Looking for Postmodern Public Administration Th eory 163
that grounded theory methodology is not only appropriate but also necessary
when studying something as “unique and complex” as how bureaucratic agencies
implement public policy (197). Drawing on the work of Juliet Corbin and Anselm
Strauss, Frederickson and Frederickson note the inductive nature of grounded
theory, where “concepts developed at one stage of the research process guide and
direct the research to the next stage and so forth” (197). Commenting on the ear-
lier work of Strauss and Glaser, Joseph Maxwell (1996) writes:
grounded theory does not refer to any particular level of theory but to theory
that is inductively developed during a study (or series of studies) and in constant
interaction with the data from that study. Th is theory is grounded in the actual
data collected, in contrast to a theory that is developed conceptually and then
simply tested against empirical data. In qualitative research, both existing theory
and grounded theory are legitimate and valuable. (33)Unlike in the positivist tradition, hypotheses are not always generated a pri-
ori to data collection and may develop throughout the research process. When
studying something as multifaceted as bureaucratic response, such a method-
ology that is cumulative is useful and may end up “identifying key explanatory
concepts not understood at the outset of the research” (Frederickson and Freder-
ickson 2006, 197).
An emerging body of impressive empirically based research uses essentially
elements of the fourteen point methodological approach cited earlier. One of the
most highly acclaimed empirical analyses of the fi eld-level behavior of bureau-
crats and welfare claimants uses this methodological approach (Soss 2000). Two
impressive studies of the street-level operations of the law and the legal system
are clearly identifi ed as methodologically postmodern (Ewick and Silbey 1998;
Conley and O’Barr 1998). An especially important analysis of the street-level
choice-making behavior of social case workers, disability case managers, and
teachers uses a postmodern methodology (Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003).
At the methodological base of all of these studies are narratives and stories and
their careful collection and interpretation (Maynard-Moody, Musheno, and Kelly
1995; Maynard-Moody and Leland 1999).
Bureaucratic sense making, as described earlier in this chapter and in Chap-
ter 4, is at the logical core of the empirical fi ndings in these studies. Stories
and narratives recount in signifi cant detail how public administrators interpret
generalized laws and rules in their day-to-day application of those laws and
rules to specifi c clients and citizens. Reconciling laws, regulations, and policies
with specifi c client or citizen qualifi cations or needs is deeply interpretive and
usefully understood as sense making. Th ese, and other similar studies, come
closer to accurate descriptions of how public services are provided, and why,
than interviews or survey data. But such studies are diffi cult to replicate, and
the theories they test are dense and inelegant.