Navigating Bureaucracy: A Phenomenographic Study of DepEd Administrative Staff&rsquo;s Conceptions of Government Service Delivery

Orbel  Canoy,; Morrison  Mojica,

Navigating Bureaucracy: A Phenomenographic Study of DepEd Administrative Staff’s Conceptions of Government Service Delivery

Discipline: Education

Abstract:

This study explored the qualitatively different ways in which non-teaching administrative personnel in the Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) conceptualize government service delivery. Utilizing a phenomenographic research design, the study investigated how administrative staff experience, interpret, and make meaning of their roles within the bureaucratic structure of a large public education agency. Data were gathered from eighteen DepEd administrative staff members through a written interview guide and analyzed using established phenomenographic procedures. The findings revealed five distinct categories of description, namely: service delivery as rule compliance, efficiency and timeliness, facilitation of educational access, collaborative governance, and public empowerment and ethical stewardship. These categories were organized into an outcome space that reflects a hierarchy of increasingly complex and inclusive understandings of public service. While many participants focused on compliance and operational outputs, others articulated more transformative views grounded in ethical responsibility and citizen empowerment. The study affirms the diversity of administrative sense-making in public education. It highlights the need to reframe institutional support, capacity building, and recognition systems to cultivate higher-order conceptions of service among non-teaching staff. By listening to the voices of those who navigate bureaucracy daily, this research contributes to the discourse on public administration reform and inclusive education governance in the Philippine context.

References:

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Atienza, M. E. L. (2018). Strengthening bureaucratic reform in the Philippines. Philippine Political Science Journal, 39(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01154451.2018.1458072
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Brookings Institution Press.
Bowden, J., & Green, P. (Eds.). (2005). Doing developmental phenomenography. RMIT University Press.
Brillantes, A. B., & Fernandez, M. T. (2011). Restoring trust and building integrity in government: Issues and concerns in the Philippines and areas for reform. International Public Management Review, 12(2), 55–80.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238
Creswell, J. W., Poth, C. N., & Zhang, W. (2021). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4^th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering (Expanded ed.). M.E. Sharpe.
Department of Education (DepEd). (2019). DepEd Order No. 29, s. 2019: Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the School-Based Management at the School Level. https://www.deped.gov.ph
Department of Finance (DOF). (2022). Public Financial Management Reform Roadmap 2022–2026. https://www.dof.gov.ph
Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913309X421655
Grindle, M. S. (2017). Bureaucrats, politicians, and peasants in Mexico: A case study in public policy. Princeton University Press.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.536322
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
Llego, M. A. (2020). The role of non-teaching personnel in DepEd schools. TeacherPH. https://www.teacherph.com/role-non-teaching-personnel/
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132516
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive identities: A managerial challenge to public administration in Austria. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 1000–1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285182
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
Osborne, D. (2006). The new bureaucracy. Governing Magazine, 19(5), 20–23.
Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/976618
Rivera, J. P. R. (2017). Efficiency of regional offices of the Department of Education in the Philippines. Asian Institute of Management Working Paper Series, 2017/010, 1–21.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (2018). Learning to realize education’s promise. World Development Report. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018