Ei ole vist suurt kahtlust, et siinviidatu pälvib hulgaliselt tsiteeringuid. Eriti kasulik on see neile, kes ennast avaliku juhtimise ja interpretivismi valdkonda sisse loevad, kuid mitte ainult. Autorid Mark Bevir ja R. A. W. Rhodes on omas on omas valdkonnas palju ära teinud ning teksti tasuks niisamagi lugeda.


For our last number, I’d like to ask your help. Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And for the rest of you if you’ll just rattle your jewellery (Davies 1968: 191; and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDFuVRWdn4) How do we interpret this story? At first sight it is just an instance of The Beatles’ cheeky humour. It is more than that because Lennon is being irreverent, a working class oik mocking his betters. Such ridicule is the English way. The Beatles humour was anti-establishment and of a piece with the satirical TV programmes of the day. As one of the leading satirists put it: we ‘challenged the same conventions … In a way you could say that The Beatles were satirical, or at least sceptical’ (Carpenter 2000: 219). Nothing was sacred anymore.

Autorid täpsustavad eesmärki:

However, in this article, we tie interpretivism to an anti-naturalist historicism and humanism in contrast to the formalism and scientism of mainstream public administration. We review developments in Britain, Western Europe, and the USA, concluding there is a divide between the empiricist Anglo-Saxon approaches and Continental interpretive and critical approaches. […] Against this backcloth, we argue that our interpretive approach differs from others because of its focus on philosophical arguments and its neutral approach to methods.

Kaks koolkonda:

Naturalists seek stable and formal concepts, categories, and typologies. They try to operationalize these in comparisons, correlations, and models. […] Antinaturalists seek to recover the intentionality of actions. They try to understand beliefs and desires by locating them in webs of belief, intellectual traditions, and cultural contexts.

Detsentrilisuse teooria

We argue for an anti-naturalist and historicist interpretivism that inspires a decentred theory. The emphasis falls on individual actors, not institutions – on agency, contingency, and context. We reject any notion that institutions have essential properties or are driven by essential logics. […] Decentred theory explains changing patterns of public administration by focusing on the actors’ own interpretations of their actions and by locating these interpretations in historical contexts. People act for reasons. A decentred approach aims to uncover those reasons to explain their actions.

Miks detsentrilisuse teooria eriline on?

Decentred theory differs from other interpretive approaches because it insists that the case for interpretation is philosophical. It rests on philosophical arguments against naturalism and for anti-naturalism, and it extends these arguments to promote humanist and historicist explanations. Also, it rejects all attempts to map these philosophical arguments on to questions about methods.

Autorite spetsiifiline perspektiiv interpretivismile:

Our interpretivism is a set of philosophical claims about the nature of meaning, action, and political and administrative life. It derives from philosophy, not canonizing a particular way of doing research. Debates about methods are often a distraction from the core philosophical issues that define approaches to public administration.

Uued horisondid avanevad:

Decentred theory thus brings a cultural and historical focus that ties political science and public administration more closely to the humanities. Although this focus does not require specific methods, it opens a vast space for the inventive and imaginative use of what we will call “genres”. The humanities offer a plethora of strategies for exploring and reporting on people’s actions, reasons, and beliefs, and for locating them in their cultural and historical contexts.

Lugemishuvi vist ei ole enam palju võimalik suurendada. Siin viimane vihje “mitmekülgsusest”:

From the 1970s to the early 2000s, quantitative research dominated (Bennett, Barth, Rutherford 2003: 373-8). Of one thousand articles published in the American Journal of Political Science and the American Political Science Review between 1996 and 2005, only one relies on ethnographic research (Auyero and Joseph 2007: 2).

Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. All you need is… a network: the rise of interpretive public administration. Public Administration