Power in Editorial Positions: A Feminist Critique of Public Administration

Journal editors serve a vital, powerful role in academic fields. They set research priorities, serve as gatekeepers for research, play a critical role in advancing junior scholars as reviewers and eventually into editorial roles, build extensive networks, and gain valuable insight into the behavior and preferences of reviewers and scholars. This article analyzes data collected from leading public administration journals in 2017 to investigate the role of women as gatekeepers of public administration knowledge. The data illustrate a clear underrepresentation of women on editorial boards. Drawing from these data, research on journal editorships, and feminist theory, the authors present a critique of the current state of public administration research and a discussion of a way forward. They conclude with a proposal for how all public administration scholars (junior, senior, men, and women), journal leadership, and academic departments can move toward increasing women's representation in these important positions.     

Reflections on AJPA and Other Public Administration Journals

I welcome the invitation of the current AJPA Editors, Glyn Davis and John Wanna, to write these reflections to accompany the decennial index and Catherine Althaus's article surveying what we have been talking about in AJPA over the past decade. In this endnote I want to say something about the mission of public administration journals (including AJPA) , to offer a few comments about the editorial function, and also to refer to some exercises in comparing public administration journals. It may be appropriate to begin with a few facts about AJPA itself.     

Defining the Boundaries of Public Administration: Undisciplined Mongrels versus Disciplined Purists

"Undisciplined mongrels" are faculty from public administration programs who publish in a wide variety of journals. We expected that undisciplined mongrels would have more successful publishing records than their counterparts—"disciplined purists" who publish exclusively in public administration journals. This expectation is supported through an analysis of journal publications by a panel of 91 junior faculty members. We also expected that the methods that are currently used to rank public administration programs would discard a massive body of publication activity by public administration faculty. This expectation is also soundly supported. Findings indicate that from 1990 through 1997, a scant 18 percent of the articles published by the faculty panel were published in the highly selective set of 11 journals that are currently used to rank public administration programs.     

Behavioral Public Administration: Past,Present, and Future

The last decade has seen remarkable growth in the field of behavioral public administration, both in practice and in academia. In both domains, applications of behavioral science to policy problems have moved forward at breakneck speed; researchers are increasingly pursuing randomized behavioral interventions in public administration contexts, editors of peer-reviewed academic journals are showing greater interest in publishing this work, and policy makers at all levels are creating new initiatives to bring behavioral science into the public sector. However, because the expansion of the field has been so rapid, there has been relatively little time to step back and reflect on the work that has been done and to assess where the field is going in the future. It is high time for such reflection: where is the field currently on track, and where might it need course correction?     

COLLECTIVE DELUSION IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: PUBLISHING INCENTIVES FOR EMPIRICAL ABUSE

The implications o f the editorial bias of academic journals for the selection of articles with apparently statistically significant findings are widely recognized but largely ignored. Few worry about the incentives the publishing bias presents to researchers for empirical abuse that brings into question the basis of social science knowledge. One possible solution, desirable but probably impractical, is to review articles with statistical results and conclusions omitted. Another, more practical, approach is to guarantee journal space for replication of previously published research. Finally, editors should take greater care in warning readers about findings that implicitly make unfounded statistical claims.     

An auction market for journal articles

We recommend that an auction market replace the current system for submitting academic papers and show a strict Pareto-improvement in equilibrium. Besides the benefit of speed, this mechanism increases the average quality of articles and journals and rewards editors and referees for their effort. The “academic dollar” proceeds from papers sold at auction go to authors, editors and referees of cited articles. This nonpecuniary income indicates the academic impact of an article—facilitating decisions on tenure and promotion. This auction market does not require more work of editors.     

The Role of IPAA: Public Presentation — Key Issues in Governance

In the December 1997 issue of this journal our editors expressed concern about the decline in teaching of public administration. This does not reflect any decline in the overall level of involvement by government in the economy or society. Rather it seems to reflect changing perceptions of what is needed to succeed in public administration.
This in turn raises the very important issue of what we as a society expect from our future public administrators. While many management skills are common to both business and the public sector, public administration needs to extend beyond the limits of business management to comprehend issues such as accountability, probity and policy processes. Indeed it is increasingly being recognised that what is at stake is not just management per se, but rather the broader array of relationships involved in good governance.
The Institute of Public Administration Australia has over the years played an important role in bringing practitioners and teachers together to help foster a better appreciation of these issues. Now more than ever, when the public sector is experiencing considerable change, there needs to be a lively forum where these broader issues of public administration can be debated and new approaches can be tested.
The National Council of the Institute has accordingly been considering how the Institute might encourage a wider public appreciation of good governance. In order to assist in this process and to provide some guidance to spokepersons, the Council has agreed the following Statement. We hope that all members of the Institute will find this Statement helpful and will be encouraged to promote the ideals it seeks to uphold.     

改革开放以来的中国公共行政学

改革开放以后,中国公共行政学得以恢复与重建,并逐渐确立了其应有的学科地位,从而获得了更大的发展空间,取得了辉煌的成就:高等院校公共行政学科学院化,建立了完整的专业教育体系,专业性学术组织蓬勃发展,创办了一批专业学术期刊,积极开展国际学术交流;研究领域不断拓展,研究范式不断转换,研究方法不断改进,话语体系不断构建等。公共行政学的发展在推动我国行政体制改革、构建服务型政府、转变政府职能、培育公共精神、提升政府治理能力等方面都起到了重要作用,但在没有形成完备的本土化理论体系、研究方法的结构性失衡、公共行政的合法性危机等方面,仍面临较大的挑战。不过,全面深化改革的进一步推进、国家治理体系与治理能力现代化水平的逐步提高、互联网与大数据技术的广泛应用,也为公共行政学的发展创造了巨大的发展机遇。未来中国公共行政学的发展要立足现实,及时回应和满足社会变革的需要,创新公共行政学的研究范式与方法,构建具有中国特色的公共行政学话语体系和本土化的公共行政学理论。     

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT OR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?

Abstract: The debate over managerialism has been the most controversial issue in Australian public administration journals in recent years. Although most articles have been critical, there have been responses in favour of the changes by senior public servants. One unfortunate consequence of this debate has been the appearance of a gap between academic public administration and public service practice.
This paper argues that, from several angles, the work now carried out by public services is management rather than administration. It argues that managerialism is a long-overdue reform to a model which has outlived its usefulness. The traditional model of public administration was an irrelevance for many years; it was never efficient or effective and deserved to be replaced. However, public management does not necessarily mean the widespread and uncritical adoption of practices from the private sector. What it should mean is that a distinctive public management needs to be developed. This should take account of the differences between the sectors, but still recognise that the work being done by public servants is now managerial rather than administrative.     

公共管理视角下的中国危机管理研究——现状、趋势和未来方向

中国近年来社会科学视角的危机管理研究已进入瓶颈期。本文旨在梳理这十年来公共管理视角下的危机管理相关研究,以期为危机管理研究进一步深入发展提供参考。评述文献主要来源于公共管理、政治学、管理学和综合社会科学领域的重要学术期刊以及依据专业知识所选取的近些年来具有代表性的研究专著和报告。在对文献进行分类、编码和统计分析之后,分析结果表明:危机事前分析的文章占据主导地位,而对危机应对过程和危机后分析相对不足;应然研究类文章占据很大比重,但对于危机理论的建构和实证检验的研究比较缺乏;对于危机的综合分析多于单灾种分析。近些年中,虽然上述研究方式依然居于主导地位,但是研究者开始关注危机后的分析,注意理论的建构和检验,特别值得注意的是对于社会安全事件的分析呈上升趋势。最后,本文结合危机管理研究的现状和趋势总结出未来值得研究的若干领域。     

Big Questions for a Significant Public Administration

During the 1999 "Building Bridges Tour" (see Stivers 2000), PAR readers encouraged the editors to focus more attention on the so-called "Big Questions/Big Issues" of the field of public administration. In response to this suggestion, we created a new forum for scholarly discourse simply called "Big Questions/Big Issues." This inaugural forum begins with a context setting essay by John Kirlin,a leading proponent of the Big Questions/Big Issues perspective. Kirlin' essay is immediately followed by Laurence E. Lynn Jr.'s thought provoking piece, "The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For." Lynn' essay is important for it takes to task those who carelessly attack "traditional public administration." We asked J. Patrick Dobel (University of Washington), David Rosenbloom (American University), Norma Riccucci (State University of New York at Albany), and James Svara (North Carolina State) to respond to Lynn' essay. We invite PAR readers to join the conversation using PAR' message board online at ASPA's Online Community (http://www.memberconnections.com/aspa/) or by writing directly to theauthors and/or editors.—LDT     

A systematic review of the public administration literature to identify how to increase public engagement and participation with local governance

A systematic review of the public administration literature on public engagement and participation is conducted with the expressed intent to develop an actionable evidence base for public managers. Over 900 articles, in nine peer‐reviewed public administration journals are screened on the topic. The evidence from 40 articles is classified, summarized, and applied to inform the managerial practice of activating and recruiting the participation of the public in the affairs of local governance. The review also provides brief explanation on how systematic reviews can fill a need in governance from the evidence‐based management perspective.     

Public administration in smart city: A bibliometric analysis

The role of the public administration is crucial for the development of smart cities. Several scholars have highlighted the need for greater contributions focused on the relationship between public administration and smart cities. This work aims to map the contributions on the topic highlighting the status of the field in the recent years. A bibliometric analysis was performed on a sample of articles published in business and management journals. The analysis was carried out using the R-studio Bibliometrics package. Results show that research on the topic is still in an initial stage and has several gaps that future studies could fill. The study is useful for scholars because it identifies the topics analyzed by previous research and highlights future research questions that could be investigated. The analysis highlighted the areas studied by scholars on the topic: urban planning, sustainable development, governance approach, Internet of Things and information and communication technologies.     

Coming Apart: Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Processes in the Johnson Administration

Budgeting in the 1980s seems very different from budgeting in the 1960s. The differences have more to do with economic conditions than with the techniques of budgeting. In the article published below, David C. Mowery and Mark S. Kamlet present their interpretation of how budgeting was transformed during the Johnson administration. The editors of this journal, both of whom have conducted research on the Johnson administration, do not share the point of view expressed in this article, but believe that the readers of Public Budgeting and Finance should be provided a diverse range of viewpoints. The editors invite comment on this article and expect to publish articles presenting different interpretations in subsequent issues of the journal.     

Recovering,Restoring, and Renewing the Foundations of American Public Administration: The Contributions of Herbert J. Storing

Public administration continues to face an identity crisis that turns on the question of whether the animating principles of the discipline are to be discovered in the political foundations of a given regime, or whether they are to be found in more universal and transcendent principles of scientific management. Herbert J. Storing reframed the identity crisis as a problem arising from America’s constitutional system of governance. In doing so, he created an important role for public administration in democratic governance. This role took the form of “closet statesmanship” and, in practice, requires the exercise of prudential judgment that looks more like judicial decision making than scientific management. In summarizing Storing’s writings, the authors convincingly argue that he has much to teach us about the ongoing debate regarding the role of the bureaucracy within America’s 87,576 systems of government.     

Knowledge Construction in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis of Public Value

Public administration is a relatively young field with a growing academic community. Against the background of enduring discussions about theory and increasing research output and diversification within the field, the authors apply the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse that combines discourse theories and a social constructionist tradition to the exemplary case of “public value” research. The authors scrutinize 50 articles from 12 journals over 18 years to trace the development of public value as a concept in public administration research. Drawing from this exemplary case, they develop propositions and propose a framework for knowledge construction that is uniquely characterized as public administration. From the anchor points of manageability, economization, and democratic accountability, the authors develop a framework for analyzing and investigating knowledge development in other concepts such as network governance, representative bureaucracy, and coproduction.     

案例研究概推性的理论逻辑与评价体系——基于公共管理案例研究样本论文的实证分析

案例研究是公共管理研究者运用的一种主要研究方法,但却常常被认为科学性不强。其面临的一项主要指责是案例研究的结果缺乏概推性,即源自一个或少数几个案例研究的结果缺乏普遍意义。本文首先梳理既有案例研究方法论文献对该项挑战的理论回应,分析案例研究结果概推性论述中的三种主要理论逻辑:"自然主义式概推"、"分析概推"和"非正式经验概推"。在借鉴现有理论的基础上,提出一个评价体系,以全面评估案例研究者在处理概推性问题上的严谨性。该体系的三个要素是:研究者"运用案例研究的目的"、"选择案例的理由"及"对案例研究结果适用范围的界定"。在分析上述三要素及其相互关系的基础上,设计出具体的评价指标。然后以发表于五种国际一流公共管理学术期刊上的142篇运用案例研究方法的论文为样本,实证分析公共管理案例研究者在应对概推性难题上的实践。结果表明:在所有样本论文中,八成以上以"一般化"研究为目的,四成以上明确说明了案例选择的理由,三分之一以上采用多案例设计,约四分之一说明了影响案例研究结果适用范围的因素。将2005—2009年样本论文与2000—2004年相比,公共管理案例研究者在处理概推性问题上的严谨程度显著提高,明确说明案例选择理由、采用多案例设计及以"一般化"研究为目的的论文比重大幅上升。最后在讨论实证结果的基础上提出拓展案例研究结果概推性的研究策略。     

公共行政道德化的双重向度

公共行政道德化问题是当代公共行政研究中的一个极其重要的问题,也是行政改革和构建新型公共行政模式的一个重要突破口.公共行政的道德化包括两个向度:其一是公共行政的制度和体制的道德化,即在制度安排中有着道德化的合理规范,包含着道德实现的保障机制,同时,已经确立的制度又是有利于道德因素的生成和成长,能够对行政人员的道德修养的提高有着鼓励的作用;其二是行政人员的道德化,要求行政人员以道德主体的面目出现,在他的行政行为中从道德的原则出发,贯穿着道德精神,时时处处坚持道德的价值取向,公正地处理行政人员与政府的关系、与同事的关系和与公众之间的关系.没有制度的道德化,行政人员个体的道德是不稳定的;但是,如果没有行政人员的道德化,那么制度的道德就会成为空洞的教条.     

Reforming Ghana's Public Service: Issues and Experiences in Comparative Perspective

This article addresses how the public service can be reformed to make it relevant to the circumstances and useful to the majority of people living and working in Ghana. In many public administration journals, reforms in sub-Saharan Africa have received scant attention. Using Ghana as a case study, this article first summarizes and evaluates that country's reform efforts and compares them to mainstream Anglo-American reform ideas. The article comments on the conceptualization of reform based on the notion of community, encompassing the unique political, social, and cultural experiences of the people of Ghana. Finally, the article discusses what a composite formulation of the notion of community might imply for a cross-cultural understanding of comparative public administration.     

Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research

Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five‐year period (2010–14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.