We Know the Yin—But Where Is the Yang? Toward a Balanced Approach on Common Source Bias in Public Administration Scholarship

Abstract

Surveys have long been a dominant instrument for data collection in public administration. However, it has become widely accepted in the last decade that the usage of a self-reported instrument to measure both the independent and dependent variables results in common source bias (CSB). In turn, CSB is argued to inflate correlations between variables, resulting in biased findings. Subsequently, a narrow blinkered approach on the usage of surveys as single data source has emerged. In this article, we argue that this approach has resulted in an unbalanced perspective on CSB. We argue that claims on CSB are exaggerated, draw upon selective evidence, and project what should be tentative inferences as certainty over large domains of inquiry. We also discuss the perceptual nature of some variables and measurement validity concerns in using archival data. In conclusion, we present a flowchart that public administration scholars can use to analyze CSB concerns.

Institutions or Contingencies? A Cross‐Country Analysis of Management Tool Use by Public Sector Executives

“…First, although we argued that CSB is not much of an issue in our analyses, using a cross‐sectional survey does imply issues of endogeneity. Our findings are limited to associations, and we cannot make statements on causality (George and Pandey ). We suggest that future research address this issue by using, for instance, research designs based on difference‐in‐differences or longitudinal analyses.…”

What makes public-private partnerships work? Survey research into the outcomes and the quality of cooperation in PPPs

“…As most of the variables in this study are based on individuals' perceptions, our variables are by their very nature perceptual (George and Pandey 2017). Although this does not imply that common method bias is not an issue, it means that using a survey, even though it is a single data source, may still be an appropriate method (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2012).…”

“…First, by approaching almost the entire population, there is no chance of sampling errors in this study. Moreover, some procedural remedies were used to minimize potential common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2012;Lee, Benoit-Bryan, and Johnson 2012;George and Pandey 2017). These include the use of different scales (both 10-point and 5-point Likert scales) and making sure that not all variables are presented on the same page of the questionnaire.…”

Exploring the Job Demands–Resources Model of Work Engagement in Government: Bringing in a Psychological Perspective

“…A Harman's single-factor test, in which all items are loaded onto one dimension, was performed to test for common method bias. This model had a significantly worse fit (people-changing: CFI = .460, TLI = .434, RMSEA = .150) compared with the measurement model, indicating that common method bias is unlikely to influence the results (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986;George & Pandey, 2017).…”