Comparative Administration

A review of methodological inquiry shows that, from its inception, comparative public administration (CPA) scholarship brushed over important epistemological and ontological questions in favor of searching for broad-based, generalizable theories that subscribed to only objectivist ontologies. This article traces these problematic methodological assumptions in contemporary CPA research back to the mischaracterization of the terms idiographic and nomothetic in CPA research. Revisiting this history is important because the recognition of this distinction allows room in the field for research that highlights the uniqueness of different cultural contexts and constructs.