Beginning in the 1940s, academics recognized a gap between themselves and practitioners and contemplated methods of reducing this divide. Evidence for this gap includes recognition that academics and practitioners have different audiences, viewpoints, interests, intellectual approaches, research methods, and styles of discourse. Although much has been written about this topic and many solutions for closing this gap have been offered, there is growing concern among some scholars that this gap is increasing. Using a recent survey of current and lapsed members conducted for the American Society for Public Administration, we assess the current state of the gap between academics and practitioners on a range of ASPA services and priorities. Our findings suggest that demographic variables are more robust predictors of attitudinal differences among ASPA members as opposed to academic-practitioner views. Recognizing these differences may prove critical for ASPA as a professional forum of relevance as well as for promoting greater connectedness in public administration programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvarezR. M.BrehmJ. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
AmabileT. M.PattersonC.MuellerJ.WojcikT.OdomirokP. W.MarshM.et al. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration.Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
3.
American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). (2011). ASPA’s Mission. Retrieved from http://www.publicservicecareers.org/index.asp?pageid=525
4.
AngS.StraubD. (2001). Rigor and relevance in IS research: Redefining the debate and a call for future research.MIS Quarterly, 35(1), iii–xi.
5.
BattaglioR. P.Jr. (2008). University-based training programs for local elected officials in the southeast.State and Local Government Review, 40(2), 125–131.
6.
BoltonM. J.StolcisG. B. (2003). Ties that do not bind: Musings on the specious relevance of academician research.Public Administration Review, 63(5), 626–630.
7.
CampbellJ. P.DaftR. L.HulinC. L. (1982). What to study: Generating and developing research questions.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
DeadrickD. L.GibsonP. A. (2009). Revising the research-practice gap in HR: A longitudinal analysis.Human Resource Managment Review, 19(2), 144–153.
9.
GoodinR. E.ReinM.MoranM. (2006). The public and its policies. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E., The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 2–38). New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
HollenbeckJ. R.DeRueD. S.GuzzoR. (2004). Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team composiiton, team training, and team task design.Human Resource Management, 43(4), 353–366.
11.
HughesT.O’ReganN.WornhamD. (2008). The credibility issue: Closing the academic/practitioner gap.Strategic Change, 17 (7/8), 215–233.
12.
HyattD.CropanzanoR.FinferL. A.LevyP.RuddyT. M.VandaveerV.et al. (1997). Bridging the gap between academics and practice: Suggestions from the field.Industrial Psychologist, 35(1), 29–32.
13.
JurkiewiczC. L.BrownR. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee motivation.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 18–37.
14.
KumlinS. (2001). Ideology-driven opinion formation in Europe: The case of attitudes towards the third sector in Sweden.European Journal of Political Research, 39(4), 487–518.
15.
LidmanR.SommersP. (2005). The “compleat” policy analyst: A top 10 list.Public Administration Review, 65(5), 628–634.
16.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variable using STATA (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
17.
LutonL. S. (2007). Deconstructing public administration empiricism.Administration & Society, 39(4), 527–544.
18.
LutonL. S. (2008). Beyond empiricists versus postmodernists.Administration & Society, 40(2), 211–219.
19.
McSwiteO. C. (2001). Theory competency for MPA-educated practitioners.Public Administration Review, 61(1), 100–115.
20.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2007). Deconstructing Larry Luton: Or what time is the next train to reality junction?Administration & Society, 39(6), 786–796.
21.
MilamD. M. (2003). Practitioner in the classroom: Bringing local government experience into the public administration curriculum.Public Administration Review, 63(3), 364–369.
22.
NewlandC. A. (2000). The Public Administration Review and ongoing struggles for connectedness.Public Administration Review, 60(1), 20–38.
23.
OspinaS. M.DodgeJ. (2005a). It’s about time: Catching method up to meaning—the usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research.Public Administration Review, 65(2), 143–157.
24.
OspinaS. M.DodgeJ. (2005b). Narrative inquiry and the search for connectedness: Practitioners and academicians developing public administration scholarship.Public Administration Review, 65(4), 409–423.
25.
PageE. C.JenkinsB. (2005). Policy bureaucracy: Government with a cast of thousands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
PosnerP. L. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics.Public Budgeting and Finance, 29(1), 12–26.
27.
PowellW.Owen-SmithJ. (1998). Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 253–277.
28.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N.LeeK. H. (2011). Trends in the study of public administration: Empirical and qualitative observations from Public Administration Review, 2000–2009.Public Administration Review, 71(1), 19–33.
29.
RoperL. (2002). Achieving successful academic-practitioner research collaborations.Development in Practice, 12 (3/4), 338–345.
30.
RynesS. L.BrownK. G.ColbertA. E. (2002). Seven common misconceptions about human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner beliefs.Academy of Managment Executive, 16(3), 92–103.
31.
RynesS. L.GilukT. L.BrownK. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management.Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 987–1008.
32.
SimonH. A. (1952, June). Development of theory of democratic administration: Replies and comments. American Political Science Review, 46, 494–496.
33.
StiversC. (2000). “An impossible job”: Report on the building bridges tour.Public Administration Review, 60(3), 194–199.
34.
SussmanG. I.EveredR. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603.
35.
SzajnaB. (1994). How much is information systems research addressing key practitioner concerns?Data Base, 25(2), 49–59.
36.
Van de VenA. H.JohnsonP. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice.Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.
37.
WaldoD. (1952a, March). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review, 46, 81–103.
38.
WaldoD. (1952b, July). Development of theory of democratic administration: Replies and comments. American Political Science Review, 46, 501–503.
