Search

This chapter surveys how the field has addressed the central puzzles of political leadership by discussing several key dichotomies that have been the focal point of scholarly inquiry and debate past and present: leaders and leadership; democrats and dictators; causes and consequences; actors and context; personal qualities and luck; success and failure; and art and science. The authors conclude that the study of leadership is a somewhat bewildering enterprise because there is no unified theory of leadership. There are too many definitions, and too many theories in too many disciplines. They do not agree on the meaning of leadership, on how to study it, or even why we study it. The subject is not just beset by dichotomies; it is also multifaceted, and essentially contested. Finally, the authors provide a brief conspectus of the Handbook.

This chapter surveys how the field has addressed the central puzzles of political leadership by discussing several key dichotomies that have been the focal point of scholarly inquiry and debate past and present: leaders and leadership; democrats and dictators; causes and consequences; actors and context; personal qualities and luck; success and failure; and art and science. The authors conclude that the study of leadership is a somewhat bewildering enterprise because there is no unified theory of leadership. There are too many definitions, and too many theories in too many disciplines. They do not agree on the meaning of leadership, on how to study it, or even why we study it. The subject is not just beset by dichotomies; it is also multifaceted, and essentially contested. Finally, the authors provide a brief conspectus of the Handbook.

No abstract, In an 1992 article, Rod Rhodes and David Marsh reviewed the existing British and other European literature on policy networks. Since then, there has been a massive outpouring of material and a vigorous debate. This paper updates the story by asking ‘where are we now’ and ‘where are we going’? In the next (second) section of the article the authors summarise current approaches to the study of networks and the attendant debate. In the third section they argue that these approaches are characterised by: the assumption that networks are given facts from which you can read off individual beliefs and actions; a focus on routines, not change; a tendency to build elaborate typologies; and an emphasis on managing networks. In the fourth section, the authors propose an alternative approach rooted in an anti-foundational epistemology. They suggest the notions of tradition and narrative should be central to understanding networks.

This article seeks to broaden the craft of public administration by ‘blurring genres’. First, I explain the phrase ‘blurring genres’. Second, I provide some examples of early work in administrative ethnography. Third, I compare this early, modernist-empiricist ethnography with interpretive ethnography, suggesting researchers confront three choices: naturalism vs. anti-naturalism; intensive vs. hit-and-run fieldwork; and generalisation vs. local knowledge. After this general discussion, and fourth, I discuss the more prosaic issues that confront anyone seeking to use ethnography to study public administration and look at fieldwork roles, relevance, time, evidence and fieldwork relationships. Fifth, I describe and illustrate the several tools students of public administration can use as well as observation and interviews; namely, focus groups, para-ethnography, visual ethnography, and storytelling. Finally, I conclude that ethnographic fieldwork provides texture, depth and nuance, and lets interviewees explain the meaning of their actions. It is an indispensable tool and a graphic example of how to enrich public administration by drawing on the theories and methods of the humanities.

This article seeks to identify, map and understand the ways in which the everyday beliefs and practices of British central government departments embed social constructions of masculinity and femininity. It draws on observational fieldwork and repeat interviews conducted between 2002 and 2004 to analyse the everyday practices of departmental courts. We argue these courts have gendered practices and are ‘greedy institutions’. We unpack their practices of hierarchy, civility, rationality, gendered division of work, and long hours. We argue that these practices have significant gender consequence most notably women have few institutional options but to ‘manage like men’.

In this chapter I set out to show something of the contested place of interpretive methods in social policy. It traces a number of different ways of engaging with the relationship between knowledge and power. In each case I refer to studies that exemplify a particular approach. Towards the end of the chapter I show how emerging trends across the social sciences are taking us beyond a narrow focus on meaning by engaging with questions of materiality, embodiment, emotions and affect. These, I suggest, mark the limits of interpretivism, while also offering the possibility of its enrichment. Finally I trace the uneasy relationship between interpretivism and the traditions of social policy research that seek to speak directly to power by offering ‘scientific’ data that might be viewed as a legitimate basis for policymaking or policy evaluation.

This chapter examines the role of departmental secretaries in France. It will be suggested that, in contrast to some of the more long-standing and well-known accounts of the French public service, departmental secretaries do not comprise an homogeneous set of actors. There are commonalities between them, but their origins, behaviour and future career trajectories remain quite varied. The result is a certain shared experience but one which is lived by different individuals in different ways.

The first volume in a series of comparative studies within the ESRC's Whitehall Programme focuses on core executives in five parliamentary democracies comparing the Westminster model as in Australia, Canada and Britain with the continental democracies of Germany and the Netherlands showing how political leadership is shackled by a vast array of constraints, from globalisation to internal fragmentation and rationalisation, making a heroic model of decisive political leadership hard to sustain.