INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 19 (1), 30-44
SPRING 2016
OF RHIZOMES AND POINTILLISM:
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
Richard Huff, Cynthia Cors, Jinzhou Song, and Yali Pang*
ABSTRACT. The work of David John Farmer has been recognized as critical
to the Public Policy and Administration canon. Its impact has been farreaching both geographically because of its international application and
theoretically because of the vast array of public administration challenges it
can help resolve. This paper uses the concepts of rhizomatic thinking and
reflexive interpretation to describe Farmer’s work. And because a critical
piece of Farmer’s work is a bridging of the gap between theory and practice,
it formally introduces Farmer’s research approach as Farmer’s Method. This
article is intended to serve as a useful tool for students, practitioners, and
theorists in understanding the vast contributions of David John Farmer and
the practical application of his work.
INTRODUCTION
A good scholar publishes and adds to the existing body of
knowledge while gently coaxing students to new ways of
thinking. A great scholar challenges the status quo of the
subject by interrogating the hallowed ground on which that
subject stands. Dr. Farmer is a great scholar (Former
graduate student).
David John Farmer, Ph.D., joins a number of distinguished
scholars, who over the past six decades or more have been prescient
-----------------------* Richard Huff, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Public Policy
and Administration, Virginia Commonwealth University. His research interest
is in government reform, transparency in government and organization
theory. Cynthia Cors, Ph.D., is currently the Acting Director of Program
Operations for the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services.
Jinzhou Song, Ph.D., is a Associate Professor of Public Administration, East
China Normal University, China, Yali Pang is a Ph.D. student at Virginia
Commonwealth University.
Copyright © 2016 by Pracademics Press
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
31
in their critique of public administration for its narrow focus on
instrumentalism at the ultimate expense of its public purpose. Being
conscious of this public purpose is critical but can be easily lost in the
day-to-day routine of bureaucratic work. This is a long recognized
dilemma, one that leaves the field vulnerable to accepting “the way
things are” without question or criticism. Losing the context of a
broad view of developments in other disciplines and in the world is
risky, particularly in an action field committed to the public welfare. It
is one thing to recognize this problem; it is quite another to offer a
method for approaching it by broadening one’s thinking. This is
precisely what David Farmer offers – a means of bridging the gap
between the practical needs of daily professional administration and
the robustness of human intellect and imagination across fields of
thought.
This paper addresses only a small, but what we believe to be
critical, slice of his contribution; what we have termed Farmer’s
Method. We explore rhizomatic thinking, which brings new insight
and knowledge; and reflexive interpretation (artful deliberation),
forerunners and critical parts of epistemic pluralism -- method and
art. We believe Farmer’s broad thinking represents a robust way for
stimulating public administration thinking and bringing about change
by making space for outside ideas, techniques, and perspectives in
the public administrator’s toolbox.
Nearly 60 years ago, Frederick Mosher (1956) criticized the
parochialism among disciplines in The Problem of Interdisciplinary
Communication. Writing in a time of rapid growth, he drew on a
number of new insights and interests which cut across disciplinary
lines and were, in his view, of great importance to public
administration as well as to other disciplines (pp. 173-174). Mosher
saw other fields “…converging with public administration in respect to
interests, research materials, and purposes” (p. 173), emphasizing
public administration’s cross-interests with other social sciences.
Foremost was the central ideal of public purpose in administration,
which he saw as often over-looked; the elements of individual and
organization responsibility, a conditioner of behavior in an
organization; pluralism in the number of forces, pressures and
interests focusing on administrative decision and activity; and
complexity which entails understanding decisions and management
in the context of environmental complexity as opposed to reducing
32
HUFF, CORS, SONG & PANG
and eliminating important information (pp. 176-177). Mosher’s view
of public administration was vast, requiring a crucial reliance on an
expansive knowledge base. He argued that, more than simply
improving the practice of professional management, the
advancement of knowledge is a primary public administration
objective.
Thirty years later, Brack Brown (Brown & Henry, 1989), writing for
a Public Administration Review Special Issue: Minnowbrook II,
Changing Epochs of Public Administration, criticized public
administration in a number of areas. Brown pointed out the need for
a viable core of knowledge to provide an intellectual and professional
anchor for the wide range of administrators working in education,
social welfare, public health, federal and local government (p. 215).
Brown saw specific needs – 1-to move away from the immediate and
practical demands of current events and to lay out a philosophy and
general theory; and 2-to search for foundational knowledge equal to
the ongoing focus on better techniques, structures and methods (p.
216). In addition, Brown noted a lack of emphasis on international
relations, viewed as important in order to adapt to ever-higher levels
of complexity. These issues seem familiar today with a clear need to
integrate the practical and ideal, the useful and ornamental, science
and art (Brown & Henry, 1989).
Dwight Waldo (1984) is often quoted for his claim in The
Administrative State, “Administrative thought must establish a
working relationship with every major province in the realm of human
learning” (p. 203). Waldo (1980) also commented in The Enterprise
of Public Administration: “I view administration as a number of more
or less interrelated arts, sciences, attitudes and procedures that
develop in history and flow through history” (p. 4-5).
In this earlier volume Waldo was referring to the importance of
viewing technology broadly as having physical, social, political and
other aspects (Farmer, 1995, p. 87). These themes of seeking
interdisciplinary knowledge, developing a philosophy of public
administration and looking internationally for understanding are
explored by David Farmer in his work.
Farmer (2010) acknowledges the value of mainstream
perspectives, which have produced a number of valuable insights and
prescriptions. Yet, it is hard to escape the machine-like massive
vertical structures dominating our daily lives (2005). Farmer
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
33
encourages ways of thinking which challenge the status quo. His
approach to public administration includes multiple perspectives
(epistemic pluralism) and thinking as play—acting without purpose,
poetic imagining, associating randomly, dreaming administration as
not hierarchical; or dominated by a symbolic system of the economy;
or harboring an ethic of efficiency.
This paper thinks playfully about the rhizome (Farmer 1995,
2005) and pointillism as an illustration of reflexive interpretation, or
artful deliberation (Farmer, 1995). In contrast to mechanical
bureaucratic structures emphasizing rigid vertical forms, Farmer
advocates for organic, decentralized, rhizomatic development. His call
for reflexive interpretation stems from the observation that our
perspective frames and limits our understanding; it is explored here
through the technique of pointillism. The paper also considers new
avenues of collaborating with Chinese public administration scholars
based on their interest in Farmer’s work.
RHIZOMES AND POINTILLISM
A tailored and ad hoc approach is needed where the better
model for knowing (as Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, explain) is
the rhizome rather than the tree (David John Farmer, 2005).
Farmer (1995) encourages public administration to refocus its
overspecialization and incorporate knowledge from a multitude of
sources, bringing in fresh ideas, creativity and greater understanding
to the field. If taken seriously, this will push us beyond the paradigms
that dominate our thinking, and highlight the conditions that we take
for granted, as well as those that we habitually cast aside or deny
exist. Because there is no readily apparent anti-paradigm against
which we can compare our reality, moving beyond our boundaries is a
difficult task. Suffering Anton’s Blindness (Anton-Babinski Syndrome)
- denying we are blind to our reality - is considerably more
comfortable than making fundamental change. Our habits persist,
even in the face of new realities. Even when, in our blindness, we
stumble and cannot effectively navigate the physical world, we refuse
to confront the underlying condition and affirm that everything is
‘normal’. To question our beliefs, and initiate action against tradition
is hard work; particularly for a profession. It requires a new way of
seeing, and radical thinking sometimes to encourage an actor to
move off a comfortable mark.
34
HUFF, CORS, SONG & PANG
Traditionally, the visualization of the world has been top down,
classifying all things known to man into opposing categories and in
hierarchical relationships, initially with God on top, followed by man
and other creatures in order of perceived importance. The metaphor
of a tree is a powerful one, helping us to make sense of systems of
law, knowledge, genealogy, animal species, Darwin’s Tree of Life and
even the organization chart. The tree is a convenient and powerful
way for people to organize their world with order, unity, balance and
symmetry, with branching metaphors so common as to not be
noticed, such as “branches” of government, military, academic
disciplines and sub-disciplines, and so on (Lima, 2015). This
prevailing metaphor carries with it what is termed arboreal thought,
where all knowledge is assumed to be in a linear arrangement:
hierarchical, striated and tree-like, firmly rooted, springing forth from
a common background, and subdivided into smaller and smaller
categories.
In opposition, Deleuze and Guattari (1987) offer a powerful
philosophical concept using the metaphor of a rhizome as the
antithesis of arboreal thinking in their book A Thousand Plateaus.
Capitalism and Schizophrenia. A rhizome is a root-like horizontal stem
that grows underground and sends out roots below and stems above
the surface (e.g. ginger and crabgrass). There is no ‘center’ and the
rhizome spreads continuously, without a beginning or end. The
rhizome network becomes an assemblage of multiplicities, similar to
the Internet.
When blocked or broken, the rhizome merely
reassembles and moves in other directions. In terms of knowledge it
can be understood as a de-regulated flow of energy, ideas, and
actions removing barriers and moving “radically horizontal” (Lechte,
1994).
Traditional professions develop hierarchically. They build fences
to defend territory and within which they develop ever more
specialized, stratified knowledge. As a result of the rapid acceleration
of knowledge and the complexity of over-specialization, knowledge
can be lost in a linear system. Rhizomatic models can also be seen
as networks permeating disciplinary boundaries (Farmer, 1995, p.
225). Forming a transdisciplinary science that cuts across a number
of disciplinary sciences horizontally allows for a synthesis, integrating
and helping to capture lost knowledge (Farmer, 1995, p. 222).
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
35
Playing with a rhizomatic model can offer opportunities for seeing
differently: rethinking how things “really” work in organizations;
recognizing the threat level of a rhizome model and what it might
represent for some; and possibilities of becoming rather than being.
For example, we impose artificial structures to bring about order over
a naturally disorderly arrangement of people to fit the comfort of our
familiar arboreal thinking, while knowing that the best work gets done
horizontally among informal groups. We attempt to control what
perhaps cannot be controlled. On another level, a rhizome model’s
non-hierarchical opposition to centers of authority and privileged
position undermines existing order and presents a threat to an
established organization or government. Hence, the propensity exists
to impose controls to meet any perceived threats of anarchy. Here,
Farmer points to public administration being a tool for legitimate
social power (Farmer, 2005, p. 150). Thoughts about public
administration as a tool for bringing about fundamental change in the
existing societal structure (possibly a rhizome model) can be avoided
by privileging micro concerns of mid-level managers, which are
technical and deal with mundane matters of day-to-day
administration.
On a more positive note, a rhizomatic model can also suggest
infinite movement, change and a weaving together of an
interconnected tapestry for becoming. This idea stands in stark
contrast to the tree with the implied perfection of the human in the
privileged superior position; being as static rather than becoming as
growing.
While the rhizomatic model can bring greater knowledge,
pointillism helps to gain greater understanding. Farmer’s articulation
of reflexive interpretation can be viewed as analogous to the art form
of pointillism with the micro and macro illustrated reflexively as the
distance between the viewed and viewer vary.
Pointillism or “Divisionism” refers to a painting technique
developed by Georges Seurat (1859-1891) a French artist who
sought to find ways “…to create such retinal vibrations that enlivened
the painted surface, using distinctive short, multi-directional strokes
of almost pure color” (Stokstad & Cothren, 2014, p. 995). Thus,
when perceived by the viewer’s eye at varying distance the artist’s
strokes would appear more or less luminous and intense. For
example, his painting A Sunday Afternoon on the island of La Grande
36
HUFF, CORS, SONG & PANG
Jatte (1884-1886) when viewed at a distance shows clear figures in
the park of varying colors and tones, but when viewed up close,
individual marks of colors become more clear, while the forms
dissolve into abstraction (p. 998). The importance of context
revealed by distance and a macro view is illustrated below (Farmer,
1995, p. 59):
If the eye looks too closely and too directly at, say, the petals
on a flower, the close perspective can limit understanding of
the object observed. It can be helpful to move the head
further back and to notice the context, the sets of
interrelationships, within which the petal is a petal. It can
help to see the relationship of the petal to the flower, then to
the plant, then to the other plants, then to the entire garden
of plants and associated insects, and so on. Several
perspectives can help to expand the understanding.
Parochialism, the close look that sees nothing but the object
under analysis has its own limits.
Distance can determine what we see and how we interpret what
we see. Considering the process of how we learn new information or
knowledge, if we focus on specific points (the micro) it will be difficult
for us to see the relations between these points (the macro). Our
perspective governs the degree of understanding we may reach. The
transformation between macro and micro perspectives influences the
way we define problems and think about solutions. Resolving
problems based on a micro view leaves out important relationships
between variables and results in privileging “technique over purpose”
(Sayre, 1948). A billiards game further illustrates this idea. The
experienced player after the breaking of balls looks at the entire table
for relationships and may or may not position balls through a number
of strategic shots before knocking the ball(s) into the pocket. The
inexperienced player will take the micro shots of knocking the ball(s)
as they can be seen to line up with a pocket, ignoring the broader
landscape of relationships between balls, which changes each time
their arrangement is disturbed by a player’s shot. The knowledge of
the game is limited by “winning” the battle using individual shots,
when from a more macro view the game is won by anticipating and
understanding changes in relationships.
The metaphors and examples discussed here point us toward
discovering new ideas. The rhizome draws us to radical horizontal
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
37
thinking and pointillism to deliberation. We can see more clearly what
is possible, beyond the assumptions of the “tried and true.” Public
administration theory and practice are seen through multiple lenses.
Practice deepens our understanding, stimulates fresh ideas, and
triggers imaginative creativity. This analytic approach is what Farmer
(2010) terms epistemic pluralism.
Epistemic pluralism provides an approach to, what Farmer refers
to as, the “action subject of public administration,” with potential to
challenge students as well as practitioners in new ways of thinking.
Hence the commonly heard phrase among his students, “Dr. Farmer
challenged and changed my way of thinking about the world.”
CHINA
Most would acknowledge China as one of few ancient countries
that developed a civil service nearly 2,000 years ago. Therefore, the
intellectual history of Chinese public administration has deep roots
(Holzer & Zhang, 2002). Evidence of government bureaucracy in
China may date back to the Xia Dynasty in 2033 BC or the Yin
Dynasty in 1766 BC. The civil service system which arose was
founded on the principles of merit-based appointment, rank or salary
compensation, promotion systems, without differentiation between
the municipal and central governments.
The field of public
administration did not fare well in the 20th century with its systematic
study suspended in 1952 for ideological reasons. Reinstated in the
1980’s in universities, public administration grew during the1990’s
with now approximately 40 universities offering undergraduate and
graduate programs, with extensions beyond the study of exclusive
state administration, into a third sector and non-profits (Holzer &
Zhang, 2002).
China represents approximately 20% of the world population
(Holzer & Zhang, 2002). Their technological advances, economic
growth, and global influence are spectacular. Global relationships are
requisite to solving social problems and ensuring social welfare, and
achieving a deeper understanding of China is a critical need for in the
rest of the world. Ancient Chinese wisdom, culture and history of
government and civil service systems, as well as their tremendous
progress in all areas should pique the imaginations of public
administration scholars worldwide.
38
HUFF, CORS, SONG & PANG
In Spring 2014, Jinzhou Song found 54 published articles
referencing David Farmer’s work in Chinese academic journals..
Jinzhou Song, from East China Normal University (ECNU) spent a year
(2008 and 2009) at Virginia Commonwealth University and at SPEA,
Indiana University as a visiting professor. As part of his visit he asked
to attend a number of graduate classes, and ended up attending the
classes for the entire semester. He was not only present in the
classrooms but read the materials and participated actively. Song
was especially captivated by the theory course he attended with
David Farmer and maintained correspondence with Farmer after his
return to China.
Farmer’s The Language of Public Administration (1995), was
translated into Chinese in 2005. Judging from the number of
published articles Jinzhou Song found in which Farmer’s name
appears, Farmer’s ideas have generated substantial interest among
Chinese scholars in less than ten years. To ensure that the scholars
were addressing or responding to Farmer’s ideas rather than simply
citing his name, a Chinese doctoral student, Yali Pang, conducted
extensive reviews to determine which articles most substantively
engaged Farmer’s ideas.
The first task was to determine how many of these publications
were substantive works, book reviews or citations as they were all
written in Chinese. Unfortunately, complete translations were not
possible given resource constraints so Pang agreed to read the
articles, sort them and write short summaries of substantial works so
we could review them. As a result, 28 articles were seen as closely
related to exploring or examining aspects of Farmer’s ideas. A listing
of these articles is at Appendix A.
Applying the rhizome metaphor once again, we can perhaps gain
an appreciation for the movement of new knowledge and ideas
horizontally where artificial boundaries are made more permeable. In
the case of China, the human constructions of political and national
boundaries can be made permeable through interaction in the
movement of ideas. Parochialism becomes less important and
common problems may be examined through a Chinese perspective
with perhaps new insight and ideas generated for all concerned.
Farmer’s ideas and perspectives clearly activated creative and critical
thinking among Chinese scholars, and lead them to further explore
problems in Chinese public administration. The Chinese scholars are
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
39
impressed by Farmer’s ideas of a language paradigm, imagination
and limitations in modern public administration. These ideas help
scholars increase their own creativity and methods of analysis when
studying Chinese public administration.
Once we have full translations and analysis, we hope to explore
conditions existing in China that, judging from the article topics,
would generate this level of interest. Maybe an answer can be found
in the more dynamic atmosphere of change in China, or looking more
deeply, perhaps at its culture.
Using Geert Hofstede’s cultural schemata as a quick reference,
there are stark differences when comparing China and the US on the
individualism/collectivism scale. On a scale of 100 the Chinese
culture ranks at 20 in individualism, while the US ranks 91
(http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html). That the Chinese are a
collectivist culture is no surprise, but one could speculate they may
be more open to exploring multiple perspectives in general. The
analysis based on the Hofstede scale describes the Chinese as more
likely to act in the interest of a group; commitment to an organization
alone is low but to the people in an organization it is high. Personal
relationships with colleagues are cooperative and prevail over task
and organization. Based on these characteristics, one could infer
that the Chinese are likely less arboreal in their orientation and more
receptive to rhizome thought; among public administration scholars
perhaps more readily receptive to new ideas than their counterparts
in the US. In studies on innovation diffusion, early acceptance of new
ideas is found in collectivist societies (where in-groups are
influential); individualistic societies tend to mediate and delay
acceptance of innovation (where out-groups are more influential)
(Dwyer, Mesak, & Hsu, 2005).
This question is, along with a full comparative analysis along the
lines of arboreal and rhizomic thought, topics for other projects.
However, the implications of the arboreal thinking of US public
administration are far reaching considering our domination of the
field.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE
David John Farmer’s influence on public administration has been
profound. This paper explained a small part of his influence using the
40
HUFF, CORS, SONG & PANG
metaphor of rhizomes and the art of pointillism, suggested a robust
methodology known as Farmer’s Method. This paper also showed the
international impact of Farmer’s work through a cursory analysis of
articles from Chinese scholars and commentaries by Farmer’s
students at Virginia Commonwealth University. What then are the
implications for PA practice? To quote most current and former
students, “Dr. Farmer made me think in new and different ways.”
Farmer’s method enables students, researchers, practitioners, and
others to gain new understandings using a mosaic created by viewing
through multiple lenses. The mundane becomes interesting and the
black and white becomes Technicolor. The process itself is creative
and stimulating. Each lens can be appreciated anew. Then the
practical application, with options otherwise not considered, is
available to be developed and implemented.
CONCLUSION
Public administration in 2015 has not changed substantively
from public administration in the 1960s and 1970s when Frederick
Mosher and his peers were developing the field (Mosher, 1968). It is
still caught in a web, a web in which the forces of economics and
business exert a push and pull that hinders development. PA needs
to settle what part of market economics it wants to shed. From a
macro-level, should PA continue to contract services to the lowest
bidder and accept the work of those interested in a profitable bottomline that does not meet the needs of the client? From a micro-level,
should PA continue to tolerate the silo-ing within agencies and its
attendant costs of redundancy, mistakes, and poor customer service?
Will PA acknowledge that for-profit models and efficiency have high
costs for agencies, even if the private sector profits, and that silo-ing
is a thing of the past? The work of David John Farmer has brought
the field forward to the present and beyond and provided Farmer’s
method as a tool for getting all levels of PA theorists and practitioners
beyond Mosher’s submarining (Mosher, 1968, p. 108). Not just in
the US, but in China, Korea, and other countries, the method of David
John Farmer is a catalyst for change. Simple in complexity and
profound in effect, Farmer’s work can help PA awaken to the future.
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
41
REFERENCES
Brown, B., & Henry, B. (1989). “The Search for Public Administration:
Roads Not Followed.” Public Administration Review, 49 (2): 215217.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism
and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Dwyer, S., Mesak, H., & Hsu, M. (2005). “An Exploratory Examination
of the Influence of National Culture on Cross-National Product
Diffusion.” Journal of International Marketing, 13 (2), pp. 1-28.
Farmer, D. J. (1995). The Lanuage of Public Administration:
Bureaucracy, Modernity and Postmodernity. Tuscaloosa, AL:
University of Alabama Press.
Farmer, D. J. (2005). To Kill the King: Post-Traditional Governance
and Bureaucracy. London, UK: M.E. Sharpe.
Farmer, D. J. (2010). Public Administration in Perspective: Theory and
Practice Through Multiple Lenses. London: M.E. Sharpe.
Hofstede, G. (2015). The Hofstede Centre: StrategyCulture – Change
[Online]. Available at http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html.
(Accessed September 1, 2015).
Holzer, M., & Zhang, M. (2002). “Chinese Public Administration
Review: An Introduction.” Chinese Public Administration Review.
1(1): 1-8.
Jasso, G. (1988). “Whom Shall We Welcome? Elite Judgments of the
Criteria for the Selection of Immigrants.” American Sociological
Review, 53(6): 919-932.
Lechte, J. (1994). Fifty Key Contempory Thinkers: From Structuralism
to Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
Lima, M. (2015). A Visual History of Human Knowledge. [Online].
Available at www.ted.com/talks/manuel_lima_a_visual_history
_of_human_knowledge.
Mosher, F. C. (1956). “Research in Public Administration: Some
Notes and Suggestions.” Public Administration Review, 16 (3):
169-178.
42
HUFF, CORS, SONG & PANG
Mosher, Frederick C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Sayre, W.S. (1948). “Reviewed Work: Personnel Administration: A
Point of View and a Method.” Public Administration Review, 8 (2):
134-137.
Stokstad, M. & Cothren, M. (2014). Art History. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Publishing.
Waldo, D. (1980). The Enterprise of Public Administration. Novato,
CA: Chandler and Sharp.
Waldo, D. (1984). The Administrative State: The Study of the Political
Theory of American Public Administration. Teaneck, NJ: Holmes
and Meier.
APPENDIX A
List of articles from Chinese Journals
Chen, Q. (2011). “Model and Inspiration of the Decanonization—
Comment on Farmer’s Idea about Post-traditional Governance.”
Journal of Public Administration, 2: 151-169.
Chen, X. (2010). “Reflection on Discourse Theory of Postmodern
Public Administration.” Knowledge Economy, 5: 67-67.
Chen, X. H. (2012). “Reflective Study on Government Performance
Measurement: Alienation and Reversion.” Journal of Zhejian
Provincial Party School, 143(1): 124-128.
Deng, J. W. (2012). “The Research on Citizen Participation Based on
the Discourse Theory of Postmodern Public Administration.” East
China Economic Management, 26(6): 21-25.
Ding, H. (2005). “Analysis and Assessment of Theory of Farmer’s
Postmodern Public Administration.” Journal of Shanghai
Administration Institute, 6 (6): 24-32.
Ding, L. (2011). “Deconstruction and Reconstruction on the
Legitimacy of Public Administration—Toward Postmodernism.”
Journal of UESTC , 13 (6): 8-12.
Fan, Q. (2013). “Philosophy Foundation of Postmodern Public
Administration Theory.” Paper Presented at the 2013 Seminar on
DAVID JOHN FARMER’S INFLUENCE, METHOD AND ART IN THE FIELD
43
Regional Economy and Coastal Region Development in Hebei,
Qinhuan Island, China, Yanshan University.
He, J. W. (2009). “Deconstruction and Reconstruction of the
Legitimacy in Public Administration—Based on the Postmodern
Public Administration Theory.” Public Administration and Law, 10
(3): 50-52.
He, J. W. (2010). “An Introduction of the Paradigm of Postmodern
Public Administration.” Journal of Capital Normal University, 197
(6): 114-118.
Hu, X. F. (2011). “Postmodern Public Administration: A Discourse Way
of Highlighling Administrative Publicity.” East China Economic
Management, 25 (3): 133-137.
Hu, B. (2007). “Can the Theory of Postmodern Public Administration
Help Us Get Out of Ethical Dilemma in Public Administration?”
Practice and Theory of Seas, 4: 73-76.
Huang, X. Z. (2012). “Public Nature of Administration in Postmodern
Discourse.” Social Sciences in Ningxia, 170 (1): 17-22.
Liu, X. (2009). “Reflection and Deconstruction—Public Administration
in the Postmodern Context.” Theory Observation, 2: 36-38.
Ma, J. (2006). “Reflection on Chinese Public Administration Research
The Courage to Face Difficulties.” Journal of Sun Yatsen
University 46(3): 73-83.
Song, J. Z. (2008). “Interview with David John Farmer.” Journal of
Public Administration, 2: 182-197.
Tang, H. C. (2009). “Reconstruction of the Value System of Chinese
Policy in the Postmodern Context.” Learning Monthly, 440 (11):
34-35.
Wang, L. S. (2009). “Research Status of ‘Paradigm Transition’ in
Public Administration and Reflection.” Tribune of Study, 25 (5):
50-52.
Xie, X. & Zhang, L. (2007). “Essentials of the Theory of Postmodern
Public Administration.” Chinese Public Administration, 267(9):
95-98.
Yan, J. & Wang, J. (2012). Study on the Narrative Mode of Public
Administration. Jounal of Henan Normal University, 39 (4), 32-38.
44
HUFF, CORS, SONG & PANG
Yao, M. X. (2008). “Theory of Postmodern Public Administration and
the Public Administration in Contemporary China.” Academic
Search for Truth and Reality, 180(5): 23-28.
Zeng, H. (2009). “Analysis and Assessment of the Theory of
Postmodern Public Administration.” Learning Monthly, 436 (9): 57.
Zhang, F. (2006). “Postmodern Public Administration—A Critical
Study.” Journal of Renmin University of China, 4: 32-37.
Zhang, K. Z. (2007). “Exploration of the Democratization of Public
Administration---after
Reading
the
Postmodern
Public
Administration: Toward Discourse.” Journal of China National
School of Administration, 33(4): 33-36.
Zhang, K. Z. (2008). Technologism in the Research on Public
Administration. Theory and Reform, 2: 5-9.
Zhang, K. Z. & Zhang, Q. Y. (2013). “The Concept of Public
Administration in the Context of Postmodernism.” Journal of
Beijing Administrative College, 39(8): 39-46.
Zhang, K. (2009). “Problems Need to be Attached Importance to in
the Research on Public Administration.” Journal of School of
Administration in Zhuhai City, 1: 49-54.
Zhang, K. Z. (2014). “Discussion on the ‘Imagination’ in Postmodern
Public Administration—Based on the Reading of Language of
Public Administration by Farmer.” Journal of Ningxia Communist
Party Institute, 3: 51-59.
Zhang, K. Z. (2008). “Study on Participatory Governance, Social
Autonomy and Cooperative Governance.” Administrative Tribune,
90(6): 1-6.