Philosophical and Methodological Aspect of Hybridity as Characteristic of Modern Public Administration
How to Cite
Bol’shakova Y.M. Philosophical and Methodological Aspect of Hybridity as Characteristic of Modern Public Administration. Vlast’ (The Authority). 2019. Vol. 27. No. 5. P. 174-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v27i5.6738 (in Russ.).
Abstract
The article analyzes the philosophical and methodological aspects of hybridity as a characteristic of modern public administration. The author makes a conclusion about the epistemological relationship of hybridization as a way of implementing the paradigm transit experienced by modern public administration and the reasons that generated this transit, the crisis of public administration. The article determine the negative consequences of the continuation of the empirical tradition of positivism in relation to the search for a new paradigm of public administration.
Keywords:
public administration, hybridity, public administration paradigm, paradigm transit, conscious management
References
Bol'shakova Yu.M. 2019. V poiskakh paradigmy publichnogo upravleniya: konstsentianetika – soznatel'noe upravlenie. – Vlast'. T. 27. № 4. S. 181-186. (RUS.)
Aucoin P. 1990. Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums. – Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 115–137.
Battilana J., Lee M. 2014. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing. –Academy of Management Annals. Vol. 8. Iss. 1. P. 397-441.
Denis J-L., Ferlie E., Gestel N. 2015. Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations. – Public Administration. Vol. 93. Iss. 2. P. 273-289.
Emery Y., Giauque D. 2014. The Hybrid Universe of Public Administration in the 21st Century. – International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 80. No. 1. P. 23-32.
Liguori M. 2012. The Supremacy of the Sequence: Key Elements and Dimensions in the Process of Change. – Organization Studies. Vol. 33. No. 4. P. 507-539.
Murray F. 2010. The Oncomouse that Roared: Hybrid Exchange Strategies as a Source of Distinction at the Boundary of Overlapping Institutions. – American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 116. No. 2. P. 341-388.
Norman R., Gregory R. 2003. Paradoxes and Pendulum Swings: Performance Management in New Zealand’s Public Sector. – Australian Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 62. No. 4. P. 35-49.
Osborne S.P. 2010. The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. L.; N.Y.: Routledge. 448 p.
Pache A.-C., Santos F. 2013. Embedded in Hybrid Contexts: How Individuals in Organizations Respond to Competing Institutional Logics. – The Sociology of Organizations. Vol. 39B. No. 1. P. 3-35.
Polzer T., Meyer R.E., Höllerer M.A., Seiwald J. 2016. Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms. – The Sociology of Organizations. Vol. 48. No. 1. P. 69-99.
Scarbrough H., Swan J. 2001. Explaining the Diffusion of Knowledge Management: The Role of Fashion. – British Journal of Management. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 3-12.
Skelcher C., Smith S.R. 2015. Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations, and Actor Identities: The Case of Nonprofits. – Public Administration. Vol. 93. No. 2. P. 433-448.
Aucoin P. 1990. Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums. – Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 115–137.
Battilana J., Lee M. 2014. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing. –Academy of Management Annals. Vol. 8. Iss. 1. P. 397-441.
Denis J-L., Ferlie E., Gestel N. 2015. Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations. – Public Administration. Vol. 93. Iss. 2. P. 273-289.
Emery Y., Giauque D. 2014. The Hybrid Universe of Public Administration in the 21st Century. – International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 80. No. 1. P. 23-32.
Liguori M. 2012. The Supremacy of the Sequence: Key Elements and Dimensions in the Process of Change. – Organization Studies. Vol. 33. No. 4. P. 507-539.
Murray F. 2010. The Oncomouse that Roared: Hybrid Exchange Strategies as a Source of Distinction at the Boundary of Overlapping Institutions. – American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 116. No. 2. P. 341-388.
Norman R., Gregory R. 2003. Paradoxes and Pendulum Swings: Performance Management in New Zealand’s Public Sector. – Australian Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 62. No. 4. P. 35-49.
Osborne S.P. 2010. The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. L.; N.Y.: Routledge. 448 p.
Pache A.-C., Santos F. 2013. Embedded in Hybrid Contexts: How Individuals in Organizations Respond to Competing Institutional Logics. – The Sociology of Organizations. Vol. 39B. No. 1. P. 3-35.
Polzer T., Meyer R.E., Höllerer M.A., Seiwald J. 2016. Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms. – The Sociology of Organizations. Vol. 48. No. 1. P. 69-99.
Scarbrough H., Swan J. 2001. Explaining the Diffusion of Knowledge Management: The Role of Fashion. – British Journal of Management. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 3-12.
Skelcher C., Smith S.R. 2015. Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations, and Actor Identities: The Case of Nonprofits. – Public Administration. Vol. 93. No. 2. P. 433-448.
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Bol’shakova, Y. M. (2019). Philosophical and Methodological Aspect of Hybridity as Characteristic of Modern Public Administration. Vlast’ (The Authority), 27(5), 174-180. https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v27i5.6738
Issue
Section
IDEAS AND MEANINGS
Following the submission of the manuscript to the Publisher, the author binds oneself not to publish it somewhere else without permission of the Publisher.
