itself in
limited growth or saturation stage. The “mother” discipline is thus well formalized and
ready to export knowledge into public administration. In turn, public administration’s
outward use of complexity finds good new resource in the “mother” discipline. Thus,
quadrant (C) represents a case where the “mother” discipline can help pull public
administration into a new initiation stage.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 17

In quadrant (B), the discipline under study is in limited growth or saturation stage while
the “mother” discipline is in initiation or strong growth stage. Inward use of complexity
characterizes public administration. The resulting stronger formalization in PA may offer
opportunities for import of knowledge by the “mother” discipline in search of new valid
avenues of knowledge creation.

In accordance to these four distinct types of relations, we further introduce our model that
deals with different modes of interdisciplinarity.

5. Optimal “Modes of Interdisciplinarity”?

Between all of the above and Axelrod’s categorization of social actors into signalers and
followers , we build a model of “modes of interdisciplinarity”. We argue that some
modes of interdisciplinarity are better fit to yield higher and appropriately timed
theoretical advancements, in line with what a discipline needs in a given stage of its own
development—as in degree of theoretical formalization.
As shown in Figure 7, we consider the gray shaded areas (quadrants C and B) to
represent uses of interdisciplinarity closer to optimality for theoretical advancement
purposes.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 18

Behavioral Patterns of Majority of Scholars (Axelrod’s categories)

Outward Followers Signalers
Complexity Usage

PP TT

I. Initiation
Practical Driven Prescriptive Theoretical Innovations
Knowledge Initiating Advances in the Field
Open Networks
Closed Networks
Prevailing Exploration of Wilderness
Prevailing Replication (using older
Knowledge)

P T
II. Sustained Growth
Stage of Development of a Discipline

(A) (C)

T P
Inward

Theoretical Formalizations Practical Innovations

Deepening the Field
III. Limited Growth

Open Networks Theorist/Practitioners

Closed Fast Networks Useful Practical Explorations
(produce new insights fast inside the
discipline)
Prevailing Incremental Replication

TT PP
IV. Saturation

(B) (D)

Legend: TT; T: High Theoretical Advancement, PP; P: High Advancement in Practical Applied Knowledge

Figure 7: Complexity Usage, Types of the Majority of Knowledge Seekers and Types of Knowledge Produced

Before we delve further into explaining the model in more detail, as a parenthesis let us
look briefly at the practical/theoretical debate within public administration. Many
scholars have sensed a disconnect between theory and practice in many social sciences in
general. Public administration and its sister discipline, public policy analysis, are
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 19

affected a lot by it, as noted by Lindblom and Cohen , or more directly related to PA, by
Denhardt . In Lindblom and Cohen’s words:
“On public policy making, many suppliers and users of social research are
dissatisfied, the former because they are not listened to, the latter because they do
not hear much they want to listen to” (Lindblom and Cohen, Usable Knowledge)

Denhardt’s assessment applied to PA is very similar. We believe that while this may be
true, there are objective reasons for it. Many of them have been analyzed before in
several studies and from many different perspectives . Our model can also contribute to
shedding a new light on why this disconnect can have objective causes. In part, the
disconnect can be said to be the byproduct of optimal (theory building appropriate)
“modes of interdisciplinarity”. In other words, quadrants A and D in figure 5 represent in
fact “modes of interdisciplinarity” likely to yield more practical oriented (applied)
knowledge. These modes thus become also optimal, but for different purposes. The
disconnect mentioned above can then be much easier understood based on the
predominance of relationships and behaviors inside the discipline of PA and between it
and both disciplinary neighbors and practitioners in the field at a given time.
Having said that, let us turn back to detailing why we believe that certain modes of
interdisciplinarity yield higher theoretical advancements and why others result in more
applied knowledge.
Quadrant (C) represents the intersection of the initiation and sustained growth stages of a
discipline with the majority9 of scholars in the discipline acting as signalers10. If in
addition neighboring disciplines are in more developed stages, this will sustain effective
imports of knowledge from other disciplines at a stage when this is necessary and
beneficial. The result is theoretical innovation initiating advances in the field occurring
primarily due to the fit of signalers t the task of outward complexity usage. This is often
achieved through using open networks of scholars, communicating extensively with other
networks of scholars in other disciplines, and through encouraging exploration of
knowledge wilderness.

Quadrant (B) represents the intersection of a discipline’s limited growth or saturation

stage with the majority of scholars acting as followers. If in addition there are no major
neighboring disciplines more advanced than itself, and at the same time there is not much
to inherit from any meta discipline, effective theoretical formalization deepening the field
should occur. This happens due to the fit of followers’ characteristics to the task of
inward complexity use. Incremental in-depth replication prevails, facilitated by fast and
closed networks of scholars that cooperate in exploring, testing and refining new
relationships between concepts already in the field.

9
The term majority here is not used primarily as representing sheer volume in numbers alone. It means
more a power majority then a simple numbers driven majority. In other words, signalers may be more
numerous but less powerful compared to followers better placed in a discipline’s hierarchy. This would
represent a case of followers being in majority, not signalers.
10
As mentioned before, we use the followers and signalers categories and characteristics defined by
Axelrod (1999)
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 20

Following the strategies for quadrants (C) or (B) will ensure effective theory
advancement. As noted above however, the unfortunate cost will be dissatisfied
practitioners because in this case the discipline and scholars inside it focus on theoretical
advancements without sufficient regard to immediate practical applicability.
Practitioners should not worry too much though. On the contrary, many times
practitioners should find much more attention being given to their immediate needs, and
the reason comes from the characteristics of the other two quadrants, (A) and (D), as
detailed below:

In quadrant (A), the majority of scholars in a discipline are followers at a time when the
discipline is in initiation and sustained growth stage. Theoretical advancements will be
delayed due to the better fit of this situation for practical advancement. Followers are not
good at outward uses of complexity. They will rather use knowledge from a previous
paradigm and apply that in practice in new situations, and that may be unwise, because it
does not take into account newer knowledge about to be refined. The modes of operation
will be closed networks. Practitioners will be happy because many scholars primarily
pay attention to their needs. The practical knowledge produced however is not
necessarily fully valid theoretically because older theoretical findings are used. In fact,
followers run the scientific community. They will not prepare or let the necessary
signalers out in seeking interdisciplinary new knowledge. The required outward use of
complexity for the theoretical advancement of the discipline in this stage will thus not be
met.

In quadrant (D) the majority of scholars are signalers. The discipline is relatively
formalized in limited growth or saturation stages. The scientific community is thus either
not prepared or not properly lead to in-depth inward uses of complexity necessary in this
stage. The needed internal relationships leading to formalization will most likely be left
unstudied. Theoretical advancement is thus delayed. Signalers will most likely test
knowledge in new situations, possibly putting their energy into applied problem solving.
Practitioners will again be happy given the attention they receive.

In conclusion, cross-analyzing Axelrod’s social behavioral patterns as applied to a

scholarly community against a scientific discipline’s necessary usage of complexity
(inward/outward) can help understand differing outcomes of different “modes of
interdisciplinarity.” Maintaining awareness of the stage of a discipline and trying to
adapt the signalers/followers leadership according to the needs of the respective stage
will likely result in more effective and targeted advancement, either practical or
theoretical.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 21

6. Short Case Study: The Rise, Critique and Refinement of Graham Allison’s Three
Models of Decision

Let us now very briefly test the above suggested framework against the case of the
emergence, import/export, use, critique and refinement of Graham T. Allison’s three
models of decision, used so extensively in PA Theory, in spite of (1) their originating
much outside the core realm of PA, namely in explaining a case from Foreign Policy
Decision Making, and of (2) the low predicted likelihood of such a Kuhn-ian anomaly
ever occurring and affecting to such a high degree the discipline of PA. With this case,
we argue that the proper modes of interdisciplinarity were used at the proper times to
make more effective scientific advancement possible.

In Bendor and Hammond’s words:

“[…] as predicted in the reviews [by Holsti (1972), Rourke (1972), Wagner
(1974) of Allison’s ‘Essence of Decision’ book], Allisson’s [three models]
approach has indeed had a substantial impact on both the study and the teaching
of bureaucracy.”
We can easily identify Allison’s 1969 APSR article and his 1971 book as the act of an
Axelrod type of signaler11. Clearly, it was a successful signaler that managed to induce
initiation. Furthermore, this initiation occurs in more than one sole discipline at the same
time, which in turn stands proof of the functioning of inter-disciplinary connections and
cross fertilizations of the kind presented in figure 4 above.

Once the three models were specified, both appreciation and critique followed from large
numbers of scholars in PA. Even the appreciative voices (Holsti, Rourke, Wagner) have
been critical and offered modifications and improvements . Again, in their own words:
“[Allison’s] three models have been widely applied, and other scholars have
followed his lead by developing additional models to account for aspects of
policymaking left unexplained by Allison’s analyses.”

Bender and Hammond cite as many as 16 authors writing various new versions based on
Allison’s original three. They further find that:
“in the 1990 Social Science Citation Index, Essence of Decision and Allison’s
1969 article were cited 84 times in 58 different journals” (319).

We believe the impact Allison’s work has had on PA (and neighboring disciplines) is
sufficient evidence in favor of sustained growth following initiation. At some point
however, the sustained growth changes into limited growth. At this stage, critical models
start being better and more in-depth specified, while the number of such new models
appearing decreases. In other words, the import stage is complete and the focus more in-
depth stands proof of the move towards an inward usage of complexity. The goal
becomes tighter better specified relationships between already imported and somewhat

11
Arguably Allison does not write in PA, but this is of no consequence to testing the validity of the model
in its entirety. Inter-disciplinarity accounts for how PA scholars imported the model as soon as it was
proposed.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 22

developed abstractions towards a higher degree of formalization. In fact, Bender and

Hammond’s own critique of Allison and their re-specifying work falls in this category.
Benefiting from 20 years later hindsight (p. 301), along with other writers doing the same
they are successful Axelrod followers falling in quadrant (B) of figure 5.
easily identify this major impact

Allison’s impact may be an anomaly in Kuhni-ian terms. Yet, the whole process may
have come at a time when the disciplines in their connection were ripe for it and for
taking good benefit from it. In the long run, Allison’s impact combined with his follower
and critique’s impacts upon number of disciplines may have led to a stronger
formalization or axiomatization, and why not may be even to a Kuhn-ian scientific
revolution. This case shows evidence that the use of proper modes of interdisciplinarity
may yield more effective scientific advancement.

7. Organizational Structures, Strategies and Processes and Accelerating Knowledge

Production and Paradigmatic Shifts

In response to the model above, we propose a more general application to the sustained
growth of the PA discipline of the Thompson and Tuden (1959) and later Donaldson
(2000) labeled “contingency theory in organizations” as a potential means for
accelerating development in theory and practical knowledge consistent with Kuhn’s
recommendations and our “modes of interdisciplinarity” presented herein.

These are roughly five main forms of organizational structure according to Henry
Mintzberg, from simple form to machine bureaucracy, hierarchy, divisionalized form, or
adhocracy. Contingency theory of Donaldson (2000) argues that the fit of structure and
processes in organizations to organizational goals and objectives impact efficiency and
effectiveness of outcomes.

In part the way the extended organizational design dealing with addressing an issue
impact the ability to address that issue fully, or optimally or if you apply the wrong
structure to the unfit type of issue you end up with errors.

These all have specific characteristics regarding horizontal and vertical communication
flows of information and decision making processes, specialization of expertise or
interdisciplinary multiple inputs (brain storming like) processes.

The question is then how does one organize a knowledge production effort to be able to
accelerate it

In part it is a matter of fitting the right structure to the type of task

If the task is deepening knowledge already in existence machine bureaucracy or hierarchy

works well.

But if the answer is widening the reach of knowledge then adhocracy is needed
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 23

How do we know it is this way? We don't. We just hypothesize. But it has been
hypothesized since 1959, mostly about other things, and not about knowledge production.

Since we keep struggling. In part the organization of academe is a large adhocracy. The
problem is academe alone cannot solve epistemic evolutionary barriers in PA.

This problem needs to cross understanding barriers between academics and practitioners.
We believe that more often than not we have been looking at the wrong system's
boundaries, namely at a subsystem only instead of at the entire system of knowledge
production in PA

We argue that a proper design of the extended organizational structure would create a
"flow" towards early accelerated axiomatization inside the "cone", such as a metaphorical
pushing wind, or a directional magnetic field, attracting the pertinent knowledge towards
linking among itself towards the Axiomatization point in the graph in Figure 1., and also
producing more “green” knowledge and less “red” knowledge.

It also follows by consequence that resources need to be dedicated dedicate inverse

proportionally with stage of development. In other words, in certain stages of
development of a discipline (exiting from a previous paradigmatic stage—at plateau--
and struggling with a new initiation stage towards a paradigm shift) much more resources
need to be dedicated to initiation stages and less so in stages 3 and 4 as those self
replicate resources and are thus less resource intensive. The problem is that a paradox
predicted well by Kuhn is that knowledge production systems most often dedicate
resources overwhelmingly in the stages 3 and 4. What this does is only elongate the
plateau, which is not very useful from an economy and efficiency of research resources
perspective.

The problem of reversal inefficient allocation of resources is particularly present in PA.

This is in part because in PA practice politics (and not objective need) determines even
more so than in other disciplines or fields what knowledge gets mandated to be produced
and thus what gets produced, and where the focus is.

This subjective “hired gun” type of knowledge in support of ideologically predetermined

ready-made opinions becomes then a possible "wind" in the opposite direction, to
actually make more “red” knowledge available, and to drive back, further away from the
Axiomatization point, the “green” knowledge that could constitute the new fundaments of
the initiation of a paradigmatic shift, but its chance to do so becomes then more limited.

We argue that instead of allowing things to happen the way they do, by proactively and
purposefully finding and training and sending out signalers and also relying well on
followers, by adjusting well the necessary proportions between the two categories based
on the stage of development of the discipline, we can then help accelerate the
development of a scientific discipline. In other words, the net effect would be to make
the distances between the consecutive respective re-Axiomatization points in Figure 2
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 24

smaller and smaller, as in D4 << D3 << D2<< D1. Minimizing time between
paradigmatic shifts, or re-formalizations in PA is feasible and is also consistent with
happening well explained in the development other scientific and technologic fields (for
an explanation of the “chain link” model as applied to another relationship of knowledge
production mutual support between theory and practice (science-technology) see Petrescu
(2003, 13 and subsequent), and originally Kline and Rosenberg (1986)

Conclusions

By using the insights of the “modes of interdisciplinarity” model proposed herein,

theorists can find the most fitted inquiry tools for the discipline’s current stage of
development. By assessing the combined influences of a discipline’s specific conditions
and its developmental stage, theorists will know better how to contribute to the
discipline’s growth. Such an approach may in turn lead to a more effective development
of the discipline towards an axiomatic formalization, or a normal science stage.
Similarly, when the relationship between practice and theory needs refreshment, the
community of theorists and practitioners working in the field can find specific joint ways
to address a potential disconnect between praxis and theory. The “modes of
interdisciplinarity” model suggests the suitable conditions in the discipline that most
likely yield high advancement in practical knowledge.
To reiterate, complexity can be harnessed to help in making both theory building and
practical applications more effective. Similarly, accounting for differences between
outward and inward uses of complexity can result in new ways to not only eliminate the
negative effects of disciplinary driven cognitive impairement, but to learn how to harness
cognitive pre-determinations as well.
As further research, the better specified Lotka-Volterra population growth models that
take into account both competition or prey-predator relations can be used to enhance the
depth and reach of the model.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 25

References

Appleby, P. H. (1945). Big Democracy. New York, NY: A.A. Knopf.

Appleby, P. H. (1949). Policy and Administration. University, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
Axelrod, R. (1999). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific
Frontier. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Bendor, J., & Hammond, T. H. (1992). Rethinking Allison's Models. American Political
Science Review, 86(2), 301-322.
Daneke, G. A. (1990). A Science of Public Administration? Public Administration
Review, 50(3), 383-392.
Daneke, G. A. (1994). A Science of Public Administration. In J. D. White & G. B.
Adams (Eds.), Research in Public Administration: Reflections on Theory &
Practice (pp. 60-74). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.
Daneke, G. A. (2001). Sustainable Development As Systemic Choices. Policy Studies
Journal, 29(3), 514-533.
Denhardt, R. B. (2000). Theories of Public Organization (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA:
Harcourt Brace College.
Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis :An Introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Dunn, W. N. (1997). Probing the Boundaries of Ignorance in Policy Analysis (Initiating
Change: Theory and Practice). American Behavioral Scientist, 40(3), 277-299.
Dunn, W. N., & Fozouni, B. (1976). Toward a Critical Administrative Theory. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Gallagher, S. (1993). The Place of Phronesis in Postmodern Hermeneutics. Philosophy
Today(37), 298-305.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1996). The Future of Public Administration: End of A Short Stay
in the Sun? Or a New Day a Dawning? Intellectual Development of Public
Administration. Public Administration Review, 56(2), 139-149.
Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and Administration. New York: Russell and Russell.
Haque, S. M. (1996). The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration in the Current
Epoch of Privatization. Administration & Society, 27(4), 510-537.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kline S.J., and Rosenberg, Nathan. 1986, An Overview of Innovation, in R. Ladau and N.
Rosenberg (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy , National Academy Press,
Washington D.C., p. 275-305
Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and
Shape Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Petrescu-Duman ASPA/CPM TX Conference 2007 Page 26

Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and
Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Little, J. H. (1994). Administrative Man Faces the Quality Transformation: Comparing
the Ideas of Herber A. Simon and W.Edwards Deming. American Review of
Public Administration, 24(1), 67-85.
Lotka, A. J. (1925). Elements of physical biology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co.
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity. Journal of the
Washington Academy of Sciences(16), 317-323.
Newell, W. H., & Meek, J. W. (2000). What Can Public Administration Learn from
Complex Systems Theory. In G. Morçöl & L. F. Dennard (Eds.), News Sciences
for Public Administration and Policy: Connections and Reflections (pp. 81-106).
Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
Peters, B. G. (1988). Comparing Public Bureaucracies : Problems of Theory and Method.
Tuscaloosa , AL: University of Alabama Press.
Peters, B. G. (1996). The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS:
The University Press of Kansas.
Petrescu, Adrian (2003). The Relationship Between Science and Technology in European
Advanced Industrial Economies (1980-2000), University of Pittsburgh
Petrescu, S., & Petrescu, V. (1986). Researching the Development of Thermodynamics in
the Cone behind the Principles, Methods of Thermodynamics (Romanian).
Bucheres: Editura Tehnica.
Ravetz, J. R. (1987). Usable Knowledge, Usable Ignorance: Incomplete Science with
Policy Implications. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 9(1), 87-116.
Ravetz, J. R. (1990). The Merger of Knowledge with Power. London, UK: Mansel.
Simon, H. A., Drucker, P. F., & Waldo, D. (1952). Development of Theory of
Democratic Administration: Replies and Comments. The American Political
Science Review, 46(2), 494-503.
Volterra, V. (1926). Variazioni e Fluttuazioni del Numero D'individui in Specie Animali
Conviventi. Mem. R. Accad. Naz. dei Lincei, 6(2).
Waldo, D. (1952). Development of Theory of Democratic Administration. The American
Political Science Review, 46(1), 81-103.
Waldo, D. (1980). The Enterprise of Public Administration : A Summary View. Novato,
CA: Chandler & Sharp Publishers.
Wangersky, P. J. (1978). Lotka-Volterra Population Models. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, 9, 189-218.