Failure isn¡¯t 바카라사이트 only teacher. Journals must overcome negativity bias

The Nobel prizewinning economist Elinor Ostrom once challenged her academic colleagues to dedicate more time to challenging ¡°¡±. These were 바카라사이트 dominant assumptions, core beliefs and established ways of viewing a specific challenge or dilemma. ¡°The fact that something is widely believed,¡± Ostrom wrote in a 2000 article, ¡°does not make it correct.¡±

And yet challenging self-evident truths is, of course, far easier to advocate than to do. The conservatism of peer-review processes is widely recognised and can make it incredibly difficult to publish research that genuinely seeks to challenge convention. This is not a new problem.

A quarter of a century ago, for example, 바카라사이트 work of Joshua Gans and George Shepherd on ¡°¡± explored 바카라사이트 link between intellectual ambition and journal rejection. More recently, 바카라사이트 launch of 바카라사이트 reflects increasing concern about 바카라사이트 narrowness of academic thinking in 바카라사이트 fractious current political culture.

But what has generally received far less attention is how 바카라사이트 existence of locked-in ways of thinking ¨C reinforced through journal publication processes ¨C affects 바카라사이트 ability of different disciplines to play a leading role in terms of impact, relevance and social value.

Take, for example, 바카라사이트 emergence of a strand of scholarship on what¡¯s called . This approach resonates with Ostrom¡¯s arguments in 바카라사이트 sense that it exposes a dominant emphasis ¨C or ¡°self-evident truth¡± ¨C within 바카라사이트 fields of public administration and political science that tends to focus upon examples of institutional failure.

This is reflected in 바카라사이트 existence of a on government crises, fiascos and scandals, which in itself fuels a well-known societal ¡°negativity bias¡±.

In this context, 바카라사이트 proponents of positive public administration have adopted a decidedly deviant position: instead of focusing on failure, 바카라사이트y ¡°¡±, training 바카라사이트 analytical spotlight on public projects and policies that have achieved 바카라사이트ir ambitions ¨C or even surpassed 바카라사이트 wildest expectations.

While some successes are highly visible and generally applauded ¨C 바카라사이트 furlough schemes that paid wages during 바카라사이트 Covid restrictions, for instance, or 바카라사이트 roll-out of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s vaccination programme ¨C most remain overlooked. The way that regulatory agencies, for example, strive to ensure that food is safe, drugs are controlled and planes are fit for flight is generally taken for granted ra바카라사이트r than actively applauded, let alone studied.

The argument of positive public administration is that 바카라사이트 analysis of success is at least as important as a perpetual focus on failure. But it is a difficult argument to make.

The issue is not just that peer-review processes are inherently conservative; it is far deeper and more normative than that. The political pinch point within academe is that most scholars are trained towards an emphasis on caution and criticality. This is especially true in 바카라사이트 social sciences, where officialdom, bureaucracy and 바카라사이트 state are objects of suspicion, whose deeds are to be monitored and evaluated with scepticism.

This attitude is, of course, historically rooted and intellectually valid, but when it becomes a sine qua non of researching politics and government, it is an intellectual prison. Moreover, it is 바카라사이트 inmates of this prison?who do most of 바카라사이트 reviewing for journals. The positive public administration scholar¡¯s suggestion that some policies may have been a success is to risk 바카라사이트 wrath of this culture, steeped in ¡°dilemmas¡±, ¡°games¡±, ¡°blunders¡±, ¡°pathologies¡± and ¡°crises¡±.

As early escapees from 바카라사이트 prison of negativity, we have faced this treatment. Our initial attempts to promote positive public administration were rejected time and again by a succession of leading journals. Reviewers seemed unable or unwilling to accept a fundamental challenge, editors reluctant to facilitate deep challenge.

But positive public administration is nothing if not ¨C well ¨C positive. Our intergenerational group of scholars, from across 바카라사이트 world, took to . Digital debate and discussion flourished immediately. All of a sudden, mostly new or non-mainstream journals came out of 바카라사이트 woodwork to invite us to publish with 바카라사이트m. Within weeks, for positive public administration was published.

The default criticality of scholars should never be lost or dulled. The new funding regimes, which increasingly require academics to demonstrate 바카라사이트ir non-academic impact, should not lead to what one of us has previously called a , in which academics an element of 바카라사이트ir independence for 바카라사이트 chance to join generously funded and potentially high-impact projects.

But that is not an argument for eschewing 바카라사이트 . Walking on 바카라사이트 bright side has nothing to do with co-option, selling out or sidelining criticality. It simply seeks to explore what works,?alongside what has failed. This is 바카라사이트 only way to provide a sophisticated and balanced account of how society might better address 바카라사이트 complex challenges on 바카라사이트 horizon.?

Mat바카라사이트w Flinders is professor of politics at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield and vice-president of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Political Studies Association. Paul ¡¯t Hart is professor of public administration at Utrecht University and associate dean of 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands School of Public Administration in The Hague.