This article suggests how historical thinking, as a skill, might be integrated into MPA, MPP, and similar programs. I compare three modes of historical thinking—as a warehouse of analogues, a set of historical institutionalist models of stability and change, and as a “stream”—in terms of the likelihood that they provide useful skills for MPA/MPP graduates. I conclude that historical institutionalist models possess the greatest potential for skill building. Historical analogizing, though obviously a useful skill, is likely to be less portable than historical institutionalist models, and less useful as a tool for navigating the fragmented organizational terrain of the new governance. I argue as well that the potential of “thinking in time streams” is not as a skill, but rather as an ideal point against which skill at applying historical institutionalist models, and historical analogizing, might be judged.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApplebyP. H. (1947). Toward better public administration.Public Administration Review, 7(2), 93–99.
2.
BendorJ. (1995). A model of muddling through.American Political Science Review, 89(4), 819–840.
3.
CapocciaG.KelemenR. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism.World Politics, 59(3), 342–369.
4.
Carnegie Mellon University. (2013). MSPPM curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/school-of-public-policy-management/public-policymanagement-msppm/curriculum/index.aspx
5.
CarrizalesT. (2010). Exploring cultural competency within the public affairs curriculum.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(4), 593–606.
6.
CohenM.1970. The generalist and organizational mobility. Public Administration Review, 30(5), 544–552.
7.
DrorY. (1967). Policy analysts: A new professional role in government service.Public Administration Review, 27(3), 197–203.
8.
ElmoreR. F. (1986). Graduate education in public management: Working the seams of government.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(1), 69–83.
9.
FeslerJ. W. (1958). Editorial comment: Specialist and generalist.Public Administration Review, 18(4), 370.
10.
GersickC. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm.Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10–36.
11.
GolembiewskiR. T. (1965). Specialist or generalist? Structure as a crucial factor.Public Administration Review, 25(2), 135–141.
12.
HallamS. (2010). Transitions and the development of expertise.Psychology Teaching Review, 16(2), 3–32.
13.
HayduJ. (1998). Making use of the past: Time periods as cases to compare and as sequences of problem-solving.American Journal of Sociology, 104(2), 339–371.
14.
HearleE. F. R. (1961). How useful are “scientific” tools of management?Public Administration Review, 21(4), 206–209.
15.
HoneyJ. C. (1967). A report: Higher education for public service.Public Administration Review, 27(4), 294–321.
16.
HoosI. R. (1973). Systems techniques for managing society: A critique.Public Administration Review, 33(2), 157–164.
17.
HowlettM.RaynorJ. (2006). Understanding the historical turn in the policy sciences: A critique of stochastic, narrative, path dependency and processtracing models of policy-making over time.Policy Sciences, 39(1), 1–18.
18.
HurY.HackbartM. (2009). MPA vs. MPP: A distinction without a difference?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(4): 397–424.
19.
InfeldD. LAdamsW. C. (2011). MPA and MPP students: Twins, siblings, or distant cousins?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(2), 277–303.
20.
JaegerA. J. (2004). The place for emotional growth in professional education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(1), 43–65.
21.
JumpW. A. (1947). The professors and the practitioners.Public Administration Review, 7(3), 208–213.
22.
LindblomC. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.”Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
23.
LindblomC. E. (1979). Still muddling not yet through.Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.
24.
LoganG. D. (1985). Skill and automaticity: Relations, implications, and future directions.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 367–386.
25.
MacKayR. B. (2007). “What if?” Synthesizing debates and advancing prospects of using virtual history in management and organization theory.Management & Organizational History, 2(4), 295–314.
26.
MahoneyJ.ThelenK.2010. A theory of gradual institutional change. In MahoneyJ.ThelenK., Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
MansfieldH. C. (1951). The uses of history.Public Administration Review, 11(1), 51–57.
28.
MedeirosJ. A. (1974). The professional study of public administration.Public Administration Review, 34(3), 254–260.
29.
MastracciS. H.NewmanM. A.GuyM. E. (2010). Emotional labor: Why and how to teach it.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2), 123–141.
30.
MorçölG.IvanovaN. P. (2010). Methods taught in public policy programs: Are quantitative methods still prevalent?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2), 255–277.
31.
Network of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2013). MPA and MPP FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/students/faq/faq.asp#question_1
32.
NewanderL. K.NewanderC. B. (2012). Encouraging cognitive flexibility and interdisciplinarity in public administration programs.Administration and Society, 44(3), 285–309.
33.
NeustadtR. E.MayE. R. (1986). Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision-makers. New York: Free Press.
34.
NixonR. M. (1978). RN: The memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.
35.
OrrenK.SkowronekS. (2004). The search for American political development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
PiersonP. E. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
PresthusR. (1964). Decline of the generalist myth.Public Administration Review, 24(4), 211–216.
38.
PerkinsJ. A.SessionsR. E. (1951). Advice to the eager neophyte.Public Administration Review, 11(3), 187–188.
39.
RasmussenJ. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13(3), 257–266.
40.
RevellK. (2008). “Leadership cannot be taught”: Teaching leadership to MPA students.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(1), 91–110.
41.
SayreW. S. (1958). Premises of public administration: Past and emerging.Public Administration Review, 18(2), 102–105.
42.
Syracuse University. (2013). MPA program: Core requirements. Retrieved from https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/pa_degree_programs.aspx?id=644
43.
VentrissC. (1991). Contemporary issues in American public administration education: The search for an educational focus.Public Administration Review, 51(1), 4–14.
44.
VonnegutK. (1969). Slaughterhouse-five, or, The children’s crusade, a duty-dance with death. New York: Delacorte Press.
45.
WaldoD. (1956). Perspectives on administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
46.
WhiteS. (2004). Multicultural MPA curriculum: Are we preparing culturally competent public administrators?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(2), 111–123.
47.
WildavskyA. (1985). The once and future school of public policy.The Public Interest, 79, 25–41.
