This article examines the scope of information technology and e-government (IT/e-government) in public administration curricula following the 2009 Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) standards. We ask, are we preparing public administration students for the realities of governance in the digital world? We surveyed NASPAA principal representatives and analyzed the NASPAA database of Master of Public Administration (MPA) program selfstudies. The analysis shows that MPA curricula do not give IT/e-government adequate importance, especially in schools accredited under the 2009 standards. The stark findings hold important lessons for public administration education. If curricula continue to systematically underrepresent IT/egovernment, we will train a workforce unprepared for the digital world. The NASPAA competencies should acknowledge IT/e-government as a dominant theme in present-day governance. If not, those of us in public administration education will be like an ostrich burying its head in the sand as technological advancements pass us by.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerryF. (2011). The changing climate for public affairs education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(1), 1–6.
2.
BowmanJ. S.ChenF. F.TinkersleyW. B.HillardK. R. (1993). Patterns in MPA admission decisionmaking: An application of social judgment theory.Public Administration Quarterly, 17(3), 356–372.
3.
BretschneiderB. (1985). Teaching computer technology for information management in schools of public affairs and administration.Social Science Computer Review, 3(2), 93–102.
4.
BretschneiderS. I.MergelI. (2011). Technology and public management information systems: Where we have been and where we are going. In MenzelD. C.WhiteH. L., The state of public administration: Issues, challenges and opportunities (pp. 187–203). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
5.
BrownM. M. (2015). Revisiting the IT productivity paradox.American Review of Public Administration, 45(5), 565–583. doi:10.1177/0275074014523102.
6.
BrownM. M.BrudneyJ. L. (1998). Public sector information technology initiatives: Implications for programs of public administration.Administration and Society, 30(4), 421–442.
7.
BrownM. M.BrudneyJ. L.WaughW. L. (2005). Bridging the gap between information technology needs in the public sector and in public administration graduate education. In GarsonG. D., Handbook of public information systems (2nd ed., pp. 11–26). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
8.
BuffatA. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and e-government.Public Management Review, 17(1), 149–161.
9.
CastellsM. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
10.
ClearyR. E. (1990). What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed?Public Administration Review, 50(6), 663–673.
11.
CourseyD.NorrisD. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment.Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.
12.
DawesS. S. (2004). Training the IT-savvy public manager: Priorities and strategies for public management education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(1), 5–17.
13.
DawesS. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance.Public Administration Review, 68, s86–s102.
14.
DesouzaK. C.JacobB. (2014). Big data in the public sector: Lessons for practitioners and scholars.Administration and Society (Advance online publication). doi:10.1177/0095399714555751.
15.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS.TinklerJ. (2006a). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
16.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS.TinklerJ. (2006b). New public management is dead— long live digital-era governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.
17.
FoleyP.AlfonsoX. (2009). E-government and the transformation agenda.Public Administration, 87(2), 371–396.
18.
FountainJ. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
19.
GanapatiS. (2011). Uses of public participation geographic information systems applications in e-government.Public Administration Review, 71(3), 425–434.
20.
GarsonG. D. (2006). Public information technology and e-governance: Managing the virtual state. Burlington, VT: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
21.
GinnM. H.HammondA. (2012). Online education in public affairs.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(2). Retrieved from http://www.westgaedu/∼distance/ojdla/summer152/ginn_hammond152.html.
22.
GoldfinchS. (2007). Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector.Public Administration Review, 67(5), 917–929.
23.
HaqueA. (2015). Surveillance, transparency, and democracy: Public administration in the information age. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
24.
HeeksR. (2006). Implementing and managing e-government: An international text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
HolzerM.LinW. (2007). A longitudinal perspective on MPA education in the United States.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2), 345–364.
26.
HolzerM.SchwesterR. W. (2015). Public administration: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
HoodC.MargettsH. (2010). Cyber-bureaucracy: If information technology is so central to public administration, why is it so ghetto-ized? In PierreJ.IngrahamP. W., Comparative administrative change and reform (pp. 114–135). Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press.
28.
HyR. J.WaughW.BrudneyJ. L. (1993). An assessment of institutional arrangement and microcomputer skills and competencies in public administration graduate education.International Journal of Public Administration, 16(4), 467–489.
29.
KielL. D. (1986). Information systems education in masters programs in public affairs and administration.Public Administration Review, 46 (Special issue), 590–594.
30.
KielL. D. (1987). Requiring computer and information systems courses in MPA curricula: A report of faculty opinion.Social Science Microcomputer Review, 5(3), 341–346.
31.
KimS. H.LayneK. (2001). Making the connection: E-government and public administration education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4), 229–240.
32.
KovenS. G.GoetzkeK.BrennanM. (2008). Profiling public affairs programs: The view from the top.Administration and Society, 40(7), 691–710.
33.
KraemerK.BerginT.BretschneiderS.DuncanG.FossT.GorrW.et al. (1986). Curriculum recommendations for public management education in computing: The final report of the NASPAA Ad Hoc Committee on Computers in Public Management Education.Social Science Computer Review, 4(1), 1–37.
34.
LathropD.RumaL. (2010). Open Government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. San Francisco, CA: O’Reilly Media.
35.
LavertuS. (2015). We all need help: “Big data” and the mismeasure of public administration.Public Administration Review (Advance online publication). doi:10.1111/puar.12436.
36.
MergelI. (2012). Social media in the public sector: Participation, collaboration, and transparency in a networked world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
37.
MergelI. (2013). Social media in the public sector. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38.
MilakovichM. E. (2012). Digital governance: New technologies for improving public service and participation. New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
MilesR. E. (1967). The search for identity of graduate schools of public affairs.Public Administration Review, 27(4), 343–356.
40.
MoonM. J.LeeJ.RohC-Y. (2014). The evolution of internal IT applications and e-government studies in public administration: Research themes and methods.Administration and Society, 46(1), 3–36.
41.
NabatchiT.LeighningerM. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
42.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and ICF International. (2015). Federal leaders digital insight study. Retrieved from http://napawash.org/images/reports/2015/Federal_Leaders_Digital_Insights_Study.pdf.
43.
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA). (2006). City and county manager survey (result summary). Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/execMPA/naspaa_surveys/CityManagerSurvey.pdf.
44.
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA). (2007). Federal employer survey (result summary). Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/execMPA/naspaa_surveys/FederalEmployerSurvey.pdf.
45.
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA), Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation. (2014). NASPAA standards: Accreditation standards for master’s degree programs. Retrieved from https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/naspaa-accreditation-standards.pdf.
46.
NorrisD. F. (2010). E-government 2020: Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.Public Administration Review, 70 (s1), s180–s181.
47.
NorrisD. F.MoonM. J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grass roots: Tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.
48.
NorrisD. F.ReddickC. G. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change?Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.
49.
NorthropA. (1997). Public administration: Computing education in public administration journals and textbooks.Social Science Computer Review, 15(1), 40–47.
50.
NoveckB. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
51.
OrlikowskiW. J.ScottS. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization.Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
52.
OwenT. (2015). Disruptive power: The crisis of the state in the digital age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
PangM. S.LeeG.DeLoneW. H. (2014). IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public-sector organizations: A public-value management perspective.Journal of Information Technology, 29(3), 187–205.
54.
PollittC. (2011). Mainstreaming technological change in the study of public management.Public Policy and Administration, 26(4), 377–397.
55.
RaffelJ. A.MaserS. M.CalarusseC. (2011). Accreditation and competencies in education for leadership. In MenzelD. C.WhiteH. L., The s tate of public administration: Issues, challenges and opportunities (pp. 70–88). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
56.
ReddickC. (2013). Public administration and information technology. Burlington, VT: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
57.
RocheleauB. (1998). The MPA core course in information technology: What should be taught? Why?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(3), 193–206.
58.
RosenbloomD. H.NaffK. C. (2010). The status of law in contemporary public administration literature, education, and practice. In O’LearyR.Van SlykeD. M.KimS., The future of pubic administration, public management, and public service around the world: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 211–220). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
59.
SaltmanR. (1974). Educating public administrators for managing science and technology.Public Administration Review, 34(4), 343–356.
60.
SchollH. J. (2010). Electronic government (Advances in Management Information Systems [AMIS], Volume on Electronic Government). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
61.
ThielemannK.SoodR. (2015). Market insight: State and local government IT market primer, United States, 2015 (Gartner Industry Market Strategies Worldwide). Retrieved from http://www.nascio.org/events/sponsors/vrc/Market Insight_State and Local Government IT.pdf.
62.
TownsendA. (2013). Smart cities big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
63.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2015). High-risk series: An update (Report No. GAO-15-290). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668415.pdf.
64.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2015). Analytical perspectives, budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2016. Washington, DC: U. S.Government Printing Office.
65.
WallerG.HallenbeckG.RubenstrunkK. (2010). The CIO edge: Seven leadership skills you need to drive results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
66.
WestD. (2005). Digital government technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
WhiteJ. (2015). Managing information in the public sector. New York, NY: Routledge.
68.
ZammutoR. F.GriffithT. L.MajchrzakA.DoughertyD. J.FarajS. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization.Organization Science, 18(5), 749–762.
