Siin üks tekst, mille analüüsi oleks hea katsetada organisatsiooni, valitsemise või juhtimise magistrikursustel. Eriti teravalt ilmutab selliste mõttekäikude vajalikkus ennast eelkaitsmiste-kaitsmiste perioodil, kui selgub, et mitmed uurijad ei ole vajalikuks pidanud ontoloogiliste positsioonide eristamist ning seetõttu muudavad keerukaks adekvaatse argumenteeritud arutelu enda läbiviidud uuringu üle.
Teksti oleks kasulik lugeda kõigil, kes enda arvates juhtimise, valitsemise ja organisatsioonide valdkondadest huvitatud on.

Konteksti avamiseks märgitakse muuhulgas:

In their Invited Essay, “Competing Ontologies: A Redux Primer for Public Administration,” Margaret Stout and Jeannine Love have built upon and evolved their thinking for how assumptions concerning the nature of our existence influence the democratic governance process and the decisions produced by the administrative state. Like Waldo, they ground their thinking in how the teachings of political philosophy help to inform our philosophy of governance and the roles and responsibilities of the public policy process.

Artikli ambitsioon:

Our goal in highlighting this research is to renew dialogue in how ontology and ontological beliefs regarding the purposes of government and public administration work to support democratic governance and decision-making.

Mis on ontoloogia?

Ontologies are theories of existence that generally stem from philosophy, religion, and physics. To explore how ontologies differ, it is helpful to employ an ideal-type method (Weber, 1949, 1994) to draw out principal differences (Stout, 2010b). For example, differing “onto-stories” (Bennett, 2001; Howe, 2006), respectively, claim that existence is transcendent versus immanent in source, singular versus plural in expression, and static versus dynamic in state.


there is an essence of becoming that expresses itself in many potentialities, as noted in the common phrase “from all things one and from one all things.” Therefore, the source of existence is immanent but relational.

Näide ontoloogia vajalikkusest poliitkaväljal

The term “political ontology” captures related assumptions about the nature of being human, identity, and social life (Catlaw, 2007; Howe, 2006); therefore, political ontology combines elements of ontology, psychosocial theory, ethics, and political theory. […] Ontology implies the possibility and/or correctness of only certain political forms. In this way, political ontology depicts both what is and what should be – it describes what is believed to be the constitutive Good, the source of good as well as good ends

Ontoloogia vajalikkus avalikus juhtimises

theories of public administration are “tied to . . . what we think of as being human” (p. 354, emphasis added). These are simply other ways of saying ontology prefigures theory and practice. Because it frames presuppositions “about the human relationship to things such as self, world, and others” (Howe, 2006, p. 423), ontology shapes how we go about living together, directly impacting public policy (Christ, 2003). […] An example of this methodology is Hendriks’s (2010) ideal-type model of democracy that identifies underlying political ideologies and societal cultures.

Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2021). Competing Ontologies: A Redux Primer for Public Administration. The American Review of Public Administration.