Commentary: Mapping a More Specialized Public Administration

Moynihan, Donald P.

doi:10.1111/puar.12782

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future studies should investigate whether this change is true for the field as a whole or restricted to doctoral research and whether there are branches or reversals to the current trajectory. Moynihan (2017), in his review of bibliometric analysis of scholarly publications in Public Administration, noted the growing change toward internationalization. The tendencies toward internationalization were also evident on the doctoral levels of research and may reflect the tendencies of scholars who mentor and oversee doctoral candidates or broader changes for the field because of globalization.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining the boundaries of Public Administration

Slagle

Williams

2018

Teaching Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scope of the article is reinterpretation of the question posed by Rodgers and Rodgers, namely, are Public Administration scholarship produced by “disciplined purists” – Public Administration scholars producing Public Administration research – or “undisciplined mongrels”? The methodology diverges from previous analysis through examination of doctoral dissertation research classification, rather than faculty output in publications. Concomitantly, Biglan classification of disciplines was used as a framework to determine disciplinary classifications of “undisciplined” or interdisciplinary scholarship. Findings indicate that from 2000 to 2015, there were shifts toward Public Administration as a “purist” discipline. Not only are there changes toward a distinct discipline but also steady declines in outside discipline production of Public Administration doctoral research. The analysis demonstrated a statistically significant increase in categorization of Public Administration scholarship for subjects generally accepted as core issues. Another noted change was dramatic decline for the Doctor of Public Administration degree as the field redefined boundaries.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining the boundaries of Public Administration

Slagle

Williams

2018

Teaching Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, scholars have long noted that public administration has not realized its design science mission and that related academic research is irrelevant and neglects to address the big questions in the field (Argyris, 1991; Dahl, 1947; Gibson & Deadrick, 2010; Roberts, 2018). Leading public administration scholars have argued that the focus of the discipline is now on abstract concepts, highly specific relationships, and sophisticated research methods that offer few insights relevant to policy and practice (e.g., Moynihan, 2017; Newland, 2000; Raadschelders & Lee, 2011; Roberts, 2018). Pollitt (2017, 9) suggested that the consequence of this shift has resulted in the demise of well‐rounded professors who publish on multiple topics across the whole field of public administration, such that these changing practices “increasingly … distance the academic community from the immediate concerns of most practitioners.” In short, public administration research is seen as not relevant to practice, and its concerns of context and real life‐specific problems (Armstrong & Alsop, 2010; Buick et al, 2015).…”

Section: The Academic–practitioner Dividementioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the academic–practitioner divide: Evidence from computational social science and corpus linguistics

Walker,

Zhang,

Chandra

et al. 2023

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a design science, public administration is focused on addressing real‐world problems. However, within public administration argument and evidence on the relevance of academic research to practice agendas is equivocal. We investigate the “academic–practitioner divide” using computational social science techniques to identify the topics of “academic,” “academic–practitioner,” and practitioner corpora over a 25‐year period. Topic modeling results of the 50 topics identified in each of these corpora suggest that the topics of academics and practitioners have more differences than similarities: nearly seven‐tenths of the identified topics differ between the practice corpus and the academic and academic–practice corpora. Corpus linguistics analysis is applied to contrast the keyness of topics over time, and the results confirm the largely different agendas of the corpora albeit with some convergence on governance and outcomes. Corpora examined in this article is largely suggestive of a lack of relevance of academic research to practice agendas.

show abstract

Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Pursuit of Richer Answers to Real-World Questions

Gilad

2019

Public Performance & Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commentary: Mapping a More Specialized Public Administration

Abstract: Related Content: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.12737/abstract Related Content: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.12783/abstract

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Redefining the boundaries of Public Administration

Redefining the boundaries of Public Administration

Revisiting the academic–practitioner divide: Evidence from computational social science and corpus linguistics

Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Pursuit of Richer Answers to Real-World Questions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About