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

Introduction

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. Doctoral training is a time of marked change for a developing scholar, as students assimilate new knowledge, construct scholarly identities, and establish professional independence (Baird, 1993; Weidman et al., 2001). The socialization process, both into the student’s field of study and their specific degree-granting institution, immerses the student in organizational and professional culture through “symbolic and instrumental” activities that foster shared purpose and meaning within those domains (Tierney, 1997, p. 3; Lankau & Scandura, 2007). Doctoral students are not merely passive recipients but active participants in this socialization process, exercising agency to meet needs unfulfilled through institutionalized socialization activities (Smith & Hatmaker, 2014); this is especially salient in times, like the present, of significant social, economic, political, and environmental change that demand value shifts in research and praxis (Kendall, 2002).

Within the field of public affairs (PA)¹, some students and scholars are newly awakened by the events of 2020; others find the moment to be one of several significant punctuations in centuries of entrenched injustice spanning colonialism, slavery, genocide, and Jim Crow. Recent PA scholarship has grappled with the racialized and gendered inequalities promulgated by federal, state, and local governments (e.g., Thadhani, 2005; Bearfield, 2009; Gaynor et al., 2021). The result of these efforts is a growing body of work critiquing color-evasive racism², epistemological intolerance, and methodological individualism within the classical PA canon. These issues result from and contribute to PA’s enduring focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and economy as core values (the “Three E’s”; Adams, 1992; Heckler, 2019; Portillo et al., 2020; Berry-James et al., 2021). Yet the role of PA doctoral education in perpetuating these values is rarely critiqued (exceptions include Blessett et al., 2016; Carboni et al., 2019). As a result, doctoral socialization processes largely do not respond to recommendations of this scholarship to teach students critical reflexivity, deliberative democracy, and epistemological tolerance. This omission risks leaving doctoral students underprepared to produce field-advancing research that takes seriously the power of norms and values legitimated by the authoritative voice of academic research. It also compromises their ability to train future administrators in a way that elevates authentic engagement with and empathy for constituents, facilitates the ethical performance of duties, and produces equitable outcomes for all citizens.

The New Four E’s, empathy, engagement, ethics, and equity, are an emerging and interrelated set of values that suggest a shift in the field’s norms and values towards social justice (Johnson III et al., forthcoming; Norman-Major, 2011). Since doctoral training remains an important site for the institutionalization of field norms, it provides an opportunity for positive disruption to further embed the New Four E’s in PA. As part of a field-level shift towards more just public affairs, this paper offers a reimagining of PA doctoral training by embedding the socioemotional processes of reflexivity and democratic deliberation in three key areas of doctoral socialization. This paper is not an empirical assessment of the state of doctoral education in PA, nor is it a critique of any particular degree-granting institution. Rather, this paper offers a critically reflexive and research-based vision for the future of the field, which hinges on training the next generation of its scholars and instructors. The organization of this paper proceeds as follows. First, the following section reviews doctoral socialization processes defines the Three and Four E’s, and outlines an argument for transitioning to new core values in PA. Second, the paper discusses socioemotional processes and why they are important in doctoral training. Third, the authors discuss their approach and positionalities. The remainder of the paper consists of a discussion of three specific areas of doctoral training that are posited to benefit from a socioemotional reorientation: core coursework, pedagogical training, and professional development.

Background

The three E’s, the four E’s, and doctoral training in public affairs

While ample research investigates masters and undergraduate training in PA, fewer articles address doctoral training. Extant research on doctoral training in PA largely focuses on the structure and quality of Ph.D. programs (Overman et al., 1993); methodological training (Brewer et al., 1998; Rethemeyer & Helbig, 2005), course offerings in NASPAA-affiliated doctoral programs (Brewer et al., 1998; Holzer et al., 2007), dissertation research (Adams & White, 1994; Slagle & Williams, 2019), emotional intelligence training (Kiel et al., 2009), and work-life balance (Bodkin & Fleming, 2019; Schwoerer et al., 2021). Less critical attention has been paid to how doctoral training in PA socializes new scholars into the prevailing norms, values, and habits of the PA professoriate (see Raadschelders & Douglas, 2003; Marshall, 2016 for exceptions). This is regrettable, as organizational-level, institutionalized socialization tactics employed in PA doctoral programs shape new scholars’ identities by illuminating the boundaries (topical, epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical) of what is acceptable, respected, and legitimate (Prasad, 2013; Smith & Hatmaker, 2014). Failure to question these boundaries reproduces the social-historical structures of power and dominance embedded within them. Hence, state-sanctioned harm of racialized and other marginalized groups manifests through the mechanism of “expert” or “scholarly” knowledge (Muncie, 2006; Pereira, 2017).

State-sanctioned harm refers to both acute and systematic mistreatment of a polity’s residents by representatives of the state, state institutions, and/or individuals and representatives empowered by the state to act on its behalf (Delgado, 2020). State-sanctioned harm arises when public servants implement inherently harmful policies or when public servants use their discretion to discriminate against residents (Adams & Balfour, 2014). In the U.S., examples of state-sanctioned harm abound. Law enforcement officers disproportionately subject racialized minorities, Black and Indigenous Americans in particular, to stops, searches, and violence, a legacy that dates to colonial times (Muhammad, 2019). Long documented housing discrimination and segregation through redlining (Rothstein, 2017), urban renewal (Alkadry & Blessett, 2010; Benton, 2018), and gerrymandering (Okonta, 2017) create inequality in social service availability and diminish the power of the vote. The COVID-19 pandemic made vivid the reality of state-sanctioned harm as low-income and Black neighborhoods experienced less access to public testing clinics (Sabatello et al., 2021), a reflection of long-standing health disparities in low-income communities and communities of color (Yearby, 2018). Scholars have connected these harms to the legacy of technical rationality, a world view which prioritizes efficiency, effectiveness, and economy as well as reliance on expert knowledge. Technical rationality fails to acknowledge the ethical context of decision-making and does not problematize the circumstances in which knowledge arises (Adams & Balfour, 2014; Starke et al., 2018).

The values of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy have a long history in PA. According to Frederickson, the economy is the “management of scarce resources and particularly with expending the fewest resources for an agreed-upon level of public services” (Frederickson, 2010, p. xv), while efficiency means “achieving the most, the best, or the most preferable public services for available resources” (2010, p. xv). Effectiveness concerns “producing a desired result or accomplishing set goals” (Norman-Major, 2011, p. 236). In his sketch of the evolution of public administration, Henry (1975) identifies the early years of the scientific management period (between 1900 and 1938) with the rise of technical rationality, featuring a focus on a “values-free” science whose mission was “economy and efficiency, period” (p. 379). Field leaders began referring to the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as the three pillars of public administration; thenceforth, “the Three E’s” of public administration became accepted terminology and practice.

Policies, policymakers, and policy scientists who have adhered to the Three E’s have played a significant role in evading the racialized reality in the US and globally (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Alexander, 2010). The Three E’s suggest that policies can be implemented in a color-evasive manner, but this ignores the racialized history of material distribution and the particular oppression of Black and Indigenous people in the colonization of the Americas to the benefit of White European settlers (Annamma et al., 2017). The Three E’s framework reifies existing power structures and dominant discourses by failing to require scholars and administrators to reflect on personal or structural endowments that could influence their interaction with the public. As Oldfield (2010) argues, “[E]lite values commonly become the country's unexamined truths, the ideas that get an automatic pass or that the average citizen seldom questions. [… This results in an] exercise [of] power by keeping questions off the agenda” (p. 451). This remains true for discourses including and beyond race regarding socioeconomic class, gender, sexuality, ability, and others. Unquestioned narratives taken up and promulgated by administrators contributes to the reproduction of disparities (Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008; Bhandaru, 2013; Benton, 2018; Adams & Balfour, 2020).

Acknowledging the harmful and discriminatory outcomes associated with prioritizing the Three E’s, Fredrickson and the New Public Administration movement, decades ago, appended social equity into the traditional pillars of public administration (Frederickson, 1971). The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) defines social equity as “the fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract, and the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy” (Perry, 2005).

Public Integrity’s call to center PA around a new Four E’s maintains equity as a core focus but incorporates the values of ethics, engagement, and empathy. Ethics refers to the ability to act morally, and in this context, in the public interest (Bok, 1990; Norman-Major, 2011). Engagement requires actively soliciting, encouraging, and facilitating meaningful participation of those who have historically been excluded from public participation and civic processes (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015; Holley, 2016). This requires practitioners and scholars to examine the relationship between public administration and power (Farmer, 2003), specifically the construction of the public/individual citizens, administrative conduct, (Catlaw, 2007), and how individuals resist discriminatory policy implementation (Nisar, 2017). Empathy references the ability to “recognize, understand, and respond to the feelings of another” (Edlins & Dolamore, 2018, p. 301) and has both passive (internal to oneself) and active (changing one’s behavior) components that help mediate interactions with others. Empathy “offers a way to improve these interactions [with the public] and bring them more in line with expected public service values” (Edlins & Dolamore, 2018 p. 301). Training doctoral students in the New Four E’s is theorized to improve PA research and practice, as training has been found throughout the literature to improve organizational outcomes (e.g., Arthur et al., 2003; Webb & Sergison, 2003; Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Jakobsen et al., 2019).

As part of reorienting the field towards the New Four E’s, doctoral training offers an opportunity for positive disruption of socio-historical structures of power and dominance. Programs that do not actively interrogate these structures, and the historical and ideological forces shaping them, risk replicating existing power dynamics. This is especially problematic in an applied field like PA, which aims to foster action based on knowledge (Abel, 2009). If administrative actions create harm based on expert knowledge, that knowledge is at least partially complicit; this requires much care to be taken regarding values and norms communicated by scholarly research. Doctoral students, as new scholars, must be taught to examine these values closely. The power structures underlying efficiency, effectiveness, and economy (the Three E’s), can be challenged by instead centering on empathy, ethics, engagement, and equity (The New Four E’s; Marshall, 2016). This paper argues that this can be accomplished in part by institutionalizing two socioemotional processes (reflexivity and deliberative democracy) in PA doctoral training. The next section discusses these socioemotional processes.

Frederickson’s socioemotional processes

In his original article on social equity in public administration, Frederickson argued that one aspect of integrating social equity as a fundamental value of PA involves socioemotional processes, which he described as “enabling [public servants] to tolerate conflict and emotions, and indeed under certain circumstances, to welcome them” (1971, p. 327). Socioemotional processes remain distinct from emotional processes because of their relational focus. Socioemotional processes are also distinct from social processes because they integrate the affective with cognitive and behavioral elements of experience. To build on Frederickson’s conceptualization, socioemotional processes involve reflexivity and democratic deliberation. Figure 1 visualizes the relationships and distinctions between components of socioemotional processes.

Figure 1. Socioemotional processes.

Cunliffe and Jun (2005) define reflexivity as “the need to question our natural and often taken-for-granted attitudes such as our prejudice, bias, thoughts, and habits” (p. 226). They distinguish between self-reflexivity and critical reflexivity: self-reflexivity refers to the process of interrogating one’s own beliefs and ideologies, while critical reflexivity refers to the process of critiquing assumptions embedded in societal institutions (Harmon, 1995; Cunliffe & Jun, 2005). As a socioemotional process, deliberation normalizes conflict and negotiation between diverse perspectives and values (Gutmann, 1987; Salm & Ordway, 2010; Longo, 2013; Trede et al., 2016). In tandem with reflexivity, deliberation forces individuals to become self-aware and seek integration with others (Stout & Love, 2017) rather than engaging in a heated debate with a reliance on “neutral” expertise or antagonistic assumptions (Shaffer, 2014). Deliberative relationships are characterized by reciprocal respect, rational discussion (not necessarily agreement), and cultivating space for a plurality of perspectives to be expressed (Gutmann, 1987; Thayer-Bacon, 2004; Longo, 2013; Shaffer, 2014, 2019; Davids & Waghid, 2016; Trede et al., 2016).

Reflexivity and deliberation support and enable each other. Both self- and critical reflexivity stimulate change through action motivated by problematizing the status quo (Cunliffe & Jun, 2005). Deliberation normalizes the conflict that results from such problematization, allowing for the unearthing of creative, communal solutions (Thayer-Bacon, 2004; Longo, 2013; Shaffer, 2014, 2019; Trede et al., 2016). Deliberation without reflexivity risks reinforcing existing power dynamics (Bagg, 2018). Reflexivity without deliberation risks isolation and navel-gazing (Emirbayer & Desmond, 2012). Doctoral training that incorporates deliberation and reflexivity will enable students to explore, question, and challenge taken-for-granted professional norms and values.

Approach and positionality statement

This paper resulted from a series of deliberative conversations among PA doctoral students at The Ohio State University, a large, Midwestern land-grant university, over the summer of 2020. This group gathered to discuss how the field of PA fails to adequately address white supremacy and persistent harms to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color caused directly or indirectly by the public sector, as outlined in the discussion on state-sanctioned harm. These conversations and reimaginings were inspired by radical Black feminist praxis, which invites “rigorous and consistent evaluation of what kind of a future we wish to create, and a scrupulous examination of the expressions of power we choose to incorporate into all our relationships” (Lorde, 1988). In considering how doctoral training might be adapted to embed antiracism as a core value, we sought literature on doctoral socialization, pedagogy, and professional development from a variety of fields. Reflexively and deliberatively interpreting the literature through the lens of our personal experiences allowed us to develop specific suggestions for change, which we present in the following section.

While drafting this paper, we engaged in self-reflexivity by interrogating our own positionalities and how they shape our views on doctoral training in PA (Bourke, 2014; Rowe, 2014; Holmes, 2020). We are a group of three doctoral students at a large predominantly White R1 university in the Midwest, a position that deepens our understanding of current doctoral training based on our lived experiences. We represent different stages of doctoral candidacy and thus different stages of the socialization process (Smith & Hatmaker, 2014). We have all worked as public sector employees, which informs our understanding of the bureaucratic practice and ethical responsibility. We are all cis-gendered women; DiTommaso identifies as White, Glickman identifies as a White Ashkenazi Jew, and Scott identifies as African American. Our racialized and gendered identities shape how we experience institutional socialization processes in academia, a predominately White and male space (Lovitts, 2001). While women are better represented in PA than other academic disciplines, masculine power structures predominate, influencing the way we engage with the field and with doctoral socialization (Edwards et al., 2019). Our collective deliberation on our different experiences allows for a multifaceted and critically reflexive consideration of racialized and gendered socialization processes. Below, we offer the results of this collective reflection and reimagining.

Reimagining three key areas of doctoral training

Incorporating the New Four E’s into doctoral training requires three changes: diversifying core coursework; orienting pedagogical training around deliberative democratic values; and institutionalizing professional development training focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism. These changes would primarily affect organizational-level processes through which doctoral programs socialize students into the PA professoriate (Smith & Hatmaker, 2014). The following subsections first explain how each area of doctoral training contributes to the institutionalization of field norms, and then offer initial visions of how reflexivity and deliberation might be practically embedded in each area. Please note that, though reflexivity and democratic deliberation are discussed throughout, some areas of doctoral socialization are more amenable to one process over others.

Core coursework: Foundational literature and logics of inquiry

As emerging researchers and instructors, doctoral students must master core PA theories and concepts, and this requires fluency in foundational PA literature. As in all social sciences, syllabi communicate which foundational PA literature one must know to be competent in the field (Weidman et al., 2001). These collections of scholarly works, and the concepts, theories, and frameworks contained within them, convey what is important to know and what knowledge other scholars find valuable (Austin, 2002; Shulman, 2005; Walker et al., 2008). Syllabi legitimize the values and norms implied in assigned readings based on the authority of the faculty that create and assign them (Corcoran & Clark, 1984; Staton & Darling, 1989). Indeed, candidacy or qualifying examinations, central milestones of doctoral training, largely assess mastery of foundational literature. Achieving mastery confers both professional legitimacy within academic circles and authority within the instructional space (Golde, 1998; Lankau & Scandura, 2007; Abel, 2009). This legitimation reinforces the values and knowledge contained within foundational literature, which leads to the institutionalization of those values over time (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). By this logic, the extent to which the New Four E’s are incorporated in or excluded from foundational coursework communicates the value of these constructs for professional legitimacy in PA research and practice. Syllabi that facilitate reflexive critique and deliberation make space for students to interrogate, disrupt, and improve institutionalized field norms (Vaara et al., 2006; Battilana et al., 2009). Core course designers can enhance opportunities for reflexivity and deliberation by careful consideration of the epistemological perspectives, authorship positionalities, and subject matter of assigned readings.

Learning to identify epistemological grounding, or justification of knowledge claims, is a critical part of PA doctoral training (Raadschelders, 2019). Foundational PA literature mainly relies on positivist or post-positivist³ epistemologies (Riccucci, 2010). Despite the desire to be objective, public affairs research is normative (Dahl, 1947; Lasswell, 1951; Frederickson, 2015). Researchers ask questions like: how should government function? How should policies be measured? How do we know when success is achieved? How do we know when policies should change? Scholars often explore these normative questions from a (post)positivist orientation, an epistemological orientation that does not as deeply question the normative assumptions and values upon which scholars create and explore research questions. Therefore, exploring non-positivist approaches and evaluating both (post)positivist and non-positivist epistemological assumptions through deliberation and reflexivity will improve PA research and shift the field towards the New Four E’s.

Non-positivist approaches fundamentally differ from (post)positivist logic of inquiry and require different ontological assumptions and standards of rigor. Often, questions and knowledge considered meaningful for non-positivist research diverge from those prioritized by positivist research (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2013). Several scholars have called for PA to incorporate a better understanding of non-positivist paradigms, including ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions, as well as the standards by which reviewers can assess non-positivist research (e.g., Belgrave et al., 2002; Dodge et al., 2005; Mahoney & Goertz, 2006; Pratt, 2009; Nowell & Albrecht, 2019; Maxwell, 2020). Yet, PA doctoral syllabi infrequently or unsystematically engage non-positivist epistemological traditions, including critical, interpretivist, and post-modern approaches (Haverland & Yanow, 2012; Blessett et al., 2016). Therefore, unless doctoral students supplement exposure from other disciplines or self-study, they remain unlikely to engage non-positivist epistemological perspectives. This situation maintains the status quo, which emphasizes (post)positivism, prizes instrumental knowledge, and marginalizes perspectives that would pose serious challenges to the primacy of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy in PA research.

Non-positivist epistemologies produce knowledge that tends to support the New Four E’s for several reasons. First, in their general rejection of a single objective reality, non-positivist approaches tend to highlight or explore the plurality of lived experience and individual sensemaking. Second, non-positivist approaches seriously engage the meanings constructed through the experiences of individuals and communities, lending legitimacy to these meanings in order to co-construct research and solutions toward public ends. These two points suggest an intentional and empathetic inclusion of multiple perspectives and interpretations. Third, non-positivist approaches facilitate deeper engagement with the context dependency that characterizes many PA topics. Whereas (post)positivist methodologies achieve generalizability by removing or abstracting context, non-positivist methodologies view context as an essential element that shapes meanings given to phenomena of interest (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2013; Maxwell, 2020). Thus, non-positivist methodologies often describe and analyze context (historical, geographic, social, etc.) more thoroughly than (post)positivist methodologies (Raimondo & Newcomer, 2017). This is important as context shapes what equity means and how to achieve it. Finally, non-positivist approaches require researchers to engage in self- and critical reflexivity and thus investigate the ethical implications of their actions. Interpretivists view researchers as study instruments, acknowledging that researchers’ personal experiences and positionalities deeply and unconsciously influence the questions asked, research design, data collection, and analysis process (Rossman & Rallis, 2003).

Although not all PA doctoral students will embrace interpretivist ways of knowing in their professional lives, (post)positivist researchers and the knowledge they produce would benefit from adopting the aforementioned practices of reflexivity throughout the research process. It remains particularly important to reflect on one’s research assumptions when investigating topics that may further marginalize and harm oppressed groups and individuals. Exposure to and deliberation on different philosophies of science during doctoral training can help build a shared language among researchers with different epistemological orientations (e.g., Belgrave et al., 2002; Dodge et al., 2005; Mahoney & Goertz, 2006; Pratt, 2009; Nowell & Albrecht, 2019; Maxwell, 2020). Epistemological tolerance and training in a range of methodologies can also help new scholars grapple with the dimensionality of core PA research topics. Some PA doctoral programs may currently require students to take courses in non-positivist methodologies; the rest of the field should also require diversified methodological training.

The non-positivist stance that researchers’ positionalities and experiences shape the knowledge produced by their research highlights the importance of considering authorship of assigned readings. If authors’ positionalities influence the knowledge they produce, diversifying syllabi by featuring a range of positionalities creates a broader pool of knowledge upon which to reflect and deliberate. The traditional American PA canon has historically developed from the perspectives of White, Western, well-educated cis-men (Stivers, 2002; Gooden & Blessett, 2020; Santis, 2020). The dominance of these perspectives both reflects and perpetuates broader societal power dynamics of white supremacy, classism, and sexism, limiting deliberative space (Zidani, 2021). Offering counternarratives encourages critical reflexivity and collective deliberation of taken-for-granted assumptions about PA practice, leading to improvements in theory-building and research strategy (Blessett et al., 2016). This can be achieved by assigning readings by non-cis-males, non-Westerners, and people of color, shifting power dynamics and opening space to deliberate upon and critique status quo values and norms (Stivers, 1990; Thadhani, 2005; Gooden, 2017; Santis, 2020).

Including texts that facilitate critical reflexivity and deliberation on the traditional canon through a lens that centers the New Four E’s requires assigning readings diverse in epistemological approaches, authorship, and subject matter. Potential examples of such a change would include: partnering Wilson’s (1887) “The Study of Administration” with research on Wilson’s well-documented racism (e.g., Yellin, 2013; Arnesen, 2014; Roberts, 2020) as well as research on the U.S.’s legacy of racist policymaking and administration (e.g., Du Bois, 1935; Bhandaru, 2013; Brown, 2013; Trounstine, 2018; Michener, 2019; Muhammad, 2019); assigning readings from the pre-war period alongside work critiquing the existence of an Orthodoxy (e.g., Lynn, 2001; Roberts, 2013); crediting Frances Harriet Williams as an early voice of social equity in the field in discussions of New Public Administration (Gooden, 2017); pairing Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) Implementation with readings about racialized housing segregation and urban renewal in Oakland (e.g., Self, 2000), as well as research on the Oakland Black Panther Party’s implementation of community services (e.g., Pope & Flanigan, 2013) and the harms of COINTELPRO (Jones, 1988); and, reframing feminist, queer, and critical race texts as central rather than peripheral to all PA subfields (e.g., Stivers, 2005; Nickel & Eikenberry, 2006; Shields, 2006; Taylor, 2007; Lee et al., 2008; Starke et al., 2018; Ray, 2019; Nickels & Leach, 2021). These suggestions are by no means comprehensive. Instead, following the argument that syllabi (and the designers of those syllabi) act as shapers of institutional norms and academic legitimacy, these suggestions envision how doctoral courses might expand foundational knowledge to embed the New Four E’s as core PA values.

Pedagogical training

Training future public servants through graduate and undergraduate public affairs programs remains one of the field’s greatest honors and responsibilities. In their role as instructors of future public servants, PA doctoral students must engage with the unique pedagogical demands of teaching future policymakers and administrators. Unquestioned adherence to the traditional Three E’s perpetuates racialized harm by evading issues of race and racism through instrumental rationality (Spicer, 2005; Heckler, 2017; Berry-James et al., 2021) and imbues a view of citizens as passive recipients (Roberts, 2015). To act as representatives of a truly democratic state, public servants must instead prioritize a racially conscious (Gooden, 2015) and democratic ethos (Nabatchi et al., 2011) that encompasses the New Four E’s. However, enforcing values (of any kind) without deliberation and the consent of those involved in deliberation undermines democracy (Gutmann, 1987) and PA’s role in protecting and facilitating democracy (Mosher, 1982; Ventriss et al., 2019). Thus, public affairs instructors must utilize a deliberative pedagogy that embodies the racially conscious, democratic ethos expected of these future administrators.

Creating a truly deliberative learning environment requires facilitating the deconstruction of dominant discourses and unexamined truths as well as welcoming the expression of marginalized experiences without retaliation. Many scholarly works can help guide instructors toward analyses and content that help their students engage in critiques of dominant discourses by those experiencing exclusion, exploitation, and oppression: Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, queer theory, feminist theory, and post-colonial theory are some such analyses (e.g., Delgado & Stefancic, 1998; Darder, 2003; Skelton et al., 2006; Rodriguez & Pinar, 2007; Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008; Apple et al., 2009; Eagan, 2010; Evans et al., 2014; McLeod, 2020; Anuar et al., 2021; Lynn & Dixson, 2021). Each of these perspectives is necessary as the issues which they confront exist both simultaneously and in tandem. Exposing one's students to these critical traditions supports deliberation of values and lessons taught in PA courses, which helps students make decisions toward public ends.

Evidence suggests that teaching future public servants deliberative practices improves the quality of professional responsibility in areas where public servants face conflicting values (Trede et al., 2016). Successful deliberative pedagogical practices increase “student ability to evaluate and synthesize information, and actively engage in civic issues” (Nelson-Hurwitz & Buchthal, 2019, p. 2), even in highly politically fragmented environments (Manosevitch, 2019). Comprehensive civics education fosters citizens’ abilities to engage in deliberative debate amongst a plurality of opinions—a necessity for healthy democracy (Dewey, 1927; Habermas, 1994; Thayer-Bacon, 2004; Longo, 2013). Friere (1970), Hooks (1994, 2014), Love (2019) highlight the need to center the voices of those on the margins and view democratic education as a means of creating a more just world. Deliberative practices support the New Four E’s by promoting the inclusion of multiple ideas and engagement with marginalized perspectives. In addition, deliberation helps create shared meaning and collective understanding, which enable community problem-solving (Gutmann, 1987; Thayer-Bacon, 2004; Rivera et al., 2010; Longo, 2013; Shaffer, 2014, 2019; Davids & Waghid, 2016; Trede et al., 2016).

Facilitating and modeling democratic deliberation through deliberative pedagogy is difficult and requires intentional pedagogical training. Whether using deliberative pedagogy (Longo, 2013; Davids & Waghid, 2016; Nelson-Hurwitz & Buchthal, 2019), deliberative communication (Trede et al., 2016), deliberative and dialogical approaches (Shaffer, 2019), or more generically deliberative practices (Shaffer, 2014), several common aspects of teaching and facilitation are required: (1) democratic discourse, (2) normalization of conflict, and (3) situating instructors as participants in deliberation. The elements of deliberative pedagogy, described below, require a shared baseline understanding of historical systems of power and ideologies of oppression (see Background; Gaynor & Lopez-Littleton, 2021).

Central to deliberative pedagogical methods is democratic discourse predicated on non-repression, non-discrimination, and non-exclusion (Gutmann, 1987). These three conditions overlap and underscore that democratic deliberation actively includes all people. Deliberative pedagogy demands that instructors engage, rather than avoid, political disagreements to help students practice finding consensus and compromise for the betterment of all in society (Gutmann, 1987). Conflict management remains an especially important skill to model in PA classes because public service work is fraught with political disagreements and PA instructors often engage with highly politicized and timely content. Importantly, Gutmann (1987) suggests that democratic deliberation must include rational ideologies/arguments, and the rationality of arguments within a deliberative space should always be open to critique. Gutman does not consider arguments based on ideologies of oppression (racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.) as rational because they are based on false, harmful stereotypes. This means future instructors must learn to actively engage all students and create a classroom environment conducive to meaningful participation.

Second, students must expect to encounter a plurality of views and values when utilizing deliberative practices in their classrooms, administrative settings, and communities. Discussing value differences on a topic is an inherently political, not technical, issue (Labaree, 1997). Normalizing conflicting perspectives and working deliberatively toward solutions or consensus (Trede et al., 2016) requires PA instructors and public administrators to share, consider, and analyze a plurality of views. Going beyond the need for critical thinking, deliberative practices and reflexivity (self- and critical-) enable the facilitation of collective will-formation and cooperative decision-making to solve social problems and thus improve the public good (Shaffer, 2014, 2019; Trede et al., 2016).

Finally, centering democratic discursive values in the classroom requires that instructors co-create a deliberative space and view themselves as participants, not simply the expert in the room (Salm & Ordway, 2010; Trede et al., 2016; Shaffer, 2019). Instructors then model for future administrators that professionals and researchers should have their expertise be on tap rather than on top (Gulick, 1937), and that, in a democracy, participants may question and debate all perspectives, including instructors’. Individuals participating in the deliberation must view themselves relationally with other participants, utilizing transactional listening so that meaning and solutions can be co-created for the public good (Thayer-Bacon, 2004; Shaffer, 2014, 2019; Trede et al., 2016). To teach this skill to graduate and undergraduate students, instructors must establish their classrooms as microcosms of democracy following the democratic discursive principles elaborated above (Gutmann, 1987; Trede et al., 2016).

Training current PA doctoral students in deliberative pedagogy serves as a disruption to the status quo in which “neutral” instructors prepare students to be “neutral” experts weighing trade-offs according to the traditional Three E’s. If the field aims to reduce state-sanctioned harm by embedding the New Four E’s as core values among public servants, it must include deliberative pedagogy as a core competency for doctoral students.

Professional development

Beyond changes to socialization processes involving research and teaching, PA scholars must interrogate the professional development opportunities shaping the graduate student environment. Professional development includes formal events, like organized training and professional association meetings, as well as informal opportunities, like mentoring and networking (Jones & Osborne-Lampkin, 2013). As much as core coursework signals important knowledge, and pedagogical training shapes teaching philosophies, professional development opportunities communicate what it means to identify as a PA scholar (Smith & Hatmaker, 2014) and reveal the “hidden curriculum”—the unwritten norms and rules for success (Calarco, 2020).

Providing targeted, research-based, and well-designed professional development opportunities can help doctoral students practice reflexivity and deliberation as well as shift the field’s norms around success and professional identity towards the New Four E’s. We suggest three changes that exemplify the institutionalization of antiracist praxis in the field as an example: mandatory training on ideologies of oppression; meaningful support for students of color; and supportive mechanisms of accountability and deliberation. The widespread evidence of continued racialized harm in the U.S. calls for this immediate and intentional focus on dismantling racism and white supremacy, particularly within an applied discipline like PA⁴. The counseling psychology literature on racial identity development and racial healing highlight what such opportunities might look like (e.g., Helms, 1992, 2020; Comas-Díaz et al., 2019; Singh, 2019; Mosley et al., 2021); this will necessarily look different for doctoral students with different racial identities.

First, research on white racial identity has demonstrated that White people tend to have a difficult time identifying with their own race and feel immense discomfort in conversations about racism (Helms, 1992, 2020; Sue, 2016; Jayakumar & Adamian, 2017; Menakem, 2021). As a result, predominately White academic institutions often lack explicit conversations about racism; this problem extends to public affairs scholarship, training, and research (Lopez-Littleton, 2016; Blessett et al., 2019). White people who are still early in their racial identity development journey often encounter feelings of guilt, shame, and fear arising from conversations around racism and the identification of racist ideology within one’s own behavior and thoughts (Helms, 1992, 2020). Providing training on how to practice self-reflexivity to identify those feelings, understand the social processes leading to those feelings, and build stamina to sit with those emotions (without resisting or shutting down) can improve PA scholars’ abilities to engage in open conversations about racism and empathize with those harmed by racism, two necessary skills for public affairs scholars (Helms, 1992, 2020). Anti-Blackness and colorism also persist in the academy, suggesting that non-Black people of color would benefit from similar professional development opportunities (Keith & Monroe, 2016; Dancy et al., 2018; Abrica et al., 2020).

Second, creating an antiracist environment also requires supporting Black doctoral students and other doctoral students of color and promoting racial healing. The academy has historically been a site of racial trauma, triggered by persistent microaggressions and discrimination (Souto-Manning & Ray, 2007; Truong & Museus, 2012; Cueva, 2014; Subbaraman, 2020). Racial trauma refers to,

“People of Color and Indigenous individuals’ (POCI) reactions to dangerous events and real or perceived experiences of racial discrimination. Such experiences may include threats of harm and injury, humiliating and shaming events, and witnessing racial discrimination toward other POCI. Although similar to posttraumatic stress disorder, racial trauma is unique in that it involves ongoing individual and collective injuries due to exposure and re-exposure to race-based stress” (Comas-Díaz et al., 2019, p. 1).

The viral Twitter hashtag #BlackintheIvory⁵ was created to bring attention to the myriad ways in which Black academics experience racial trauma (Subbaraman, 2020). Examples included inappropriate comments about appearance and tone of voice, blatantly racist student evaluations, doing unpaid and underappreciated diversity, equity, and inclusion service work, and the fear of retaliation for naming these painful incidents. Allowing racial trauma to persist in the classroom and professional spaces undermines the aforementioned goals of diversifying core coursework and creating a deliberative pedagogical space, thus inhibiting the field from institutionalizing the New Four E’s. PA doctoral programs can support wellness and thriving among Black students and other students of color through the practices of storying survival (“sharing stories, critiques, testimonies, or otherwise advocating about anti-Black racism”) and space-making (“intentionally creating physical or virtual spaces for Black people to convene heal, organize, and/or celebrate”; Mosley et al., 2021, p. 9).

Finally, doctoral professional development should include training and practice in meaningful accountability processes that are transformative rather than punitive, like those offered by a transformative justice framework (Dixon & Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, 2020). Engaging in inclusive transformative justice processes to address instances of harm will help develop a network of social support, associated with a higher likelihood of doctoral degree completion (Jairam & Kahl, 2012). It will also allow students to practice working through conflict, rather than ignoring it—a key component of democratic deliberation. As Frederickson (1971) argues, tolerating, and even welcoming, conflict and emotions can “prepare [public servants] to take greater risks” that promote social equity (p. 327).

Students and faculty that engage in the important work of self and critical reflexivity, and who take action to create more deliberative institutions, currently do this at the expense of time spent on more lucrative career pursuits like publishing⁶. PA doctoral programs and professional associations can institutionalize reflexivity and democratic deliberation as core components of doctoral training by allocating credit hours and/or funding for the professional development opportunities described above, and by rewarding accountability and community building in hiring and promotion processes. In the case of antiracism professional development opportunities, programs must ensure they hire extensively trained staff and/or faculty dedicated to supporting students in racial identity development, racial healing, and accountability processes. Together with the aforementioned shifts in core coursework and pedagogical training, adapting professional development to embed reflexivity and democratic deliberation will create the institutional environment necessary for a justice-oriented shift toward the New Four E’s. Table 1 summarizes the suggestions described above.

Table 1. Summary of suggested changes to PA doctoral training.

Component of doctoral socialization	Contribution to institutionalization of field norms	Socioemotional shift toward new four E’s
Core coursework	Confers authority and legitimacy on texts and the epistemologies and methodologies they rely upon	Stimulate critical reflexivity and deliberation by designing syllabi that pair foundational texts with critical texts Support epistemological diversity by mandating coursework in non-positivist qualitative methods
Pedagogical training	Conveys which teaching philosophies are valued	Institute pedagogical training that teaches the three components of deliberative pedagogy: inclusivity, normalization and management of conflict, and teacher as co-participant
Professional development	Signals social norms and behaviors required for success in the field	Design and incentivize participation in professional development opportunities that involve practicing reflexivity and deliberation Facilitate transformative justice-based accountability processes

Conclusion

It is time to renew Frederickson’s (2015) call for PA to emphasize socioemotional processes to create more reflexive and deliberative PA researchers and practitioners, to shift the field toward the New Four E’s. Doctoral training is a crucial sector where this must take place, though critical reflection and reimagination need to occur throughout the field. This paper has argued that centering empathy, equity, engagement, and ethics in PA can be achieved by amending doctoral socialization to emphasize socioemotional training in three key areas: core coursework, pedagogical training, and professional development. Guided by the socioemotional processes of democratic deliberation and reflexivity, the argument outlined above is meant to stimulate dialogue and action within the PA community to change the field for the better. The suggestions made are not exhaustive, and a discussion of the tradeoffs of each remains out of scope. This paper serves as an invitation for faculty, doctoral students, and academic administrators to engage in reflexivity and deliberation so that we may collectively re-ground the field in democratic values toward a just public service.

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).