In the fields of public administration, policy, and public affairs, more women are earning PhD degrees and entering male-dominated academic and public sector job markets. This trend raises questions about the future of dissertation research and implications of gender on methodological approach and research design. This study examines the state of dissertation methods and research design in public administration, policy, and public affairs doctoral programs through the lens of gender between the years 2010 and 2014. A total of 986 dissertations are reviewed from PhD programs housed in universities that have NASPAA accredited MPA programs. Chi-square tests of independence and multinomial logistic regression illustrate that choice of methodological approach is not independent of gender, but rather there is a significant association between the two, and choice of research design also impacts methodological approach. Descriptive statistics show an increased trend in females using quantitative approaches to dissertation research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsG.WhiteJ. (1994). Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 565–576. doi:10.2307/976677
2.
AllumJ. (2014). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2003 to 2013. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
AndersonE. (1995). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 10(3), 53–80. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb00737.x
5.
BennettA.BarthA.RutherfordK. (2003). Do we preach what we practice” A survey of methods in political science journals and curricula. American Political Science Association, 36(3), 373–378.
6.
BoxR. (1992). An examiniation of the debate over research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 62–69. doi:10.2307/976547
7.
BrewerG.FacerR.O’TooleL.DouglasJ. (1998). The state of doctoral education in public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(2), 123–135.
8.
CarlsonR. (1972). Understanding women: Implication for personality theory and research. Journal of Social Issues, 17–32. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00015.x
9.
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2016). 2015 update: Facts & s. bloomington. Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University School of Education.
10.
ClearyR. (1992). Revisiting the doctoral disseration in public administration-An examination of the disserations of 1990. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 55–61. doi:10.2307/976546
11.
CodeL. (1981). Is the sex of the knower epistemologically significant?Metaphilosophy, 12(4), 267–276. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1981.tb00760.x
12.
CodeL. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and construction of knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13.
DelgadoR.StefancicJ. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press.
GrantL.WardK.RongX. (1987). Is there an association between gender and methods in sociological research?American Sociological Review, 52(6), 856–862. doi:10.2307/2095839
18.
GroeneveldS.TummersL.BronkhorstB.AshikaliT.Van ThielS. (2015). Quantitative methods in public administration: their use and development throught time. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 61–86. doi:10.1080/10967494.2014.972484
19.
GrunowD. (1995). The research design in organization studies: Problems and prospects. Organization Science, 6(1), 93–103. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.1.93
20.
HardingS. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
HardingS. (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
22.
HaysD.SinghA. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
23.
HyR.NelsonP.WaughW. (1987). The future of public administration and quantiative skills. Public Administration Quarterly, 11(2), 134–149.
KellerE. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
KelloughJ. E.PittsD. W. (2005). Who contributes to public administration review? Examining the characteristics of authors who subit manuscripts to the journal. Public Administration Revierw, 65(1), 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00425.x
27.
MackieM. (1985). Female sociologists’ productivity, collegial relationsm, and reserach style examined through journal publications. Sociology and Social Research, 69, 189–209.
McDowellL. (1992). Doing gender: feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(4), 399–416.
30.
MorcolG.IvanovaN. (2010). Methods taught in public policy programs: Are quantitative methods still prevalent?Journal of Public Affairs Educations, 16(2), 255–277.
O’ShaughnessyS.KrogmanN. (2012). A revolution reconsidered? Examining the practice of qualitative reseach in feminist scholarship. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 37(2), 493–520. doi:10.1086/661726
34.
O’SullivanE.RasselG. (1989). Research methods for public administrators. White Plains, NY: Longman Inc.
35.
OakleyA. (1998). Gender, methodology and people’s ways of knowing: Problems with feminism and the paradigm debate of social science. Sociology, 32(4), 707–731. doi:10.1177/0038038598032004005
RaadscheldersJ. C.LeeK. H. (2011). Trends in the study of public administration: Empirical and qualitative observation from public adminisration review, 2000-2009. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 19–33. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02303.x
38.
RahmD.BrittainV.BrownC.GarofaloC.RangarajanN.ShieldsP.YunH. J. (2015). Exploring the demand for PhDs in public affairs and administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(1), 115–128.
39.
RiccucciN. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
40.
RothB. (2004). Separate roads to feminism: Black, chicana, and white feminist movements in America’s second wave. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social contruction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. doi:10.2307/2939044
42.
Schwartz-SheaP. (2003). Is this the curriculum we want? Doctoral requirements and offerings in methods and methodology. PS: Political Science & Politics, 36(3), 379–386.
43.
StallingsR. (1986). Doctoral programs in public administration: An outsider’s perspective. Public Administation Review, 46(3), 235–240. doi:10.2307/3110438
44.
StallingsR.FerrisJ. (1988). Public administration reserarch: Work in PAR, 1940-1984. Public Administration Review, 48(1), 580–586. doi:10.2307/975522
45.
StiversC. (2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
46.
StoneD. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
47.
VogtP.GardnerD.HaeffeleL. (2012). When to use what reserach design. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
48.
WallstonB. (1981). What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to reseach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(4), 597–617. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1981.tb00599.x
49.
WettenhallR. (1997). Reflections on AJPA and other public administration journals. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56(1), 189–198. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.1997.tb01258.x
50.
WhiteJ. (1986). Disserations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 227–234. doi:10.2307/3110437
