Date of Graduation

Spring 2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Public Administration (DPA)

Department

Public Policy and Administration

Committee Chairperson

Mark W. Davis, PhD

Committee Member

Allison H. Turner, PhD

Committee Member

Michelle Wade, PhD

Abstract

There is a steady decline in public opinion polling when it comes to the public’s perspective of public officials. In 2023, the combined unfavourability rating of Congress was at 72%.  There are ongoing unfavorable ratings, by issue, for the judiciary, and by individual for the executive. The researcher went in search of the reasons behind the declining opinions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify those reasons and to answer the research question: To what extent do the ethical philosophies of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue inform the perceptions of the American public when they scrutinize the decision-making and conduct of public officials?  The research suggests, of the Americans interviewed (N = 20), 35% draw from the ethical lens of Virtue. Consequentialism ranked second (25%), while Deontology ranked third (20%). A smaller percentage responded with pluralistic answers where Virtue was paired with Consequentialism (10%) or Deontology (10%).  Ancillary data regarding government and public officials, in general, was also captured. Using the constructivist grounded theory methodology, the research suggests philosophy, education, leadership, advocacy, and familial influences were contributing factors in an evolution of thought with some participants who spoke with conviction. Participants with careers in public service, Insiders and Gatekeepers, reignited the dichotomy between theory and practice. The literature reiterates all Americans are bound by citizenship ethics. This study fills a research gap in public administration and ethics by using qualitative research methods and unveils a new theory, The Evolution of Ethical Conviction.

Final Version Confirmation

1

Download

Share

COinS