Toward a More Reflexive and Deliberative Public Affairs: A Critical Reimagining of Doctoral Training

Abstract

Doctoral students occupy a unique space in academia: as future scholars and instructors, they are both trainees and trainers, positioned to reproduce research and teaching practices as well as to disrupt and improve them. The role of the state in the social, political, and economic crises of 2020, including the COVID-19 pandemic and continuous, racialized police violence, has highlighted the need to critically interrogate public affairs’ (PA) norms and values. The “New Four E’s” (empathy, engagement, ethics, and equity) suggest a reorientation of the field’s norms and values towards social justice. As part of this field-level shift towards more just public affairs, this paper offers a reimagining of PA doctoral training by institutionalizing the socioemotional processes of reflexivity and deliberation in three key areas of doctoral training: core coursework, pedagogical training, and professional development. The argument outlined in this paper draws on literature from the fields of public administration, education, pedagogical philosophy, psychology, management, and sociology to stimulate dialogue and action among PA scholars and practitioners with the ultimate goal of embedding the New Four E’s as core field values.

Keywords:

• Doctoral education
• reflexivity
• deliberation
• pedagogy
• antiracism

Author contributions

A.D., A.R.G., and C.P.S. contributed equally to the research and writing of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to offer gratitude to the OSU Glenn College of Public Affairs doctoral program for connecting us with faculty willing to hear and support our reimaginings and with peers eager to push the field of public affairs toward justice. We thank Drs. Erynn Beaton, Jill Clark, Stéphane Lavertu, Stephanie Moulton, and Jos Raadschelders as well as two anonymous reviewers for providing insightful feedback that strengthened the paper. Finally, we remain indebted to the PA scholars at the forefront of reorienting the field to emphasize empathy, engagement, ethics, equity, and antiracism.

Notes

1 We consider the field of public affairs to encompass public administration, public and nonprofit management, and public policy. 

2 The term colorblind racism assumes that those who are blind are unable to know about race; this is a falsehood. Additionally, it leads one to believe that colorblind racism is passive, where in fact it is an act of first knowing that race exists and intentionally ignoring it. Thus color-evasive racism is more appropriate because it highlights the active component of “not seeing race“ and active erasure of the racialized reality and harms experienced by people of color (Annamma et al., 2017). 

3 We define post-positivism as a philosophy of science based on an objective ontology and a mostly objective epistemology that acknowledges human fallibility in understanding reality.

4 Though this paper does not address other systems of oppression professional development trainings, grounded in reflexivity and deliberation, should also interrogate classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, discrimination against religious minorities, xenophobia, fatphobia, and ableism.

5 Dr. Shardé Davis and Dr. Joy Melody Woods, two Black women communications scholars, started this hashtag in 2020, following the mass movement protesting police violence against Black Americans,

6 Academic service work, including the professional development activities described above, often requires an extensive time commitment, falls upon non-cis-males and academics of color, and does not carry the same weight in hiring and promotional decisions (Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group, 2017; Dubois-Shaik et al., 2019).