This article gives a broad overview of Turkish public administration research over the past 20 years and Turkey’s current situation of public administration education. It presents descriptive findings and discusses, compares, and contrasts them with previous research in the United States and Turkey. It examines public administration theory, research, and education together because, in an integrated body of scholarship, the three should reflect each other. Evidence in this study illustrates that the field of public administration in Turkey is quite different from American public administration, but that the elements of theory, research, and teaching are consonant with each other.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArıG. S.ArmutluC.TosunoğluN. G.ToyB. Y. (2005). Nicel Araştırmalarda Metodoloji Sorunları: Yüksek Lisans Tezleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma.Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 64, 16–36. (Methodological issues in quantitative research: A research on master’s thesis. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Political Sciences.)
2.
AverchH.DluhyM., (1992). Teaching public administration, public management, and policy analysis: Convergence or divergence in the master’s core.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11, 541–551.
3.
BerkmanA. Ü (1987). Amme İdaresi Dergisi’nde Yayınlanan Makaleler ve Türk Yönetim Bilimi.Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 20, 19–42. (The articles published in AID and Turkish Administrative Sciences. AID.)
4.
ClearyR. E. (2000). The public administration doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation of the dissertations of 1998.Public Administration Review, 60, 446–455.
5.
ConnaughtonB.RandmaT. (2002). Teaching ideas and principles of public administration: Is it possible to achieve a common European perspective?EPAN Fifth Annual Conference, June 14–15 . Granada, Spain.
6.
DenhardtR. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education.Public Administration Review, 61, 526–534.
7.
DoseN.FingerM. (1999). Public administration in Germany and Switzerland: A review symposium.Public Administration, 77, 651–687.
8.
GowJ. I.SutherlandS. L. (2004). Comparison of Canadian masters programs in public administration, public management and public policy.Canadian Public Administration, 47, 379–405.
9.
HallettD. H. (2000). Teaching quantitative methods to students of public affairs: Present and future.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 335–341.
10.
HenryN. (1995). Public administration and public affairs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
HolzerM.XuH.WangT. (2003). The status of doctoral programs in public affairs and administration.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13, 631–647.
13.
HoustonD. J.DelevanS. M. (1990). Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications.Public Administration Review, 50, 674–681.
14.
InglehartR.WelzelC. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
JreisatJ. E. (2005). Comparative administration is back in prudently.Public Administration Review, 65, 231–242.
16.
KeleşR. (2009). Yerinden Yönetim ve Siyaset (Local Government and Politics). İstanbul: Cem yayınevi.
17.
LiebmanC. S. (1963). Teaching public administration: Can we teach what we don’t know?Public Administration Review, 23, 167–169.
18.
PerryJ. L.KraemerK. L. (1986). Research methodology in Public Administration Review. 1975–1984.Public Administration Review, 46, 215–226.
19.
RethemeyerK. R.HelbigN. C. (2005). By the numbers: Assessing the nature of quantitative preparation in public policy, public administration and public affairs doctoral education.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 179–191.
20.
RodgersR.RodgersN. (2000). Defining the boundaries of public administration: Undisciplined mongrels versus disciplined purists.Public Administration Review, 60, 435–445.
21.
StallingsR. A.FerrisJ. A. (1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940–1984.Public Administration Review, 48, 580–587.
22.
ÜsdikenB.PasadeosY., (1992). Türkiye’deYayınlanan Yönetimle İlgili Makalelerdeki Atıflar Üzerine Bir İnceleme.Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 25, 107–134. (A study on the references of articles published on public administration in Turkey. AID)
23.
VentrissC. (1991). Contemporary issues in American public administration education: The search for an educational focus.Public Administration Review, 51, 4–14.
24.
VerheijenT.ConnaughtonB. (2003). Public administration education and Europeanization: Prospects for the emancipation of a discipline?Public Administration Review, 81, 833–851.
25.
WrightB. E.ManigaultL. J.BlackT. R. (2004). Quantitative research measurement in public administration: An assessment of journal publications.Administration & Society, 35, 747–764.
