I have no tales to tell and the tales I want to tell do not want to jump out on to a screen, but they want to appear on paper. It wants to be struck off, over written, torn off and thrown away and then take shape- a poetic way of saying I want to write and not type.But do indulge me for what is to come is far worse than what has been said.
I would like to talk about Public Administration and Chemistry, to be more specifics, the similarities between the two subjects apart from the fact that they were my optional papers for civil service exam. Do not fear a tirade about how my exam went, it is not significant but the level of madness and even stupidity that was the entire venture would be clear if you read on.
Firstly, Chemistry and Public Administration are about developing theories to suit observations. Then, theories explain these observations which were made on the basis of the very same observations. For example, quantum mechanics and its postulates like nodes (areas where probability of finding electron), spin quantum number are theoretical concepts and have little or even no physical equivalents. But they were developed to explain wave functions and phenomenon like paramagnetism. In Pub Ad, ideas like New Public Management, New Public Administration evolved according to needs and aspirations of the people, it was influenced by the situation on the ground and to address these situations, new ideas came forth.
As the observations change, theory keeps changing too and even going back to old ideas- initially administration was about minimal state involvement but this involvement should be organised and formal. But NPA and NPM concentrated on greater government involvement to address concerns of the time and now, it is back to minimalist government that empowers people and reduces the power and discretion in the hands of government. This is true of any science and in chemistry, the formation of a bond is a theory that has undergone "radical" changes- from the simple dot structure to wave functions of valence shells overlapping to now the entire atomic orbitals interacting with each other. This is an example of not just the evolution of the fields and its rapid evolution, but also theory suiting to fit ground realities. Even the concept of formation of activated complexes in the transition state theory was used to explain observations and where later proved
right (similar to the Higgs-Boson hypothesis)
Wilson and Weber wanted to give a proper structure to government administration and initial theorists like Fayol, Taylor, Follett were the first to propose ideas and build fundamentals. They were then discredited as mere proverbs and were then substituted with a more humanitarian view of the field of administration by Simon, Bernard, Argyris and Maslow. In chemistry too theories were built, discredited and then new ones established- right from the valence bond theory to formation of molecular orbitals.
Another one is about organic chemistry where very few reactions follow a general pattern set for compounds of a particular, the reactions are unique and exceptional and depend on the temperature, pressure, concentration of reactants and products, their stability- in short, the environment. This is what F.W.Riggs said about administration too- one must consider the ecology in which the administration works to get a proper understanding of the administration. As the conditions change, the administration also changes.
This is also an example of inaccuracy in predicting the outcome of reactions using theory. Predicting outcomes based on theories is not an accurate process. This leads us to is the bounded rationality theory developed Herbert Simon- we make decisions based on information available to us about conditions, influences, resources, restrictions and also needs and requirements. But the entire information is not available to us which circumscribes our ability to make decisions or predictions in the case of chemistry. This is very true about organic chemistry and public policy making- we do not know how people will react to a policy, we do not know how the markets, industries, agriculture and common man will be affected by allowing FDI in retail and we are not sure whether it is a positive or negative chance. In chemistry too, what factors influence a reaction or even how exactly a reaction proceeds is unknown to us and the best we can do is make predictions. We can accurately solve wave function for only 4systems since it is almost impossible for us to consider the various electron-electron repulsions and electron-nucleus attractions.
Thus, inability to predict outcome based on theory and so having to use trial and error to fix up a particular theory or decision, incomplete knowledge and inability to comprehend influences and events, making theory based on observations and then proving them (which is of course what science is all about), the evolution of this theory (creation, acceptance, destruction and then new theories), importance of environment and very few possibilities of a general cover it all concept are some of the aspects similar to both Chemistry and Public Administration.
I do not say that this is a sane idea, there will be similarities between all fields however insignificant, narrow and far apart they are. But these are the two subjects that I opted for a mind-numbing series of exams and for which I did prepare. This one is more like an answer to a straightforward question- "You have studied these two subjects. Are there any similarities and if there are, what are they?"
As for my assessment about my exam, it keeps shifting each day. Some days I feel I am in with chance, quite reasonable one too. Some days, for no apparent reason I feel insecure, scared and hopeless. This keeps shifting and I feel hopeless about different papers each day- one day it is GS, another day Chemistry. A week later it is Malayalam and then it is Pub Ad. So the next three months are going to be a cycle of this- incessant mood swings, uncertainty and sometimes even fear and depression.
I would like to talk about Public Administration and Chemistry, to be more specifics, the similarities between the two subjects apart from the fact that they were my optional papers for civil service exam. Do not fear a tirade about how my exam went, it is not significant but the level of madness and even stupidity that was the entire venture would be clear if you read on.
Firstly, Chemistry and Public Administration are about developing theories to suit observations. Then, theories explain these observations which were made on the basis of the very same observations. For example, quantum mechanics and its postulates like nodes (areas where probability of finding electron), spin quantum number are theoretical concepts and have little or even no physical equivalents. But they were developed to explain wave functions and phenomenon like paramagnetism. In Pub Ad, ideas like New Public Management, New Public Administration evolved according to needs and aspirations of the people, it was influenced by the situation on the ground and to address these situations, new ideas came forth.
As the observations change, theory keeps changing too and even going back to old ideas- initially administration was about minimal state involvement but this involvement should be organised and formal. But NPA and NPM concentrated on greater government involvement to address concerns of the time and now, it is back to minimalist government that empowers people and reduces the power and discretion in the hands of government. This is true of any science and in chemistry, the formation of a bond is a theory that has undergone "radical" changes- from the simple dot structure to wave functions of valence shells overlapping to now the entire atomic orbitals interacting with each other. This is an example of not just the evolution of the fields and its rapid evolution, but also theory suiting to fit ground realities. Even the concept of formation of activated complexes in the transition state theory was used to explain observations and where later proved
right (similar to the Higgs-Boson hypothesis)
Wilson and Weber wanted to give a proper structure to government administration and initial theorists like Fayol, Taylor, Follett were the first to propose ideas and build fundamentals. They were then discredited as mere proverbs and were then substituted with a more humanitarian view of the field of administration by Simon, Bernard, Argyris and Maslow. In chemistry too theories were built, discredited and then new ones established- right from the valence bond theory to formation of molecular orbitals.
Another one is about organic chemistry where very few reactions follow a general pattern set for compounds of a particular, the reactions are unique and exceptional and depend on the temperature, pressure, concentration of reactants and products, their stability- in short, the environment. This is what F.W.Riggs said about administration too- one must consider the ecology in which the administration works to get a proper understanding of the administration. As the conditions change, the administration also changes.
This is also an example of inaccuracy in predicting the outcome of reactions using theory. Predicting outcomes based on theories is not an accurate process. This leads us to is the bounded rationality theory developed Herbert Simon- we make decisions based on information available to us about conditions, influences, resources, restrictions and also needs and requirements. But the entire information is not available to us which circumscribes our ability to make decisions or predictions in the case of chemistry. This is very true about organic chemistry and public policy making- we do not know how people will react to a policy, we do not know how the markets, industries, agriculture and common man will be affected by allowing FDI in retail and we are not sure whether it is a positive or negative chance. In chemistry too, what factors influence a reaction or even how exactly a reaction proceeds is unknown to us and the best we can do is make predictions. We can accurately solve wave function for only 4systems since it is almost impossible for us to consider the various electron-electron repulsions and electron-nucleus attractions.
Thus, inability to predict outcome based on theory and so having to use trial and error to fix up a particular theory or decision, incomplete knowledge and inability to comprehend influences and events, making theory based on observations and then proving them (which is of course what science is all about), the evolution of this theory (creation, acceptance, destruction and then new theories), importance of environment and very few possibilities of a general cover it all concept are some of the aspects similar to both Chemistry and Public Administration.
I do not say that this is a sane idea, there will be similarities between all fields however insignificant, narrow and far apart they are. But these are the two subjects that I opted for a mind-numbing series of exams and for which I did prepare. This one is more like an answer to a straightforward question- "You have studied these two subjects. Are there any similarities and if there are, what are they?"
As for my assessment about my exam, it keeps shifting each day. Some days I feel I am in with chance, quite reasonable one too. Some days, for no apparent reason I feel insecure, scared and hopeless. This keeps shifting and I feel hopeless about different papers each day- one day it is GS, another day Chemistry. A week later it is Malayalam and then it is Pub Ad. So the next three months are going to be a cycle of this- incessant mood swings, uncertainty and sometimes even fear and depression.
1 comment:
Been there, done that! De javu! :)
Post a Comment