| dc.description.abstract | Throughout the spatio-temporal span of just over thirteen decades that account for Public Administration’s existence, many scholars of this field of study bewailed the loss of an almost achieved scientific status. In addition, a lack of academic rigour and philosophically grounded epistemic depth caused and is still causing an anguish amongst scholars, scientists and practitioners of this field of study. Emanating from the brief introduction, the following argument arises as fissure: P[p]ublic A[a]dministration in its ontic, pluralistic expression as science, as art and as craft, observed within the context of four distinct topographies immediately reveal the happenstance manner in which the holistic topography of P[p]ublic A[a]dministration is investigated and approached. Both P[p]ublic A[a]dministration as academic discipline and as practice reflect noumenal and phenomenal properties. However inadequately investigated and recognised, the noumenal properties represent the object P[p]ublic A[a]dministration in itself, and the phenomenal properties reflect the properties of the object within another or amongst others. In other words, the noumenal properties, by investigation of the academic field of study, reflect the purpose (Teleology), nature of being (Ontology), theory of knowledge (Epistemology), research method (Methodology), amongst many others. The noumenal properties of the practice will reveal elements such as the internal structure and substance of public institutions, matters of policy, strategy, resources and portfolios of public programmes. In contrast, the phenomenal properties of the field of study embody or denote the recognition of the noumenal properties of Public Administration as it subsists inamongst other academic fields of study such as Political Science, Sociology, History, Philosophy, and Business Sciences. In the case of public administration as practice, the phenomenal properties are recognised inamongst political-economic, socio-political, socio-cultural, socio-economic domains. Whichever quadrant in the topography of P[p]ublic A[a]dministration is investigated, such an investigation always happens within the strictures of either the field of study or its related practice’s ontic expression, namely the science, the art and/or the craft. There is no doubt that the enormity presented by the topographical landscape of P[p]ublic A[a]dministration has the power to intimidate even the most seasoned academic. Subsequently, this study focuses primarily on the following aspects of the academic-internal topography: the corporeal morphology and physiology of a science; the teleology or purpose of Public Administration that emanates from a teleological meta-theory; the ontic description of Public Administration that emanates from an ontological meta-theory; the epistemology of Public Administration that emanates from an epistemological meta-theory; and finally findings and recommendations that stem from recognising a knowledge triad, which is located in the anatomy of a science, between the Teleology, Ontology and Epistemology of Public Administration. The rationale and primary problem statement that directs this study is highlighted as follows: “to what extent will the application of meta-theoretical frameworks, derived from the theory of: the corporeal morphology and physiology of a science; Aristotelian philosophy and the knowledge triads that include: Apex I: Teleology; Apex II: Ontology; and Apex III: Epistemology, contribute, alter or deepen Public Administration theory?” | |
