Political Science 6300-R, University of Utah

ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY

Spring, 2007, meeting in OSH 208 except as announced

Faculty: Bob Huefner: Office: OSH 210D, ext. 1-6043.  Home: 24 U St., 359-6705.

Web page http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~rhuef/

e-mail: robert.huefner@poli-sci.utah.edu

 

COURSE OBJECTIVES

• To develop understanding of theories of administration, relating them to practical, including ethical, concerns of today's administrator.

• To anticipate the administrative environment and theories of the near future.

• To extend understanding of institutional (public and not-for-profit) structures and issues.

• To improve abilities to analyze and communicate arguments and to develop strategies for effective, efficient, and honorable government.

 

TEXTS

Shafritz, Hyde, & Parkes.  Classics of Public Administration (5h Ed.). 2004.

Publius (Hamilton/Madison/Jay).  The Federalist Papers.  1787-88.

Stegner. Beyond the Hundredth Meridian. 1953.

 

 

course project:  Do one of the following two projects:

 

(1) Article: written for administrators, or to be part of your MPA Major Research Paper.

Submit an article (2nd or 3rd session) and its revision (4th session).  It should be no more than ten double-spaced pages plus end notes.  Submit a proposed topic at the beginning of the 1st session.  The topic should be one that is illuminated by administrative theory.  The article should, in its theme(s) and citations, explicitly build upon theory and questions of theory.  It should, in important ways, reflect and react to course readings, contrasting and challenging these readings.  But it should not be a self-conscious review of the readings for the course; it should stand on its own. It should build upon the readings of the course, and go beyond them through scholarly library research and reflections upon the writer’s own administrative experience.  Examples: consider changes taking place in the relationships between federal and state administrators in the U. S. system of federalism; explore new theories of executive leadership; or reflect upon the environment and responsibilities of contracting out for public services.  The article may be either: a) an article for administrators of a particular function (e.g. budget) or of a program (e.g. highways), suggesting how administrators might improve administration in the near future, or b) your MPA major research paper (call B. Huefner in advance of first class if planning to do the MPA major research paper in conjunction with this course).

 

(2) Service Learning: Ombudsman and Analysis

In teams of two or three, assist a person of limited means who is having difficulty gaining apparently appropriate assistance from a program agency other than you own:

            • Identify a person to be assisted and the problem faced. Contact R. Huefner for approval.

• Meet with the individual needing help, before the first class session, to understand the problem.

• Work with this individual to resolve the problem.

• Keep, and submit at each weekend session, a team’s journal of the project.

• At the end of the effort, reflect upon the experience in terms of how administrative theory helps in understanding, resolving, and avoiding such problems and how the problem is useful to theory (helps interpret theory, raises questions about theory, etc.).

• Meet with representatives of the agencies involved to discuss how such problems arise and how they might be avoided and/or resolved.

• Prepare a short paper, submitting an initial draft at the beginning of the 2nd or 3rd session and a final draft at the beginning of the 4th session.  Include in the paper:

      a) description of the specific case.

      b) reflections upon how the case relates to administrative theory.

      c) suggestions for organization and implementation of the programs in question.

• Make a presentation (5-7 minutes) at the last class session, summarizing the experience.

 

READINGS

Reading assignments for each session are listed below. They are to be completed before the session listed. To help you frame and critique each reading, select an administrative role that you play, or are interested in playing, and relate the readings to that role in class discussions and in writing a short paragraph (two to four sentences) for each reading. The paragraphs, to be handed in at the beginning of class, are to:

• identify what you find to be a particularly significant and central point of the reading.

• set forth, from the perspective of your administrative role, a limitation of the reading.

Also submit a covering paragraph (equally short) each week, with its title naming the administrative role you have selected and with the paragraph explaining a theme pertinent to your selected administrative role, that draws from the week's reading in total.


GRADING

            Course project                                                                                                          40%

            Outlines for readings (due beginning of each weekend)                                               30%

            Class discussion: pertinence, constructiveness, insight, mastery of readings                  30%

 

Disabilities: Persons with disabilities requiring special accommodations to meet the expectations of this course are encouraged to bring this to the attention of the instructor as soon as possible.  Written documentation of the disability should be submitted during the first week of the semester along with the request for special accommodations.  Contact Center for Disability Services, 162 Union Building, 581-5020 for documentation.

 

SCHEDULE AND ASSIGNMENTS

 

Friday sessions are from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. and Saturday sessions are from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with an eating-in lunch of 30 minutes, unless otherwise announced.

 

January 12-13

 

READ:          Stegner (for general content, not detailed mastery).

Shafritz, Hyde, & Parkes -- read (for book’s purpose and direction) the Forward and Preface and tables of contents, and then read carefully each article of Part One

                     Federalist Papers -- 10th, 51st, & 78th.  Be prepared to discuss Publius’ view of human nature.

                     PAR -- Code of Ethics (inside back cover; copy to be distributed).

                    

submit:      • If writing an article, a one page tentative description of proposed article, including a paragraph narrative of the article's subject and purpose, and a sentence outline of the article's major sections.
• If doing service learning, 1-2 page team journal of experience to date.

                     • Short paragraphs for the readings.

 

January 26-27 (Friday location to be announced)

 

READ:          Shafritz, Hyde, & Parkes -- Part Two.

                     Reading (to be distributed 1/10) on quantitative techniques.

 

SUBMIT:      • Optional: Article or draft of service learning report.  Submit Friday or February 9.

                     • If doing service learning, submit 1-2 page team journal update.

                     • Short paragraphs for the readings.

 

February 9-10 (Friday location to be announced)

 

READ:          Shafritz, Hyde, & Parkes -- Part Three.

 

SUBMIT:      • Article or draft of service learning report, if not submitted January 28.

                     • If doing service learning, submit 1-2 page team journal update.

                     • Short paragraphs for the readings.

 

February 23-24 (Friday location to be announced; Saturday session will extend to 5:00 for an afternoon event to be announced, ending in discussion at the 24 U St. residence of Bob and Dixie Huefner)

 

READ:          Shafritz, Hyde, & Parkes -- Part Four.

 

SUBMIT:      • Revised article or service learning report (along with original).

                     • If doing service learning, submit 1-2 page team journal update.

                     • Short paragraphs for the readings.

Criteria for Guiding & Evaluating

Rhetoric of Public Administration

 

 

CONTEXT

1. Approach Promotes Progress:  Has the writer created a context for decision-making?  i.e. Does the writer make a connection with the audience by being direct, straightforward and open, and by recognizing the audience's background and point of view?  Does the writing elicit trust and openness from the audience, encourage further and useful dialogue, and allow the facts, ideas, and details to speak for themselves without the author intruding into the audience's rights and responsibilities to interpret the situation?

2. Understandable Development:  Has the writer organized the presentation so that options and proposals are adequately, explicitly, and concisely explored and so that the logic is easily followed?  Does the organization recognize the audience's understanding of, and interest in, the situation, so that the audience gains the information in an efficient way?

 

 

COMMAND

1. Comprehensive and also Focused:  Has the writer been comprehensive.  i.e. Has the writer identified and analyzed the most pertinent conditions of a problem, leaving out irrelevancies, and arranging the analysis so that the audience can see clearly the relationships between ideas and data?  Has the writer spotted and caught the problem's jugular?  Is the writing more than a collection of separate facts and generalizations?

2. Priorities:  Has the writer developed an understanding of what are dominant points and what are subordinate points, and what are the interactions between these points --  to enable the reader to responsibly reassemble the points in a variety of ways, and to thus have a reservoir of options for the problem's solution?

 

 

CONCRETENESS

1. Density:  Has the writer produced an analysis which has richness?  i.e.  Is there substance to the content, with the analysis elaborated by many specific, significant details?

2. Sensitivity Analysis:  Has the writer addressed the contingencies, showing the risks, uncertainties, and limits of the analysis, in order to help the audience evaluate options and to open dialogue with the audience on the problem's solution?

 

 

CONVENTIONS

1. Engaging:  Has the writer used a variety of stylistic devices to engage the audience's interest, excitement, and attention?  Has the writer avoided jargon and used language which is crisp, specific, and descriptive and used a format which makes the information easily and clearly accessible to the audience?

2. Acceptable Usage:  Has the writer communicated ideas in the grammatical conventions of standard English so that the meaning is clear and the audience is undistracted by errors?