Speaking what truth to whom? The uneasy relationship between practitioner and academic knowledge in public administration. Gow, J. I. & Wilson, V. S. Canadian Public Administration, 57(1):118--137, 2014. ![Speaking what truth to whom? The uneasy relationship between practitioner and academic knowledge in public administration [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Abstract This article reflects on the observation that no one group – practitioners, academics, or clients – can claim to possess the full truth on any question in public administration (PA). PA is enriched and afflicted by its practical nature; its students try to persuade colleagues and political and administrative elites of the truth of their findings. Most PA literature presents propositions as logical means to reach desired ends, but disagreement is possible and likely over means and ends. Beyond disagreements on values, many disciplines relevant to PA also ensure differing perspectives. We argue for varied methodologies that recognize stakeholder interests and which minimize methods of persuasion promising too much and ignoring important problems. Sommaire Cet article se penche sur le constat qu'il n'y a pas un seul groupe – qu'il s'agisse des praticiens, des universitaires ou des clients – qui puisse prétendre posséder toute la vérité sur une question quelconque en administration publique. L'administration publique est enrichie et affaiblie par sa nature pratique; ses étudiants essaient de persuader non seulement leurs collègues, mais aussi les élites politiques et administratives de la vérité de leurs conclusions. La plus grande partie de la documentation sur l'administration publique présente des propositions comme moyens logiques d'atteindre les fins souhaitées, mais la divergence d'opinions est possible et très probable à la fois sur les fins et les moyens. Au-delà des divergences d'opinions sur les valeurs, les nombreuses disciplines pertinentes à l'administration publique assurent également des perspectives divergentes. Nous défendons diverses méthodologies qui reconnaissent les intérêts des parties prenantes et qui minimisent les méthodes de persuasion en promettant trop et en ignorant des problèmes importants.
@article{gow_speaking_2014,
title = {Speaking what truth to whom? {The} uneasy relationship between practitioner and academic knowledge in public administration},
volume = {57},
copyright = {© The Institute of Public Administration of Canada/L'Institut d'administration publique du Canada 2014},
issn = {1754-7121},
shorttitle = {Speaking what truth to whom?},
url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/doi/10.1111/capa.12060/abstract},
doi = {10.1111/capa.12060},
abstract = {Abstract This article reflects on the observation that no one group – practitioners, academics, or clients – can claim to possess the full truth on any question in public administration (PA). PA is enriched and afflicted by its practical nature; its students try to persuade colleagues and political and administrative elites of the truth of their findings. Most PA literature presents propositions as logical means to reach desired ends, but disagreement is possible and likely over means and ends. Beyond disagreements on values, many disciplines relevant to PA also ensure differing perspectives. We argue for varied methodologies that recognize stakeholder interests and which minimize methods of persuasion promising too much and ignoring important problems. Sommaire Cet article se penche sur le constat qu'il n'y a pas un seul groupe – qu'il s'agisse des praticiens, des universitaires ou des clients – qui puisse prétendre posséder toute la vérité sur une question quelconque en administration publique. L'administration publique est enrichie et affaiblie par sa nature pratique; ses étudiants essaient de persuader non seulement leurs collègues, mais aussi les élites politiques et administratives de la vérité de leurs conclusions. La plus grande partie de la documentation sur l'administration publique présente des propositions comme moyens logiques d'atteindre les fins souhaitées, mais la divergence d'opinions est possible et très probable à la fois sur les fins et les moyens. Au-delà des divergences d'opinions sur les valeurs, les nombreuses disciplines pertinentes à l'administration publique assurent également des perspectives divergentes. Nous défendons diverses méthodologies qui reconnaissent les intérêts des parties prenantes et qui minimisent les méthodes de persuasion en promettant trop et en ignorant des problèmes importants.},
language = {en},
number = {1},
urldate = {2014-03-13},
journal = {Canadian Public Administration},
author = {Gow, J. I. and Wilson, V. Seymour},
year = {2014},
pages = {118--137},
file = {Snapshot:files/48545/abstract.html:text/html}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"8TycvrkMPE7BRXTzc","bibbaseid":"gow-wilson-speakingwhattruthtowhomtheuneasyrelationshipbetweenpractitionerandacademicknowledgeinpublicadministration-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-09-09T06:27:33.093Z","title":"Speaking what truth to whom? The uneasy relationship between practitioner and academic knowledge in public administration","author_short":["Gow, J. I.","Wilson, V. S."],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://www.sfu.ca/~howlett/howlett16.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Speaking what truth to whom? The uneasy relationship between practitioner and academic knowledge in public administration","volume":"57","copyright":"© The Institute of Public Administration of Canada/L'Institut d'administration publique du Canada 2014","issn":"1754-7121","shorttitle":"Speaking what truth to whom?","url":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/doi/10.1111/capa.12060/abstract","doi":"10.1111/capa.12060","abstract":"Abstract This article reflects on the observation that no one group – practitioners, academics, or clients – can claim to possess the full truth on any question in public administration (PA). PA is enriched and afflicted by its practical nature; its students try to persuade colleagues and political and administrative elites of the truth of their findings. Most PA literature presents propositions as logical means to reach desired ends, but disagreement is possible and likely over means and ends. Beyond disagreements on values, many disciplines relevant to PA also ensure differing perspectives. We argue for varied methodologies that recognize stakeholder interests and which minimize methods of persuasion promising too much and ignoring important problems. Sommaire Cet article se penche sur le constat qu'il n'y a pas un seul groupe – qu'il s'agisse des praticiens, des universitaires ou des clients – qui puisse prétendre posséder toute la vérité sur une question quelconque en administration publique. L'administration publique est enrichie et affaiblie par sa nature pratique; ses étudiants essaient de persuader non seulement leurs collègues, mais aussi les élites politiques et administratives de la vérité de leurs conclusions. La plus grande partie de la documentation sur l'administration publique présente des propositions comme moyens logiques d'atteindre les fins souhaitées, mais la divergence d'opinions est possible et très probable à la fois sur les fins et les moyens. Au-delà des divergences d'opinions sur les valeurs, les nombreuses disciplines pertinentes à l'administration publique assurent également des perspectives divergentes. Nous défendons diverses méthodologies qui reconnaissent les intérêts des parties prenantes et qui minimisent les méthodes de persuasion en promettant trop et en ignorant des problèmes importants.","language":"en","number":"1","urldate":"2014-03-13","journal":"Canadian Public Administration","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gow"],"firstnames":["J.","I."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wilson"],"firstnames":["V.","Seymour"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2014","pages":"118--137","file":"Snapshot:files/48545/abstract.html:text/html","bibtex":"@article{gow_speaking_2014,\n\ttitle = {Speaking what truth to whom? {The} uneasy relationship between practitioner and academic knowledge in public administration},\n\tvolume = {57},\n\tcopyright = {© The Institute of Public Administration of Canada/L'Institut d'administration publique du Canada 2014},\n\tissn = {1754-7121},\n\tshorttitle = {Speaking what truth to whom?},\n\turl = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/doi/10.1111/capa.12060/abstract},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/capa.12060},\n\tabstract = {Abstract This article reflects on the observation that no one group – practitioners, academics, or clients – can claim to possess the full truth on any question in public administration (PA). PA is enriched and afflicted by its practical nature; its students try to persuade colleagues and political and administrative elites of the truth of their findings. Most PA literature presents propositions as logical means to reach desired ends, but disagreement is possible and likely over means and ends. Beyond disagreements on values, many disciplines relevant to PA also ensure differing perspectives. We argue for varied methodologies that recognize stakeholder interests and which minimize methods of persuasion promising too much and ignoring important problems. Sommaire Cet article se penche sur le constat qu'il n'y a pas un seul groupe – qu'il s'agisse des praticiens, des universitaires ou des clients – qui puisse prétendre posséder toute la vérité sur une question quelconque en administration publique. L'administration publique est enrichie et affaiblie par sa nature pratique; ses étudiants essaient de persuader non seulement leurs collègues, mais aussi les élites politiques et administratives de la vérité de leurs conclusions. La plus grande partie de la documentation sur l'administration publique présente des propositions comme moyens logiques d'atteindre les fins souhaitées, mais la divergence d'opinions est possible et très probable à la fois sur les fins et les moyens. Au-delà des divergences d'opinions sur les valeurs, les nombreuses disciplines pertinentes à l'administration publique assurent également des perspectives divergentes. Nous défendons diverses méthodologies qui reconnaissent les intérêts des parties prenantes et qui minimisent les méthodes de persuasion en promettant trop et en ignorant des problèmes importants.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2014-03-13},\n\tjournal = {Canadian Public Administration},\n\tauthor = {Gow, J. I. and Wilson, V. Seymour},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tpages = {118--137},\n\tfile = {Snapshot:files/48545/abstract.html:text/html}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Gow, J. I.","Wilson, V. S."],"key":"gow_speaking_2014","id":"gow_speaking_2014","bibbaseid":"gow-wilson-speakingwhattruthtowhomtheuneasyrelationshipbetweenpractitionerandacademicknowledgeinpublicadministration-2014","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/doi/10.1111/capa.12060/abstract"},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["speaking","truth","uneasy","relationship","between","practitioner","academic","knowledge","public","administration","gow","wilson"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["Bn7xRaKMY43f7hFwh"]}