Narratives and Dilemmas of Local Bureaucratic Elites: Whitehall at the Coal Face?

Gains, Francesca

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01741.x

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 1 Survey responses are open to the accusation that respondents reveal ‘stated preferences’ and not their ‘true preferences’; however the survey responses discussed here triangulate with the qualitative interview and case study evidence gathered alongside these survey data and reported in Stoker et al. (2003); Gains (2006); Gains (forthcoming). …”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

When Do Bureaucrats Prefer Strong Political Principals? Institutional Reform and Bureaucratic Preferences in English Local Government

Gains¹,

John²,

Stoker³

2008

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article seeks to explain the attitudes of bureaucrats to the redesign of their bureaus by their elected principals. The starting point is a puzzle that a constitutional change in English local government, which was designed to enhance the influence and role of leading local politicians, resulted with bureaucrats as its most enthusiastic champions. The article explores explanations of this response, drawing on the deliberate discretion or policy conflict model of Huber and Shipan and on the bureau-shaping model of Dunleavy. By finding support for the bureau-shaping model, as well as the objectives of implementation efficiency and career advancement, we argue that bureaucrats may regard the increase in political power as a way of realising other objectives they value.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 64%

When Do Bureaucrats Prefer Strong Political Principals? Institutional Reform and Bureaucratic Preferences in English Local Government

Gains¹,

John²,

Stoker³

2008

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers wishing to research elites and other actors in governance settings can choose whether to treat ethnography as a 'method', or as an interpretivist 'methodology' in line with their ontological disposition in order to chart their research approach. So, for example, writing in this journal on the traditions and dilemmas of local bureaucratic elites following constitutional change in 10 local authorities, this author drew on ethnographic methods (interviews with all key stakeholders, observations of public and private meetings, policy tracking and documentary analysis (Gains 2009). Adopting a 'constructivist modern empiricism' the argument challenged (deterministic) academic assumptions about the impact these new rules would have on bureaucratic behaviour.…”

Section: Ethnography: Methods or Methodology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Elite Ethnographies: Potential, Pitfalls and Prospects for Getting ‘Up Close and Personal’

Gains

2011

Public Administration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article celebrates Rod Rhodes' use of ethnography to study political elites ‘up close and personal’. Initially Rhodes' work is contextualized within the development of political ethnography more generally, before his ethnographies of ‘Everyday life in a Ministry’ are reviewed, illustrating the potential of ethnography to research policy‐making elites. This review highlights epistemological and ontological questions which link to criticism of Rhodes' work as taking an anti‐foundational stance. In looking at future prospects for ethnography in governance settings, this article argues that researchers building on Rhodes' scholarship can choose whether to use ethnography as a ‘method’ or an ‘interpretive methodology’. In concluding, the case is made for a ‘constructivist modern empiricism’ which utilizes the ethnographic method alongside other research methods as being most useful for public policy and administration scholarship aiming to be practically useful for understanding either the processes of public policy‐making or its impact.

show abstract

“…On the one hand one could argue that the results so far have been disappointing. Bevir and Rhodes deliberately aim their work at (British) political science, but after ten years, three books, and numerous articles and replies to critics, there are only a few political scientists who have applied the conceptual apparatus of British interpretivism to the problematics of governance (Sullivan 2007, Gaines 2009). Also, as far as I know, no books have so far been published that contain exemplars of British interpretivism in practice.…”

Section: Substantive Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dwellers on the threshold of practice: the interpretivism of Bevir and Rhodes

Wagenaar

2012

Critical Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

interpretive political science hardly needs an introduction to policy scholars. Their approach, philosophically sophisticated and grounded in a realistic appraisal of the nature of governing in modern liberal democratic societies, is of considerable significance to anyone in political science, public administration or planning with an interest in interpretive methods. Focusing on the concepts of meaning holism, anti-representationalism, tradition, dilemma and decenteredness, I briefly describe the philosophical foundations and substantive theory of interpretive political science. The main part of the essay consists of a critique of interpretive political science. My argument is that the key concept of practice is underdeveloped. The point of a philosophy of practice is to integrate belief and action to the point where they form one organic activity system for the purpose of moving about effectively in the world. Bevir and Rhodes' insistence on keeping belief and action separate and, in addition, on privileging belief as the major driver of change and adaptation to changing circumstances, inserts a deep inconsistency into their work; an inconsistency that, to my mind, becomes manifest in the relative paucity of their own empirical work. I conclude the essay with a brief exposition of what a practice-based, posthumanist approach to policy research entails (centering on the concepts of agency, the dialectic of resistance and accommodation, temporal emergence and cultural extension) and of what its practical implications are for policy analysis. IntroductionWith The state as cultural practice, Mark Bevir and Rod Rhodes (2010) produced another installment in what was already a decade-long project of developing an interpretive approach to political science. Earlier publications had included the books Interpreting British governance (2003) and Governance stories (2006), and numerous articles and book chapters. In their various well-written and accessible publications on interpretivism, the two authors squarely address (British) political science. Interpretivism came relatively late to political science, probably because of the strong hold that an empiricist epistemology, with its emphasis on ahistorical, universal explanations, quantitative methods, and a belief in a naïve correspondence theory of truth, has on this discipline. It is probably for this reason that Bevir and Rhodes frame their take on interpretivism as a much needed alternative

show abstract

Narratives and Dilemmas of Local Bureaucratic Elites: Whitehall at the Coal Face?

Cited by 18 publications

References 30 publications

When Do Bureaucrats Prefer Strong Political Principals? Institutional Reform and Bureaucratic Preferences in English Local Government

When Do Bureaucrats Prefer Strong Political Principals? Institutional Reform and Bureaucratic Preferences in English Local Government

Elite Ethnographies: Potential, Pitfalls and Prospects for Getting ‘Up Close and Personal’

Dwellers on the threshold of practice: the interpretivism of Bevir and Rhodes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About