When we think about the study of public administration, we are observing the behavior of others with the intent of providing lessons. All management studies strive to generalize from the particular to a broader class.
What does this mean? Say the local health department is tasked with an annual survey of services delivered and impact on recipients. I could write a manual that details the steps the field office staff member takes.
But this manual is of limited value to a broader audience of public administration students. On the other hand, I could analyze the program (this type of analysis is called action analysis) and observe similar programs elsewhere to prepare a lesson on effective program delivery.
Employees without a professional training in public administration can be quite effective. Employees with professional training might see the strengths and weaknesses of a local initiative and provide the insights useful in strengthening that local program.
I will add that I was privileged to study a public administration that strove to train students to see public administration through a constitutional frame of references and service as an obligation, not a job. We saw programs we studied not as "jobs" with a paycheck, but as vehicles for public engagement.
It was Woodrow Wilson who wrote that public servants are the bulwark of a democracy, much more so than legislators or the executive. Our strength is in our numbers; our weakness is our ignorance of the evolution of a constitutional democracy where freedom arises from a just revision of law to serve all of us, not just those with power and money.
Please provide a response to this discussion.