Interactive education in public administration (2)

Abstract

The previous article (‘Interactive education in public administration (1): The role of teaching “objects”’) described the benefits of ‘moving from behind the lectern’ to engage in interactive teaching in public policy and administration, and the central role of ‘objects’ in that process. But teaching ‘objects’ can only produce effective results if they are used in a way that achieves learning objectives. Interaction for interaction’s sake is not enough; it must also lead to understanding of new concepts and analytical approaches. Moreover, interactive teaching can be challenging for teachers who mainly use didactic traditional lecturing, since it entails sharing control of the discussion with students. This article explains and justifies a purposeful, structured framework both for stimulating engagement in public administration courses, and for turning that engagement into learning, in a way that provides for the intellectual safety of the teacher and student – which is crucial for enabling participants to take risks in classroom discussions. In the process, the article further addresses the rationale for using interactive and object-based approaches specifically in public administration and related disciplines.

Engaging industry in curriculum design and delivery in public policy teaching: A strategic framework

“…Yet such engagement needs to occur with an appreciation that the needs (or wants) of industry do not necessarily align with the needs of society, or of individual students. However, we also acknowledge that thinking through engagement in the context of designing and delivering theoretically informed yet practically relevant courses is easier said than done, as is clear from related discussions on the links between theory and practice in the teaching of public policy (Adams et al, 2015; Cairney, 2015; Walker, 2009), the challenges associated with teaching public administration (Alford and Brock, 2014; Brock and Alford, 2014; Greenwood and Eggins, 1995; Van der Waldt, 2014) and the general public’s disdain for politics (and politicians) (Baltz, 2014; Evans, 2013; Proud, 2014; Sheppard, 2018).…”

Experience and Guidelines for Improving the Educational Process Specialty in Public Management and Administration

“…по-третє, вивчення процесу взаємодії системи публічного управління та університетів та застосування сучасних методів, зокрема в працях [3,7].…”

Challenges to inform the curricula of Master of Public Administration programmes

“…Within the international context, scholars use the concept ‘challenge’ to refer to tasks that are difficult to perform, such as horizontal internal coordination (Hellevik, 2012), interdepartmental coordination (Hansen et al, 2012), and the development of common sense-making amongst diverse stakeholders (Audette-Chapdelaine, 2016). Within the context of PA education and curriculum development, the concept ‘challenge’ is also used for referring to difficult tasks or situations requiring special capabilities, such as: the provision of executive development programmes for specific clients (Copus and Altherr, 2012: 113; Greve and Pedersen, 2017: 23); the learning of new concepts and flexible solutions (Knassmüller and Meyer, 2013: 82); and the implementation of decisions (Brock and Alford, 2015: 8). …”