Two criticisms of public administration research have been leveled. First, knowledge in the field is not being cumulated. Second, the research has low quality. A preference for case studies as a form of scientific inquiry is behind both criticisms. The authors propose a solution to the first problem by showing how meta-analysis can be used to cumulate knowledge using case study evidence. Viewed cumulatively, case studies comprise an intellectual goldmine awaiting discovery. The authors challenge the second criticism, proposing that quality judgments should be based on the important principle of knowledge cumulation, which acknowledges the value of all research methods.Evaluations of public administration research have permeated Public Administration Review for over a decade (Perry and Kraemer 1986;Stallings 1986;Stallings and Ferris 1988). Two themes pervade the literature criticizing research in the field: Critics contend that knowledge is not being cumulated (Adams and White 1994; White et al. 1996) and that research in general (dissertation research in particular) is of poor quality (Adams and White 1994;Cleary 1992;McCurdy and Cleary 1984;White 1986a;White et al. 1996). Criticisms that public administration research lacks quality remain largely unchallenged (see Bailey 1992 and Box 1992, for two rare exceptions).The use of case studies as a preferred research methodology in public administration lies behind both themes. Critics contend that case studies play a limited role in knowledge cumulation (Adams and White 1994) and that they fare poorly on indicators of quality (Adams and White 1994;McCurdy and Cleary 1984). Both claims can be traced to the perception that case studies are not generalizable, a perception we show to be terribly misconceived.We contend that public administration is well suited to case studies because they satisfy the recognized need for conditional findings and in-depth understanding of cause and effect relationships that other methodologies find difficult to achieve. Case studies are a key part of the solution, not part of the problem. We will show this by first defining case studies and by outlining a typology of case studies. Next, we will show how the knowledge-cumula-tion problem can be solved by using meta-analysis. Finally, we will explain how the criticism that case studies have poor quality is based on a problematic definition of quality and misguided criteria.The critics' test of quality generally involves counting the number of quality criteria that are satisfied in a study. The higher the count, the better the quality of the study. That is, the criteria are additive (see McCurdy and Cleary 1984). When a whole range of quality measures are applied to any single case study, it fares badly. Similarly, when a whole range of quality measures are applied to a study using a different methodology (survey research, for example), it is also likely to fare badly. The errors of this logic lie with the application of all quality criteria to each single, isolated study pertaining to a par...
Goal setting, participation in decision making, and objective feedback have each been shown to increase productivity As a combination of these three processes, management by objectives (MBO) also should increase productivity. A meta-analysis of studies supported this prediction: 68 out of 70 studies showed productivity gains, and only 2 studies showed losses. The literature on MBO indicates that various problems have been encountered with implementing MBO programs. One factor was predicted to be essential to success: the level of top-management commitment to M BO. Proper implementation starts from the top and requires both support and participation from top management. Results of the meta-analysis showed that when top-management commitment was high, the average gain in productivity was 56%. When commitment was low, the average gain in productivity was only 6%.
Six theoretical models of academic publishing productivity were distilled from the literature in sociology, economics, and psychology. Although all theory-based models identify ability as a causal antecedent of productivity, it is rarely introduced in empirical studies. A measure of ability is operationalized and six causal models of publishing productivity are estimated by path analysis, using data on 162 academic psychologists. Results support key theoretical propositions of most models. Several models fit the data according to the chi-square criterion, but none include all the important determinants of productivity. A theoretically based best-fit model shows that ability affects publishing productivity directly, and also indirectly, by providing access to training in prestigious graduate programs. Attending a prestigious graduate program increases productivity by providing access to academic appointments in other prestigious programs. Sex of the researcher has a large direct effect on publishing quantity, but no effect on publishing quality.Although faculty job responsibilities are highly complex, the criteria used to evaluate them are clear, widely understood, and measurable. Faculty who publish flourish; those who do not perish. Prominence is achieved by publishing in quality journals and being cited by colleagues. The salience and measurability of publications and citations as performance criteria have inspired social scientists to explore their determinants.Distinctive theoretical explanations for why some academics are prolific and others are "silent" have emerged from several social science disciplines. Sociologists focus on the behavior of social groups, economists on the marginal costs and benefits of educational investments by individuals, and psychologists on the role of individual characteristics such as motivation, sex, and ability. Although scholars in the three disciplines offer diverse theories, most studies identify several of the same basic determinants of publishing productivity: ability, the quality or reputation of the graduate program, and the quality of the current academic department.Much of the empirical literature on publishing productivity
The literature on many different types of management programs says that effective program installations depend on the level of top management commitment: the stronger the commitment, the greater the potential for program success. A meta-analysis of 18 studies that evaluated the impact of management by objectives on job satisfaction was presented to test this hypothesis. Results showed that the gain in job satisfaction was approximately one third of one standard deviation when top management had high commitment to program implementation. Little improvement was found in studies that had moderate or low commitment from top management.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.