No abstract

Research design is a critical topic that is central to research studies in science, social science, and many other disciplines. After identifying the research topic and formulating questions, selecting the appropriate design is perhaps the most important decision a researcher makes. Currently, there is a plethora of literature presenting multiple approaches to the formulation of research design. Although the existence of multiple approaches is a powerful source in the development of a research design, new public administration (PA) researchers and students may see it as a source of confusion because there is a lack of clarity in the literature about the approaches to research design, research methods, and research methodology in the social sciences. The purpose of this research paper is to lessen the confusion over research design and offer a better understanding of these approaches. The comparison analysis obtained in this research can provide guidance for PA researchers, students and practitioners when considering the research design most appropriate for their study. To achieve the research purpose, a comparison analysis was conducted to study the differences in research design perspectives and approaches. Three dominant works related to research design, by Earl R. Babbie, Elizabethann O’Sullivan et al., and John W. Creswell, were selected as representative of the wide array of approaches in the PA literature. In identifying similarities and differences across the scholars’ approaches, the analysis includes: (a) definitions of and steps in research design, and (b) the perspectives on research methods and research methodology. The analysis showed that research design approaches are convergent and divergent and that it is necessary for PA researchers and students to be knowledgeable about the various research design approaches before selecting a specific design for their research. An example scenario was provided to show the impact of different perspectives on research design in the PA literature.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw on the theory of institutional isomorphism to investigate how Mississippi’s centralized cash management policy affects the cash management practices in the state’s rural and urban counties. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a sequential exploratory mixed methods design involving a qualitative documentary analysis and a quantitative analysis of a survey of Mississippi counties. Findings The study finds that institutional isomorphism drives cash management practices in the counties by influencing how they follow state and agency mandates. Moreover, while urban counties have superior socio-economic indicators compared to their rural counterparts, no differences exist regarding standardized financial indicators, which suggest that local governments in the state may be imitating the practices of one another. Practical implications First, states should consider the different financial and economic conditions of their local governments when prescribing cash management policies because uniform policies could stifle local innovation and reduce efficiency in cash management. Second, when there is pressure from a higher-level government or a state agency, local governments may end up imitating one another rather than exploring opportunities for innovation within state policies. Third, state policies should consider requiring education and training in cash management practices that help identify strategies to add value to public funds within the scope of local fiscal capabilities. Originality/value The study uses one state to investigate a unique case of centralized cash management practices. The lessons learned can apply to other states seeking to develop a policy for their small local governments without placing the larger ones at a disadvantage.

The past two decades have witnessed substantial changes in the dynamics of state—local relationships for highway funding. We argue that four factors have produced a funding crisis for local governments: an increase in developed land and locally owned roads; a rise in construction and maintenance costs; devolution of highway financing responsibility from the states to localities with a reduction in intergovernmental transfers; and more wear and tear on roads due to increased vehicle miles traveled. Local governments can delay maintenance and build fewer new facilities, but eventually many will seek new sources of revenues to fund their growing responsibilities. We identify several potential financing mechanisms: impact fees and smart growth policies; local option transportation taxes; nontraditional taxes and fees such as transportation utility fees and land taxes; and low-cost debt financing from state infrastructure banks. We discuss challenges faced by local governments in continuing to meet their responsibilities and financing needs.

The importance and complexity of the problems associated with coordinating multiple organizations to configure value propositions for customers has drawn the attention of multiple disciplines. In an effort to clarify and consolidate terms, this conceptual research examines both supply chain management (SCM) and system of systems (SoS) literature to postulate, from a value-chain perspective, what roles integration and collaboration play in helping supply chains satisfy customer requirements. A literature review analysis was used to identify the commonalities and differences between supply chain management and system of systems approaches to examining interfirm coordination of value creation efforts. Although a framework of integration and collaboration roles in value creation is proposed, further empirical testing of the concept is required to substantiate initial conclusions. The concepts proposed may help clarify where strategic and operational managers need to focus their efforts in coordinating supply chain member firms. The incorporation of SoS engineering into the supply chain field will draw the linkage between the constituent principles, and concepts of Systems Theory as appropriate for the supply chain management field. This is the first effort to reconcile two separate but parallel scholarship streams examining the coordination of multiple organizations in value creation. This research shows that there are some methodologies, principles, and methods from the SoS field that can supplement supply chain management research. Mainly due to a unit of analysis issue, systems based approaches have not been in the mainstream of supply chain management field development.

No abstract

No abstract