Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examined outcomes of public service education in Pakistan. Building on existing models for assessing such programs, we evaluated short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. MPA student perceptions were recorded from the two universities of Pakistan offering the largest MPA programs. Short-term outcomes were encouraging: Students showed higher levels of satisfaction with program goals, curriculum, and instructional techniques. Results of intermediate outcomes also are promising: Students showed complete satisfaction with learning and building competencies required in the workplace. Results of long-term outcomes, however, indicate a challenge. Although long-term outcomes are not easy to assess, examining them in a South Asian country characterized by a politicized bureaucracy and centralized public administration authority is even more challenging. The public affairs administrative systems and education programs work in isolation in Pakistan. Students reported a strong desire to develop systems that encourage them using the knowledge and skills they acquired during their MPA programs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appleby

(1945). Big democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Aristigueta

Gomes

K. M. B.

(2006). Assessing performance in NASPAA graduate programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(1), 1–18.

Baraibanti

(1966). Research on bureaucracy of Pakistan. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Denhardt

R. B.

(1979). On management of public service education. Southern Review of Public Administration, 3, 273–283.

Denhardt

R. B.

(2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public Administration Review, 61, 526–534.

Dillman

D. A.

(2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dolch

N. A.

Ernst

McClusky

J. E.

Mirabella

R. M.

Sadow

(2006). The nature of undergraduate nonprofit education: Models of curriculum delivery. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 28S–50S.

Dolch

N. A.

Kidwell

Jr. Sadow

Smith

(1998). Nonprofit undergraduate education: Delivery models for curriculum within the American Humanics program. In O’Neill

Fletcher

, Nonprofit management education: U. S. and world perspectives (pp. 81–94). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Durant

R. F.

(2002). Toward becoming a learning organization: Outcomes assessment, NASPAA accreditation, and mission-based capstone courses. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 8(3), 193–208.

10.

Jadoon

M. Z. I.

Jabeen

(2010). Public administration education in Pakistan: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Pakistan Vision, 11(1), 120–141.

11.

Jennings

E. T.

(1989). Accountability, program quality, outcome assessment, and graduate education for public affairs and administration. Public Administration Review, 49(5), 438–446.

12.

Kirkpatrick

D. L.

(1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of ASTD, 13(11), 3–9.

13.

Kirkpatrick

D. L.

(1976). Evaluating training programs. New York: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Kirkpatrick

D. L.

(1998). Evaluating training programs (2nd ed.). San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.

15.

McLaughlin

J. A.

Jordan

G. B.

(2004). Using logic models. In Wholey

J. S.

Hatry

H. P.

Newcomer

K. E.

, Handbook of practical program evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 96–113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

16.

NASPAA. (2008, January). General information and standards for professional master’s degree programs. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/NS/naspaastandards.asp

17.

Newcomer

Allen

(2010). Public service education: Adding value in the public interest. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2), 207–229.

18.

Newcomer

Allen

Baradei

L. E.

(2010). Improving public service education programs through assessing the performance of MPA alumni. International Journal of Public Administration, 33, 311–324.

19.

Phillips

J. J.

(1997). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.

20.

Roberts

G. E.

(2001). Using stakeholder surveys in MPA program performance measurement. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(1), 19–30.

21.

Wamsley

G. L.

Bacher

R. N.

Goodsell

C. T.

Kronenberg

P. S.

Rohr

J. A.

Stivers

C. M.

et al. (1990). Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

22.

White

L. D.

(1949). Introduction to the study of public administration (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

23.

Yeager

S. J.

Hildreth

W. B.

Miller

Rabin

(2007). What difference does having an MPA make? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2), 147–167.

Public Administration Education in Pakistan: Does It Add Value in the Public Interest?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References