Using data provided in ProQuest: Dissertations and Theses: Global (PQDTGlobal) database from 1890 to 2016, in this study we explore gender differences in historical and contemporary trends in public administration doctoral dissertation research in the United States. Our analysis reveals that not only has the number of women completing doctoral dissertations in public administration increased throughout the years but gender differences also exist relating to the subject matter that public administration doctoral students have focused on in their dissertations. Moreover, we find gender differences in the types of institutions (public, nonprofit, or for-profit) where public administration doctoral students receive their degrees.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsG.WhiteJ. (1995). The public administration doctorate: A degree in search of a purpose. Journal of Public Administration Education, 1(1), 67–76. doi:10.1080/10877789.1995.12023363
2.
AdamsG. B. (1992). Enthralled with modernity: The historical context of knowledge and theory development in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52, 363–374. doi:10.2307/3110396
3.
AdamsG. B.WhiteJ. D. (1994). Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 565–567. doi:10.2307/976677
4.
BalfourD.MesarosW. (1994). Connecting the local narratives: Public administration as a hermeneutic science. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 559–564. doi:10.2307/976676
5.
BoxR. C. (1992). An examination of the debate over research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52(January/February), 62–69. doi:10.2307/976547
6.
BrewerG. A.FacerR. L.IiL.O’TooleJ.Jr.DouglasJ. W. (1998). The state of doctoral education in public administration: Developments in the field’s research preparation. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(2), 123–135. doi:10.1080/15236803.1998.12022018
7.
ClearyR. E. (1992). Revisiting the doctoral dissertation in public administration: An examination of the dissertations of 1990. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 55–61. doi:10.2307/976546
8.
ClearyR. E. (2000). The public administration doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation of the dissertations of 1998. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 446–455. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00107
ColeJ. (1987). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
11.
ColeJ. R.ZuckermanH. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 2, 217–258.
12.
CozzettoD. A. (1994). Quantitative research in public administration: A need to address some serious methodological problems. Administration and Society, 26(3), 337–343. doi:10.1177/009539979402600303
13.
de Solla PriceD. (1963). Little science, big science.New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
14.
DeanD. G. (1989). Structural constraints and the publication dilemma: A review and some proposals. American Sociologist, 20, 181–187. doi:10.1007/BF02691857
15.
DeLorenzoL. (2000). Stars aren’t stupid, but our methodological training is: A commentary on Jeff Gill and Ken Meier’s article “public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 139–145. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003491
16.
FeldingerC. L.HolzerM.WhiteJ. D. (1999). The doctorate in public administration: Some unresolved questions and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 59(5), 459–464. doi:10.2307/977428
17.
FerreeM. M.McQuillanJ. (1998). Gender-based pay gaps: Methodological and policy issues in university salary studies. Gender and Society, 12, 7–39. doi:10.1177/089124398012001002
18.
GrantL.WardK. B. (1991). Gender and publishing in sociology. Gender and Society, 5, 207–223. doi:10.1177/089124391005002005
19.
GuyM. E.NewmanM. A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 289–298. doi:10.1111/puar.2004.64.issue-3
20.
HilmerC.HilmerM. (2007). Women helping women, men helping women? Same-gender mentoring, initial job placements, and early career publishing success for economics PhDs. American Economic Review, 97(2), 422–426. doi:10.1257/aer.97.2.422
21.
HoustonD. J.DelevanS. M. (1990). Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 674–681. doi:10.2307/976978
22.
HummelR. P. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51(January/February), 31–41. doi:10.2307/976634
23.
IsaacP.KoenigsknechtR.MalaneyG.KarrasJ. (1989). Factors related to doctoral dissertation topic selection. Research in Higher Education, 30(4), 357–373. doi:10.1007/BF00992560
24.
KatzE. L. (1997). Key players in the dissertation process. New Directions for Higher Education, 99, 5–16. doi:10.1002/he.9901
25.
KonrathS. H.ChopikW. J.HsingC. K.O’BrienE. (2014). Changes in adult attachment styles in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 326–348. doi:10.1177/1088868314530516
26.
KushkowskiJ. D.ParsonsK. A.WieseW. H. (2003). Master’s and doctoral thesis citations: Analysis and trends of a longitudinal study. Libraries and the Academy, 3(3), 459–479. doi:10.1353/pla.2003.0062
27.
LeaheyE. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender and Society, 20(6), 754–780. doi:10.1177/0891243206293030
28.
LeiS. A. (2009). Strategies for finding and selecting an ideal thesis or dissertation topic: A review of literature. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1324–1332.
29.
Mayna LuseA.MenneckeB.TownsendA. (2012). Selecting a research topic: A framework for doctoral students. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 143–153. doi:10.28945/1572
30.
MaynardB. R.VaughnM. G.SarteschiC. M. (2014). The empirical status of social work dissertation research: Characteristics, trends and implications for the field. The British Journal of Social Work, 44, 267–289. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs123
31.
McCurdyH. E.ClearyR. E. (1984). Why can’t we resolve the research issue in public administration?Public Administration Review, 44(January/February), 49–55. doi:10.2307/975661
32.
MillerW.KerrB.ReidM. (1999). A national study of gender-based occupational segregation in municipal bureaucracies: Persistence of glass walls?Public Administration Review, 218–230. doi:10.2307/3109950
33.
NakhaieM. R. (2002). Gender differences in publication among university professors in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 39(2), 151–179. doi:10.1111/j.1755-618X.2002.tb00615.x
34.
PerryJ. L.KraemerK. L. (1986). Research methodology in the public administration review, 1975–1984. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 215–226. doi:10.2307/3110436
35.
PrimoN. (2013). NASPAA diversity report 2013: Over a decade in review. Washington, DC: NASPAA.
36.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N.DouglasJ. W. (2003). the doctoral graduate in public administration: Apprentice or master?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9(4), 229–243. doi:10.1080/15236803.2003.12023596
37.
RahmD.BrittainV.BrownC.GarofaloC.RangarajanN.SheildsP.YunH. J. (2018). Exploring the demand for PhDs in public affairs and administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education. doi:10.1080/15236803.2015.12001820
38.
SchroederL.O’LearyR.JonesD.PoocharoenO. O. (2004). Routes to scholarly success in public administration: Is there a right path?Public Administration Review, 64(1), 92–105. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00349.x
39.
SessionsR. R.Jr. (1971). Factors related to dissertation topic selection: Student personnel and guidance (Unpublished dissertation). East Texas State University, Commerce, TX.
40.
SlagleD.WilliamsA. M. (2018). Changes in public affairs and administration doctoral research, 2000 and 2015. Journal of Public Affairs Education. doi:10.1080/15236803.2018.1477370
41.
SpenderD. (1981). The gatekeepers: A feminist critique of academic publishing. In RobertsH. (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 186–202). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
42.
StallingsR. (1986). Doctoral programs in public administration: An outsider’s perspective. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 235–240. doi:10.2307/3110438
43.
StallingsR. A.FerrisJ. M. (1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940–1984. Public Administration Review, 48(1), 580–587. doi:10.2307/975522
44.
SymondsM. R. E.GemmellN. J.BraisherT. L.GorringeK. L.ElgarM. A. (2006). Gender differences in publication output: Towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS One, 1(1), e127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127
45.
WardK. B.GrantL. (1995). Gender and academic publishing. In A. E. Bayer and J. C. Smart (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11, pp. 172–212). New York, NY: Agathon.
46.
WhiteJ. D. (1986). Dissertations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46(May/June), 227–234. doi:10.2307/3110437
47.
WhiteJ. D.AdamsG. B.ForresterJ. P. (1996). Knowledge and theory development in public administration: The role of doctoral education and research. Public Administration Review, 441–452. doi:10.2307/977043
48.
WoodJ. (1988). The growth of scholarship: An on-line bibliometric comparison of dissertations in the sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 13(1–2), 53–62. doi:10.1007/BF02095763
49.
WrightB. E.ManigaultL. J.TamikaR. B. (2004). Quantitative research measurement in public administration: An assessment of journal publications. Administration and Society, 35(6), 747–764. doi:10.1177/0095399703257266
