Pluralistic ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance can be contrasted with the false consensus effect. In pluralistic ignorance, people privately disdain but publicly support a norm (or a belief), while the false consensus effect causes people to wrongly assume that most people think like they do, while in reality most people do not think like they do (and express the disagreement openly). For instance, pluralistic ignorance may lead a student to drink alcohol excessively because she believes that everyone else does that, while in reality everyone else also wishes they could avoid binge drinking, but no one expresses that due to the fear of being ostracized. A false consensus for the same situation would mean that the student believes that most other people do not enjoy excessive drinking, while in fact most other people do enjoy that and openly express their opinion about it.
David John Farmer
The book explains and illustrates how public administration can benefit from epistemic pluralism – just as can any other action or social science discipline, currently operating essentially within its own disciplinary cul-de-sac. "Public Administration in Perspective" (2010) explains that epistemic refers to knowing; pluralism refers to more than one way. The book offers an example of a grand strategy of epistemic pluralism. It examines public administration theory and practice from perspectives that include a traditional, a business, an economic, a political, a critical theory, a post-structural, a psychoanalytic, a neuroscience, a feminist, an ethical, and a data lens. It begins by quoting Dwight Waldo’s claim that “administrative thought must establish a working relationship with every major province in the realm of human learning.” Dr. Breena Coates (California State University, San Bernardino) writes about "Public Administration in Perspective" that the “author provides unique and, hitherto, unexplored perspectives from which to view the multiple faces of public administration… The book’s scholarship is compelling and hard to resist… Today in our networked, globalized environment we are more than ever coming to the realization that there is an interdisciplinary basis for understanding truth, and that each discrete branch of knowledge studies a mere subset of particularized knowledge streams” (B. Coates, 2012, p. 133.)