This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Springer, J. F. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Observation and Theory in Development Administration

Department of Public Administration California State University, Sacramento

The development of sound empirical theory has been a major, and elusive, objective for students of comparative administration. It is suggested that the lack of progress toward this goal can be partly attributed to the "complexity" of the empirical phenomena (the "operational space") encompassed by the field. A review of the literature reveals that most existing studies are limited in their coverage of this "space." Those which analyze explanatory variables over a relatively large range of levels of analysis (ie., studies which are contextually detailed) tend to focus on one, or a very few, units of analysis; more extensive research in terms of units tends to be confined to a single level of analysis, usually at the highest (systemic) or lowest (individual) levels. Systematic comparative analysis of characteristics of organizations as units (e.g., task and goal structures, internal differentiation, technology, autonomy, organizational control, and so on) is neglected. To redress this imbalance, and to refocus theory in comparative administration on those aspects of organization "design" most amenable to change, a "multilevel/multimethod" research strategy is proposed. Examples of recent studies conducted at multiple levels of analysis are used to illustrate this approach.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?