This paper uses data from National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration accreditation self-study reports to determine the extent to which core curricula focus on the public administration environmental context and professional skills. We develop five hypotheses to examine this focus. Using measures to determine the degree to which course content—as reflected in objectives, topics, and texts—reflects either professional (management and analytical) skills or an environmental (i.e., political, economic, and social) focus, we seek to explain program differences across a set of independent variables (program mission statements, institutional location, additional degrees offered, elective specializations, and faculty characteristics). We find that, although there is not a great deal of variance in the mix of professional skills and environmental context taught in all programs, the differences present may be accounted for by differences in institutional location and faculty characteristics. We also find that programs are generally more focused on professional skills than the characteristics of the faculty teaching in those programs might otherwise indicate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApplebyPaul H.1949. Policy and Administration.University, AL: University of Alabama Press.
2.
AllisonGraham T.1979. “Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?” In Setting Public Management Research Agendas: Integrating the Sponsor, Producer; and User. OPM Document 127-53-1,27-38. Washington, DC: Office of Personnel Management, February 1980. Reprinted in StillmanRichard J.II, Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 4th ed.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 283–298.
3.
BozemanBarry. 1987All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BrewerGene A.DouglasJames WFacerRex L.IIO'TooleLaurence J.Jr.1999. “Determinants of Graduate Research Productivity in Doctoral Programs of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 59(5): 373–382.
5.
ClearyRobert E.1990. “What Do Public Administration Master's Programs Look Like? Do They Do What Is Needed?” Public Administration Review, 50(6): 663–673.
DickeyFrank G.MillerJerry W.. 1972. A Current Perspective on Accreditation.Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
9.
FredericksonGeorge H.2000. “Life among the Deans” PA Times, 23(11): 9.
10.
GoodnowFrank. 1900. Politics and Administration.New York: Macmillan.
11.
HarcleroadFred F.1980. Accreditation: History, Process, and Problems.Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
12.
HavighurstClark C.1994. “Forward: The Place of Private Accrediting among Instruments of Government.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(4): 1–14.
13.
GawthropLouis C.1997. “Democracy, Bureaucracy, and Hypocrisy Redux: A Search for Sympathy and Comparison.” Public Administration Review, 57(3): 205–217.
14.
HenryLaurin L.1995. “Early NASPAA History.” Washington D.C.: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration.
15.
HenryNicholas L.1990. “Root and Branch: Public Administration Travail Toward the Future.” In LynnNaomiWildavsky, Public Administration: The State of the Discipline.Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House.
16.
KiriinJohn J.1996. “The Big Questions of Public Administration in a Democracy.” Public Administration Review, 56(5): 416–423.
17.
LongNorton. 1996a. “Public Policy and Administration: The Goals of Rationality and Responsibility.” Public Administration Review, 56(2): 149–152.
18.
LongNorton. 1996b. “Public Administration and the Goals of Rationality and Responsibility: Further Reflections.” Public Administration Review, 56(2): 152–154.
19.
MoeTerry M.1994. “Integrating Politics and Organizations: Positive Theory and Public Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(1): 17–25.
20.
MoeTerry M.1987. “Exploring the Limits of Privatization.” Public Administration Review, 47(6): 453–459.
21.
MontjoyRobert S.WatsonDouglas J.. 1995. “A Case for Reinterpreted Dichotomy of Politics and Administration as a Professional Standard in Council-Manager Government.” Public Administration Review, 55(3): 231–239.
22.
NalbandianJohn. 1994. “Reflections of a ‘Pracademic’ on the Logic of Politics and Administration” Public Administration Review, 54(6): 531–536.
23.
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, 1997. “Standards for Professional Master's Degree Programs in Public Affairs, Policy, and Administration.” Washington, D.C.: NASPAA.
24.
NeumannFrancis X.Jr.1996. “What Makes Public Administration a Science, or, Are Its ‘Big Questions’ Really Big?” Public Administration Review, 56(5): 409–415.
25.
OsborneDavidGaeblerTed. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
26.
RoederPhillip W.WhitakerGordon. 1993. “Education in the Public Service: Policy Analysis and Administration in the MPA Core Curriculum.” Administration and Society, 24(4): 512–540.
27.
RosenbloomDavid H.1993 “Editorial: Have an Administrative Rx? Don't Forget the Politics!” Public Administration Review, 53(6): 503–507.
28.
RouseJohn E.Jr.1982. “Boundaries of an Emerging Superdiscipline.” Public Administration Review, 42(5): 390–398.
29.
SvaraJames H.1998. “The Politics-Administration Dichotomy Model as Aberration.” Public Administration Review, 58(1): 51–58.
30.
WaldoDwight. 1984. The Administrative State.New York: Holmes and Meyer.
31.
WaldoDwight. 1987. “Politics and Administration: On Thinking about a Complex Relationship.” In Clark ChandlerRalph, A Centennial History of the American Administrative State.New York: The Free Press.
32.
WilsonWoodrow. 1887. “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly, 2(2): 197–222.
