Debates about trade-offs among values are central to the field of public administration and to graduate education in public affairs. Accreditation guidelines from the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) direct graduate programs to articulate the public service values that guide their curricula. Moreover, student ability to articulate a public service perspective is one of the universal competencies for NASPAA accredited programs. Scholars have defined and cataloged myriad values that guide work in professional public service. Still, many programs lack insight into how new students perceive and prioritize public service values. This essay advocates measuring student public service value priorities to aid programs in their discussions of public service values in curriculum design. An example using Q-methodology and data from a new MPA student cohort is reported to illustrate the value of investigating public service value priorities. This essay concludes by describing how an understanding of student public service values priorities can help faculty maintain a curriculum responsive to students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddamsH., & ProopsJ. L. R. (Eds.). (2001). Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
2.
AllisonG. T. (1983). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In PerryJ. L. & KraemerK. L. (Eds.), Public management: Public and private perspectives (pp. 72–92). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
3.
AndersenL. B.JørgensenT. B.KjeldsenA. M.PedersenL. H., & VrangbækK. (2013). Public values and public service motivation: conceptual and empirical relationships. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 292–311. doi:10.1177/0275074012440031
4.
ApplebyP. H. (1945). Big democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
5.
BozemanB. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
BrightL. (2016). Public service motivation and socialization in graduate education. Teaching Public Administration, 34(3), 284–306. doi:10.1177/0144739416645650
7.
BrightL. (2017). Are individuals with high levels of public service motivation satisfied in MPA degree programs?Teaching Public Administration, 35(2), 209–222. doi:10.1177/0144739416650620
8.
BrownS. R.DurningD. W., & SeldenS. (1999). Q Methodology. In MillerG. J. & WhickerM. L. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration (pp. 599–637). New York: Marcel Dekker.
9.
CooperT. L. (1991). An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
10.
DahlR. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review, 7(1), 1–11. doi:10.2307/972349
11.
DayS. (2008). Applications of Q methodology to a variety of policy process theories and frameworks. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 11(2), 141–171. doi:10.1108/IJOTB-11-02-2008-B001
12.
De GraafG., & Van ExelJ. (2008). Using Q methodology in administrative ethics. Public Integrity, 11(1), 63–78. doi:10.2753/PIN1099-9922110104
13.
DenhardtJ. V., & DenhardtR. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering (Expanded ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
14.
DubnickM. J., & RomzekB. S. (1993). Accountability and the centrality of expectations in American public administration. In PerryJ. L. (Ed.), Research in public administration (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
15.
DurantR. F. (2000). Whither the neoadministrative state? Toward a polity-centered theory of administrative reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 79–109. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024268
16.
DurningD. (1999). The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 389–410. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6688
17.
EdlinsM., & DolamoreS. (2018). Ready to serve the public? The role of empathy in public service education programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(3), 300–320. doi:10.1080/15236803.2018.1429824
18.
Fernández-GutiérrezM., & Van de WalleS. (2018). Equity or efficiency? explaining public officials‘ values. Public Administration Review. doi:doi:10.1111/puar.12996
19.
FiorinoD. J. (2010). Sustainability as a conceptual focus for public administration. Public Administration Review, 70(S1), S78–S88. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02249.x
20.
FochtW. (2002). Assessment and management of policy conflict in the Illinois river watershed in Oklahoma: An application of Q methodology. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(11), 1311–1349. doi:10.1081/PAD-120013349
21.
FredericksonH. G. (2010). Social equity and public administration: Origins, developments, and applications. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
22.
GawthropL. C. (1998). Public service and democracy: Ethical imperatives for the 21st century. New York: Chatham House Publishers.
23.
GoodnowF. J. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. New York: The Macmillan Company.
24.
GoodsellC. T. (2011). Mission mystique: Belief systems in public agencies. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
25.
GrantA. M. (2008). Employees without a Cause: The Motivational Effects of Prosocial Impact in Public Service. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 48–66. doi:10.1080/10967490801887905
26.
GulickL. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In GulickL. & UrwickL. (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 1–45). New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.
27.
HaqueA., & Gunther-CanadaW. (2018). Public service for all: How a global ethic prepares public administrators for a transnational century. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(1), 8–26. doi:10.1080/15236803.2018.1429823
28.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. doi:10.1111/padm.1991.69.issue-1
JørgensenT. B., & BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381. doi:10.1177/0095399707300703
31.
KaufmanH. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50(4), 1057–1073. doi:10.2307/1951335
32.
KernaghanK. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as centerpiece. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 711–719. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00334
33.
KnottJ. H. (1993). Comparing public and private management: Cooperative effort and principal-agent relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(1), 93–119.
34.
LandauM. (1969). Redundancy, rationality, and the problem of duplication and overlap. Public Administration Review, 29(4), 346–358. doi:10.2307/973247
35.
LightP. C. (1997). The tides of reform: Making government work, 1945-1995. New Haven: Yale University Press.
36.
MandellM. B. (2009). Public values as a core element of NASPAA. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 261–267. doi:10.1080/15236803.2009.12001560
37.
MarchJ. G., & OlsenJ. P. (1983). Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77(2), 281–296. doi:10.2307/1958916
38.
MariniF. (Ed.). (1971). Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective. Scranton, PA: Chandler Pub. Co.
MolinaA. D. (2015). The virtues of administration: Values and the practice of public service. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 37(1), 49–69. doi:10.1080/10841806.2015.999636
41.
MolinaA. D., & McKeownC. L. (2012). The heart of the profession: understanding public service values. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(2), 375–396. doi:10.1080/15236803.2012.12001689
42.
NabatchiT. (2012). Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708. doi:10.1111/puar.2012.72.issue-5
Norman-MajorK. (2011). Balancing the four Es; or can we achieve equity for social equity in public administration?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(2), 233–252. doi:10.1080/15236803.2011.12001640
45.
OstromV. (1990). Problems of cognition as a challenge to policy analysts and democratic societies. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3), 243–262. doi:10.1177/0951692890002003001
46.
PaarlbergL. E., & LavingaB. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710–718. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02199.x
47.
PerryJ. L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 471–488. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024277
48.
PerryJ. L. (2007). Democracy and the new public service. American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 3–16. doi:10.1177/0275074006296091
49.
PerryJ. L. (2018). What if we took professionalism seriously?PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(1), 93–102. doi:10.1017/S1049096517001810
50.
PerryJ. L., & HondeghemA. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public service. New York: Oxford University Press.
51.
PerryJ. L.HondeghemA., & WiseL. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681–690. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02196.x
52.
PerryJ. L., & WiseL. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373. doi:10.2307/976618
53.
RosenbloomD. H., & McCurdyH. E. (2006). Revisiting Waldo‘s administrative state: Constancy and change in public administration. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
54.
SeldenS. C.BrewerG. A., & BrudneyJ. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration and Society, 31(2), 171–204. doi:10.1177/00953999922019085
55.
SimonH. A. (1946). The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67. doi:10.2307/973030
56.
SpicerM. W. (2001). Value pluralism and its implications for American public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 23(4), 507–528. doi:10.1080/10841806.2001.11643542
57.
StiversC. (1994). The Listening Bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364–369. doi:10.2307/977384
58.
StoutM. (2009). Enhancing professional socialization through the metaphor of tradition. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 289–316. doi:10.1080/15236803.2009.12001562
59.
StoutM. (2010). Revisiting the (lost) art of ideal-typing in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(4), 491–519. doi:10.2753/ATP1084-1806320401
60.
StoutM. (2018). The impossibility of a universal public service perspective. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 222–236. doi:10.1177/0144739417738953
61.
SvaraJ. H. (2007). The ethics primer for public administrators in government and nonprofit organizations. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
62.
SvaraJ. H., & BaizhanovS. (2019). Public service values in NASPAA programs: Identification, integration, and activation. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 25(1), 73–92. doi:10.1080/15236803.2018.1454761
63.
Van der WalZ. (2017). Ethos reinforced, government endorsed? Comparing pre-entry and post-entry values, motivations, sector perceptions, and career preferences of MPA students in Asia. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 23(4), 935–958. doi:10.1080/15236803.2017.12002298
64.
van der WalZ., & HubertsL. (2008). Value solidity in government and business: results of an empirical study on public and private sector organizational values. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(3), 264–285. doi:10.1177/0275074007309154
65.
Van der WalZ.HubertsL. E. O.Van Den HeuvelH., & KolthoffE. (2006). Central values of government and business: Differences, similarities and conflicts. Public Administration Quarterly, 30(3/4), 314–364.
66.
van der WalZ.NabatchiT., & de GraafG. (2015). From galaxies to universe: a cross-disciplinary review and analysis of public values publications from 1969 to 2012. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(1), 13–28. doi:10.1177/0275074013488822
67.
Van WartM. (1998). Changing public sector values. New York: Garland Pub.
68.
WaldoD. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. New York: Ronald Press Co.
69.
WamsleyG. L. (1990). Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
70.
WrightB. E. (2001). Public-sector work motivation: A review of the current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 559–586. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003515
71.
WrightB. E., & GrantA. M. (2010). Unanswered questions about public service motivation: Designing research to address key issues of emergence and effects. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 691–700. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02197.x
72.
YatesD. T.Jr. (1981). Hard choices: Justifying bureaucratic decisions. In FleishmanJ. L.LiebmanL., & MooreM. H. (Eds.), Public Duties: The moral obligations of government officials (pp. 32–51). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
73.
ZeemeringE. S. (2009). What does sustainability mean to city officials?Urban Affairs Review, 45(2), 247–273. doi:10.1177/1078087409337297
