There are three research orientations of behaviorism administration: explanatory behaviorism administration, explanatory and critical research, among which positivism once occupied a dominant position in the field of public administration. Some western scholars use the validity standard of positivism to evaluate the research status of public administration, while others criticize and question it. They think that different research orientations have their own values, and interpretive approach and critical research can't be evaluated by the standards of mainstream social sciences, which leads to a reflection on the current research situation of western public administration. There are also some problems in the research methods of China's public administration-theory is seriously out of touch with practice; The basic academic norms of behaviorism administration have not yet been established, the research methods are extremely imprecise, and there are serious problems in the research quality; There are misunderstandings in qualitative research; Wait a minute. On the basis of comparative analysis, this paper puts forward some countermeasures to improve the research situation of public administration in China, with special emphasis on distinguishing the different stages of public administration research in different countries.

Keywords: behaviorism administrative research; Interpretive approach; Critical behaviorism research; Problems; Self-examination/introspection

The maturity of research methods is one of the main signs to measure the maturity of a subject. In the history of behaviorism administration for more than one hundred years, three research orientations have gradually formed: explanatory behaviorism administration research, interpretive approach and critical research. Although positivism once dominated the field of public administration, the research orientation of non-positivism is constantly showing its research charm. Whether Simon and Waldo's argument about logical positivism and cultural philosophy, or Adams' and Balfour's criticism and positivism about exposing evil in administration, or Hammer's and Goodsell's argument about hermeneutics and positivism about bureaucracy, all reflect the serious differences and conflicts in the basic orientation of public administration research. Some western scholars try to evaluate interpretive approach and critical research with the validity standard of positivism, and thus draw the conclusion that the research status of public administration is "applied, non-theoretical and non-cumulative". Other scholars have criticized and questioned this, which has triggered a reflection on the current research situation of western public administration. So, what is the current situation of public administration in China? What enlightenment do the differences and conflicts in the research orientation of western public administration bring us? How to improve the research status of public administration in China? This paper attempts to discuss the above problems.

1 research status and thinking of western behaviorism management

Three research orientations of behaviorism administration 1. 1 American scholar Jay D. White believes that there are three research orientations of behaviorism administration, namely, behaviorism administration, interpretive approach and critical research.

(1) behaviorism. Hermeneutics follows the philosophical tradition of positivism, and natural science and mainstream social science are typical hermeneutics. Its logic is generally linear logic, following deductive rule model and inductive probability model. The main function of interpretation method is to explain and predict. It tries to construct a theory that can explain and predict natural and social events, and its ultimate goal is to control natural and social events. The research tradition of positivism is in the same strain as the emergence and development of public administration. In the field of public administration, the concept of science and technology public administration was first put forward by Wilson in 1887 "Research on Administration". Wilson called for the establishment of a public administration, and clearly hoped to adopt a scientific method in government reform. Max Weber solved the technical problem of putting Wilson's thoughts into practice by constructing an ideal bureaucratic model.

Taylor tried to "prove that the most advanced management is a real science, and its theoretical basis is clearly defined laws, norms and public management principles." His scientific management movement catered to the spirit of scientific and technological management. In the preface of Principles of Public Administration, Willoughby emphasized that "Public Administration is similar to any science, and it has some universally applicable basic principles." Gulick and urwick hold that science should provide universal principles to guide administrative behavior in the Essays on Administration, and emphasize that public administration should develop into a set of scientific theories.

It can be said that technical rationality has been greatly publicized in the traditional behaviorism administration, and the extreme admiration for technical rationality has developed into a preference for positivism quantitative research methods and interpretation methods, which can be said to be the orthodox view of mainstream social sciences. After World War II, behaviorist administrative scholars represented by Simon advocated the application of logical positivism to social science research, and they tried to establish a value-neutral general administration. Under the influence of behaviorism, the research of public administration is more persistent in using scientific and technological means to make a microscopic "quantitative determination" and accurate description of the complex administrative activities of the public, trying to make public administration a science separated from politics and focusing on management technology and technology. In 1970s, both the public policy school and the public choice school were deeply influenced by behaviorism administration, and both of them had obvious empirical orientation. The emergence of new public administration after the mid-1980s is the inheritance and development of Taylor doctrine, which shows that the traditional public administration theory is being generalized into the theoretical tendency of general management philosophy. In a word, positivism, as the mainstream research angle and paradigm of social science, has been occupying the leading position in the research of public administration for the past half century, and still has a great influence on the research of behaviorism administration.

(2) Behaviorism management research. Hermeneutics research is based on the philosophical tradition of phenomenology, behaviorism and linguistic analysis philosophy. The logic of behaviorism is circular, that is, meaning comes from the cognition of the relationship and mode between the whole and the parts. Interpretive approach tried to understand the meaning given by actors to their social situation, their own behavior and others' behavior. It seeks to understand social events and man-made events, and strives to expand the meaning of our lives, which can help us better understand the words and deeds of actors in the social environment. Psychoanalytic organization theory in public management is an explanatory research theory. The organizational theory of psychoanalysis attempts to study irrational and unconscious behaviors and decisions in organizations, which provides us with an opportunity to understand how people in organizations overcome various obstacles they face on the road to liberation. Psychoanalysis not only makes us realize the deficiency of positivism methodology, but also greatly enriches the knowledge of public administration. Hammer applied phenomenological method to the field of public administration, and his book bureaucratic experience criticized bureaucracy with hermeneutics theory. The criticism of modernity forms the basis of all Hammer's criticisms of bureaucracy. He made a comprehensive criticism of bureaucracy from social, cultural, psychological, linguistic, cognitive and political aspects.