Authors : Usman Madugu; Moazam Shahwar

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/35hj5p4b

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/cfc7zwhj

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26aug464

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Research philosophy shapes the conceptualisation, methodological choices, and outcomes of public administration (PA) studies. This study examines how different research philosophies influence methodological choices, the quality and applicability of research findings, and the relevance of mixed-methods approaches in public administration research. Anchored in pragmatism, the study adopts a qualitative conceptual approach based on secondary data from peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, methodological texts, and policy literature. Thematic content analysis and comparative synthesis were employed to examine the implications of positivism, interpretivism, constructivism, and pragmatism for public administration inquiry. The findings indicate that research philosophy influences researchers’ assumptions about social reality, the formulation of research questions, methodological choices, data collection and analysis, and the interpretation and application of findings. Positivism enhances objectivity, measurement, generalisability, and statistical robustness, whereas interpretivism provides deeper contextual understanding of administrative experiences, meanings, and institutional processes. The study further finds that mixedmethods approaches, supported by pragmatism, provide a useful means of integrating quantitative and qualitative perspectives to address the complexity of contemporary public administration issues. The study concludes that philosophical and methodological alignment is essential for enhancing research rigour, credibility, contextual relevance, and policy applicability. Greater philosophical reflexivity and methodological pluralism are therefore recommended to strengthen evidence-based governance and public administration research.

Keywords : Research Philosophy; Positivism; Interpretivism; Pragmatism; Mixed-Methods Research; Methodological Pluralism.

References :

1. Bae, B.-R. (2016). Interpretive methodology of research for public administration. Korean Society and Public Administration, 27(3), 177–198.
2. Bauer, M. W. (2018). The evolution of public administration paradigms. Routledge.
3. Box, R. C. (2015). Critical theory and public administration: Reflections on power and practice. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 655–664.
4. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
5. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
8. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt & Company.
9. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
10. Homans, G. C. (1967). The human group (2nd ed.). Harcourt, Brace & World.
11. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
12. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
13. Meier, K. J., & Gill, J. (2000). Public management and organizational performance: The effect of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(2), 157–183.
14. Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2019). Public administration and society: The essential readings. Routledge.
15. Ongaro, E. (2020). Public administration as a social science: Epistemology and inquiry. Springer.
16. Ongaro, E., Van de Walle, S., & Sun, T. (2024). Philosophical foundations of public administration: Revisiting pragmatism and critical realism. International Journal of Public Administration, 47(3), 211–228.
17. Ongaro, E., Van de Walle, S., & Sun, T. (2025). Eastern and Western philosophies: Rethinking the foundations of public administration. Public Administration Review, 85(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13245
18. Ongaro, E., & Yang, Y. (2025). Integrating philosophical perspectives into the study of public administration: The contribution of critical realism to understanding public value. Public Policy and Administration, 40(3), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241246654
19. Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, M. (2018). The role of research philosophy in public administration: Enhancing methodological rigor and policy relevance. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 621–630.
20. Peters, B. G. (2018). The politics of bureaucracy: An introduction to comparative public administration (7th ed.). Routledge.
21. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
22. Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2005). Public administration: The interdisciplinary study of government. Oxford University Press.
23. Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2011). Handbook of public administration. SAGE Publications.
24. Shields, P. M. (1996). Pragmatism: Exploring public administration's policy imprint. Administration & Society, 28(3), 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979602800305
25. Shields, P. M. (2008). Rediscovering the taproot: Is classical pragmatism the route to renew public administration? Public Administration Review, 68(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00856.x
26. Shields, P. M., & Tajalli, H. (2006). Intermediate theory: The missing link in successful student scholarship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(3), 313–334.
27. Sun, T., Johnson, R., & Creswell, J. (2024). The significance of research philosophy in management studies: Ontology, epistemology, and axiological dimensions. Management Research Review, 47(2), 101–125.
28. Tang, L., Li, Z., Liu, H., & Jing, Y. (2025). Appraising the philosophical influences on modern public administration research. Public Policy and Administration, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241266774
29. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. SAGE Publications.
30. Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector (2nd ed.). Routledge.
31. Van Thiel, S. (2022). Research methods in public administration and public management: An introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003196907
32. Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Routledge.
33. Wessels, J. (2023). Knowledge, ontology, and epistemology in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13567
34. Yanow, D. (2014). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.
35. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.