Search

An increasing number of strategies for dealing with value conflicts in public management have been presented. These include Cycling, Firewalling, Casuistry, Incrementalism, and so on. A closer look reveals an apparent contradiction. The strategies are presented as forms of practical rationality to go beyond instrumentalist approaches and find answers in the common interest, but at the same time they are presented as instrumental rational strategies to deal with blockades for particular interests. This paper uses Paul Ricoeur's analyses of compromise and of political paradox to overcome this puzzling contradiction and to distinguish more justifiable strategies of value conflict management from less justifiable strategies [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many contemporary theories on good leadership (e.g., 'moral leadership', 'responsible leadership', 'authentic leadership' or 'transformational leadership') emphasize the importance of intrinsic motivation in followers and of leading by example. This also involves a rejection of the use of power and manipulation as well as advocacy for virtues such as modesty and a concern for equality. By focusing on magnanimity (Aristotle's virtue of the great), we show that, contrary to what contemporary theories often claim, there are good reasons for exemplary leaders not to be modest, to point out their greatness in comparison with others, and to make use of external goods and incentives, particularly honor. This conceptual virtue ethical analysis results in specific lessons for the ethical manager who wants to lead by example and points to new questions for empirical research on the determinants of effective ethics management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Science as a Profession and Vocation, Max Weber presents a clear task to scientists: he claims that they have the responsibility to present uncomfortable knowledge to politicians, students and others to prompt them to reconsider their value judgments. This clear appeal is a welcome message in the current debates on the social and political role of scientists. It is especially interesting because it is at odds with acclaimed ideas about the role of scientists, such as those of Pielke, Flyvbjerg or Kitcher. Unfortunately, Weber's sociological work, although it reflects this appeal to scientists in many respects, does provide a normative support for it. This article argues that a virtue ethical framework can be integrated into Weber's position to strengthen the appeal for the scientist's responsibility. I show that the obstacles to such an integration can be overcome by following MacIntyre's modernized version of virtue ethics. The combination of Weber's appeal and MacIntyre's virtue ethics offers a well-founded position that is critical of current acclaimed positions on the political and societal role of the scientist and that provides a promising perspective in times of a looming fact-free politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interpretive researchers, also in our field, often refer to Geertz’ work. They focus on taking the natives’ point of view, thick description and reading culture as a text. In this paper, it is argued that these guidelines cannot provide good reason to accept one interpretation of a social phenomenon over any other interpretation. On closer inspection, however, Geertz’ work displays a stronger approach. This approach on important points fits Lakatos’ ideal of sophisticated falsificationism. This reexamination of Geertz’ actual approach urges to reconsider the strict dichotomy that is often made between interpretive and other types of research in Public Administration and Political Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific policy advice, and research for such advice, involves making a broad set of choices, for instance on research strategy and on the presentation of results. The issue context approach offers guidelines for individual advisors and advisory bodies (and their designers) to deal with these decisions. It distinguishes types of problems and connects particular strategies to each type. The issue context approach is critically assessed in this paper. Can this approach be of help for responsible scientific advisors and for designers of advisory bodies? We conclude that, for empirical and logical reasons, the issue context approach cannot live up to its promise. This assessment helps to determine the limits of the ambitions of the public administration to make policy-making more scientific. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]