This study contributes to the ongoing evaluation of quantitative research methods in the
field of public administration by examining the data collection and measurement practices
in published research. A review of the data collection and measurement methods reported in
six public administration journals over a 3-year period raises important concerns about
the current state of measurement practice in public administration. Specifically,
researchers often failed to report information that would allow their readers to
appropriately judge the accuracy of reported research findings, interpret these findings
within the context of other research, and learn from the research methods used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, G. B.,& White, J. D. (1994).
Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of
methods and quality . Public Administration Review,
54(6), 565-576 .
2.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990).
The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization . Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1-18 .
3.
Baldwin, J. N. (1991). Public versus
private employees: Debunking stereotypes . Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 11(2), 1-27 .
4.
Behn, R. D. (1995). The big questions of
public management . Public Administration Review, 55(4),
313-324 .
5.
Berry, W. D. (1993). Understanding
regression assumptions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
6.
Box, R. C. (1992). An examination of the
debate over research in public administration . Public Administration
Review, 52(1), 62-69 .
7.
Bozeman, B., & Scott, P. (1992).
Laboratory experiments in public policy and management . Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 2(3),
293-313 .
8.
Brewer, G. A., Facer, R. L. I., O’Toole, L. J., Jr.,
& Douglas, J. 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
.
9.
Brower, R. S., Abolafia, M. Y., & Carr, J. B.
(2000). On improving qualitative methods in public administration research
. Administration & Society, 32(4),
363-398 .
10.
Cleary, R. E. (1992). Revisiting the
doctoral dissertation in public administration: An examination of the dissertations of
1990 . Public Administration Review, 52(1),
55-61 .
11.
Cleary, R. E. (2000). The public
administration doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation of the dissertations of
1998 . Public Administration Review, 60(5),
446-455 .
12.
Cozzetto, D. A. (1994). Quantitative
research in public administration: A need to address some serious methodological problems
. Administration & Society, 26(3),
337-343 .
13.
Forrester, J. P.,& Watson, S. S.
(1994). An assessment of public administration journals: The perspective of
editors and editorial board members . Public Administration Review,
54(5), 474-482 .
14.
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation
modeling with LISREL. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press .
15.
Houston, D. J., & Delevan, S. M.
(1990). Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications
. Public Administration Review, 50(6),
674-681 .
16.
Houston, D. J., & Delevan, S. M.
(1991). The state of public personnel research . Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 11(2), 97-111
.
17.
Houston, D. J.,& Delevan, S. M.
(1994). Acomparative assessment of public administration journal publications
. Administration & Society, 26(2),
252-271 .
18.
Kraemer, K. L., & Perry, J. L. (1989).
Institutional requirements for academic research in public administration . Public
Administration Review, 49(1), 9-16
.
19.
Lan, Z., & Anders, K. K. (2000). A
paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research . Administration
& Society, 32(2), 138-166
.
20.
Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A.
(1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial
experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding
participation in goal setting . Journal of Applied Psychology,
73(4), 753-772 .
21.
Liebman, C. S. (1963). Teaching public
administration: Can we teach what we don’t know . Public Administration
Review, 23, 167-169 .
22.
Maddala, G. S. (1992). Introduction to
econometrics(2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan .
23.
McCurdy, H. E., & Cleary, R. E.
(1984). Why can’t we resolve the research issue in public administration?
Public Administration Review, 44(1),
49-55 .
24.
O’Sullivan, E.,& Rassel G. R. (1999)
Research methods for public administrators(3rd ed.). New York: Longman .
25.
Perry, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1986).
Research methodology in the Public Administration Review, 1975-1984 . Public
Administration Review, 46(3), 215-226
.
26.
Rainey, H. G., Traut, C., & Blunt, B.
(1986). Reward expectancies and other work-related attitudes in public and
private organizations: A review and extension . Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 6(3), 50-72 .
27.
Stallings, R. A., & Ferris, J. M.
(1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940-1984 .
Public Administration Review, 48(1),
580-587 .
28.
White, J. D. (1986). Dissertations and
publications in public administration . Public Administration Review,
46(3), 227-234 .
29.
Whittington, D. (1998). How well do
researchers report their measures? An evaluation of measurement in published educational
research . Educational and Psychological Measurement,
58(1), 21-37 .
30.
Wright, B. E. (2001). Public sector work
motivation: Review of current literature and a revised conceptual model . Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4),
559-586 .
31.
Wright, B. E., Black, T. R., & Flournory, L. J.
(1999, December). Research measurement in the public administration literature: An
evaluation of journal publications . Paper presented at the 5th National Public Management
Research Conference, College Station, Texas.
32.
Zeitz, G. (1996). Employee attitudes
toward Total Quality Management in an EPA regional office .Administration &
Society, 28(1), 120-143 .
