This article reports the results of a 1995 survey of the fifty-six NASPAA-affiliated doctoral programs of public administration and public affairs. Following on two related streams of research, we assess the degree of intellectual coherence in the field of public administration, and document what doctoral programs are doing to encourage and prepare students to do research. The evidence indicates that public administration is a fragmented, interdisciplinary field but that many doctoral programs are undertaking considerable effort to train students for research careers. In particular, they are following NASPAA guidance provided in policy on doctoral education and heeding advice provided in the literature. A lingering question is whether these innovations are making a difference in the quantity and quality of research produced by doctoral graduates.1
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsCharles F.Jr.1989. “A Roundtable on Doctoral Education.” Edited transcript from a panel at the Annual Research Conference, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
2.
AdamsGuy B.WhiteJay D.. 1994. “Dissertation Research in Public Administration and Cognate Fields: An Assessment of Methods and Quality.” Public Administration Review, 54(6): 565–76.
3.
BoxRichard C.1992. “An Examination of the Debate Over Research in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 52(1): 62–69.
4.
ClearyRobert E.1992 “Revisiting the Doctoral Dissertation in Public Administration—An Examination of the Dissertations of 1990.” Public Administration Review, (52)1: 55–61.
5.
CozettoDon A.1994. “Quantitative Research in Public Administration: A Need to Address Some Serious Methodological Problems.” Administration and Society, (26)3: 337–43.
6.
DouglasJames W.1996. “Faculty, Graduate Student, and Graduate Productivity in Public Administration and Public Affairs Programs: 1986–1993” Public Administration Review, (56)5: 433–40.
7.
ForresterJohn P.1996. “Public Administration Productivity: An Assessment of Faculty in PA Programs.” Administration and Society, 27(4): 537–66.
8.
GarsonG. DavidSam OvermanE.. 1983. Public Management Research in the United States.New York: Praeger.
9.
GreenStephen G.BauerTalya N.. 1995. “Supervisory Mentoring by Advisors: Relationships with Doctoral Student Potential, Productivity, and Commitment.” Personnel Psychology, (48)3: 537–61.
10.
HenryNicholas. 1992. Public Administration and Public Affairs, fifth ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
HoustonDavid J.DelevanSybil M., 1990. “Public Administration Research: An Assessment of Journal Publications.” Public Administration Review, 50: 674–81.
12.
HoustonDavid J.DelevanSybil M.. 1990–1991. “The State of Public Personnel Research.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(1–2):97–111.
13.
HoustonDavid J.DelevanSybil M.. 1994. “A Comparative Assessment of Public Administration Journal Publications.” Administration and Society, 26(2): 252–271.
14.
KraemerKenneth L.PerryJames L.. 1989. “Institutional Requirements for Academic Research in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 49:9–16.
15.
LaPorteTodd R.1994. “A State of the Field: Increasing Relative Ignorance” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(1):5–15.
16.
MainzerLewis. 1994. “Public Administration in Search of a Theory: The Interdisciplinary Delusion.” Administration and Society, 26(3): 359–394.
17.
McCurdyHoward E.ClearyRobert E.. 1984. “Why Can't We Resolve the Research Issue in Public Administration?” Public Administration Review, 44(1):49–55.
18.
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration [NAS-PAA], 1987a. NASPAA Policy on Doctoral Education in Public Affairs/Public Administration. Approved October 16, 1983, in Minneapolis, MN, and amended October 24, 1987, in Seattle, WA.
19.
NASPAA. 1987b. Final Report of the Task Force on the State of Research in Public Administration. Mimeograph.Washington, DC: NASPAA.
20.
NASPAA. 1988. 1988Directory of Programs in Public Affairs and Administration.Washington, DC: NASPAA.
21.
NASPAA. 1995. 1995Directory of Programs in Public Affairs and Administration.Washington, DC: NASPAA.
22.
NewellCharldean. 1982. “An Overview of Political Science-Based Doctoral Programs in Public Administration.” Teaching Political Science9(4): 190–96.
23.
O'TooleLaurence J.Jr.1995. “Diversity or Cacophony? The Research Enterprise in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review.55(3): 293–97.
24.
OvermanE. SamPerryJames L.RadinBeryl A.. 1993 “Doctoral Education in Public Affairs and Administration—Issues for the 1990s.” International Journal of Public Administration, 16(3):357–380.
25.
PerryJames L.KraemerKenneth L.. 1986. “Research Methodology in the Public Administration Review, 1975–1984.” Public Administration Review, 46(3): 215–26.
26.
PerryJames L.KraemerKenneth L.. 1990. “Research Methodology in Public Administration: Issues and Patterns.” In LynnNaomi B.WildavskyAaron, Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 347–372.
27.
StallingsRobert A.1986. “Doctoral Programs in Public-Administration: An Outsider's Perspective.” Public Administration Review, 46(3): 235–40.
28.
StallingsRobert A.FerrisJames M.. 1988. “Public Administration Research: Work in PAR, 1940–1984.” Public Administration Review, 48(1):580–87.
29.
WhiteJay D.1986a. “Dissertations and Publications in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 46(3): 227–34.
30.
WhiteJay D.1986b. “On the Growth of Knowledge in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 46(1): 227–34.
31.
WhiteJay D.AdamsGuy B.1994. Research in Public Administration: Reflections on Theory and Practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
WhiteJay D.AdamsGuy B.ForresterJohn P. 1996. “Knowledge and Theory Development in Public Administration: The Role of Doctoral Education and Research.” Public Administration Review, 56(5): 441–452.
