Building Practitioner-Held Theory Through Triangulation

This study employs research strategy called triangulation to determine the distributions of personal theories of organizations toward an organizational doctrine called practitioner-held theory. In this study, triangulation combines qualitative methods (interviews with city managers) before and after the use of quantitative methods (a survey of city managers) to develop practitioner-held theory. The survey results are analyzed to combine the personal theories of organizations of 220 city managers into ten theoretical dimensions: structural reform, task management, insular governance, participative management, Theory Y, norm setting, participatory democracy, citizen input into decision making, community leadership, and legislative involvement in management. Each dimension is discussed in the context of the public administration literature, from analysis of quantitative data, from analysis of qualitative data, and in relation to practitioner-held theory model. The practitioner-held theory model's support of practitioner thinking based on limited instrumental rationality is discussed by clarifying action-consequence relationships and highlighting the normative positions of practitioners on organizational issues. The conclusions evaluate practitioner-held theory against general criteria. Building Practitioner-Held Theory Through Triangulation' Practitioner-held theory exemplifies prevailing organizational doctrine for the administration of government. Research on the development of this doctrine and practitioner-held theory has intuitive appeal for scholars and practitioners of public administration because it places practitioners at the center of the theory building process. This study takes step toward building practitioner-held theory model; triangulation combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies to determine how practitioners think and to generate empirical support for the model. I Financial support for this research was provided by Stephen F. Austin State University faculty research grant, and intellectual support was provided by Ralph P. Hummel. I-PART, 3(1993):4:431-456 431/Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory This content downloaded from 207.46.13.57 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:24:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Building Practitioner-Held Theory A three-rung generalization ladder organizes the relationships between personal theories of organization, theoretical dimensions, and practitioner-held theory. The personal theories of organizations (PTOs) occupy the bottom rung of the generalization ladder. PTOs provide the empirical base for the study. PTOs exist within every practitioner, and the number of personal theories of organization equals the number of practitioners. A practitioner's PTO stipulates organizational actions that should take place and suggests action-consequences relationships. PTOs are similar to the espoused theories discussed by Argyris and Schon (1974). The intermediate rung on the generalization ladder contains the theoretical dimensions, which unify and validate the practitioners' thinking (PTOs) on organizational issues. These dimensions are constructed from the general patterns found among the practitioners' personal theories of organizations, and they are qualitatively validated before final inclusion in the practitioner-held theory model. The theoretical dimensions also provide common ground to mesh practitioners' and researchers' thinking on organizations. Practitioner-held theory occupies the top rung of the generalization ladder; it is the highest level of generality sought by this study. Practitioner-held theory evolves from cumulative set of normative and relational propositions that coincide with the theoretical dimensions. The resulting propositions describe practitioners' thinking in the context of organizational issues. The issues discussed are not exhaustive, but they cover many administrative concepts and concerns discussed in the current literature. Practitioner-held theory attempts to address Charles Levine's call for a new, consistent doctrine to guide efforts to improve governance and management (1986, 205). It can also explain and predict the actions of practitioners.