This article proposes “gauging” as an unrecognized and useful research purpose for public administration. Unlike an explanatory research purpose, which uses an experimental logic and hypotheses, gauging incorporates a logic of rating and frameworks like standards. It is used in normative assessments such as accreditation, process evaluation, and regulatory policy. We argue that it should be part of public administration’s research tradition because it is widespread in public administration, links to applied research and practice, provides summative and formative assessment, connects evidence to the logic of law, and draws on pragmatism as a link to theory and mixed methods.
AdamsG. B.WhiteJ. D. (1994). Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality. Public Administration Review, 54, 565–576.
2.
AdlerE.ClarkR. (2008). How it’s done: An invitation to social research (3rd ed.). Thompson-Wadsworth.
3.
AsselineauA.GrolleauG.MzoughiN. (2022). A good servant but a poor master: The side effects of numbers and metrics. Administration & Society, 54(5), 971–991.
4.
BabbieE. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Thompson, Wadsworth.
5.
BabbieE.MoutonJ. (2010). The practice of social research. Oxford University Press.
6.
BrownM.HaleK. (2014). Applied research methods in public and nonprofit organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
7.
CasulaM.RangarajanN.ShieldsP. (2021). The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research. Quality & Quantity, 55(5), 1703–1725
8.
ClearyR. E. (1992). Revisiting the doctoral dissertation in public administration: An examination of the dissertations of 1990. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 55–61.
9.
ClearyR. E. (2000). The public administration doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation of the dissertations of 1998. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 446–455.
10.
DeweyJ. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Holt Rinehart and Winston.
11.
DurmM. W. (1993). An A is not an A is not an A: A history of grading. The Educational Forum, 57(3), 294–297.
12.
FarmerJ. L.CostelloW. A.Jr. (2019). Social media as an innovative policy tool: Lessons and recommendations from the city of Austin. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 26(2), Article 5.
13.
GilgunJ. F. (2015a). Beyond description to interpretation and theory in qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 14(6), 741–752.
14.
GilgunJ. F. (2015b). Deductive qualitative analysis as middle ground: Theory-guided qualitative research. Amazon Digital Services LLC.
15.
GrinnellR. M. (2001). Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Peacock Publishers.
16.
GubaE. G. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation?Evaluation Practice, 8(1), 23–43.
17.
HarkinsJ. S. (2010). An ideal sustainable energy model for local utilities: A n assessment of the city of San macros, Texas. Applied Research Project. Texas State University.
18.
HedrickT. E.BickmanL.RogD. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical guide. Sage Publications.
19.
HeyvaertM.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47(2), 659–676.
20.
HickmanL. (1990). Dewey’s pragmatic technology. Indiana University Press.
21.
HothersallS. J. (2019). Epistemology and social work: Enhancing the integration of theory, practice, and research through philosophical pragmatism. European Journal of Social Work, 22(5), 860–870.
22.
HoweK. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Education Research, 17(8), 10–16.
23.
HydeK. F. (2000). Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 82–90.
24.
JamesW. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. The Riverside Press.
25.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
26.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
27.
KaplanA. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. Chandler Publishing Co.
28.
KeehleyP.MedlinS.LongmireL.MacBrideS. A. (1997). Bench- marking for best practices in the public sector: Achieving performance breakthrough in federal, state, and local agencies. Jossey-Bass.
29.
LererD. (2012). Big things in small packages: Evaluating the city of Berkeley’s nanotechnology ordinance effectiveness as a model of targeted transparency. Pace Environmental Law Review, 30, Article 6.
30.
LeversM. J. D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open, 3(4), 2158244013517243.
31.
LeyS. (2002). An assessment of succession planning at the state bar of Texas. Applied Research Project. Texas State University.
32.
LindseyJ. (2010). Quality after school time: An evaluative study of the Eastside s tory after school program in Austin, TX. Applied Research Project. Texas State University.
33.
McDonaldB. D.IIIHallJ. L.O’FlynnJ.van ThielS. (2022). The future of public administration research: An editor’s perspective. Public Administration, 100(1), 59–71.
34.
McSwiteO. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse analysis. SAGE.
35.
MenandL. (2002). The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. Macmillan.
36.
MorseJ. M.SwansonJ.KuzelA. J. (Eds.). (2001). The nature of qualitative evidence. Sage.
37.
MuiruriK. E. F.BwisaH.MuturiW.KihoroJ. (2017). Investigation of the adoption of strategic planning by small and medium sized manufacturing firms in Kenya. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 6(4), 105–126.
38.
MuthumaE. (2012). Do co-operative development policies really lead to the development of co-operatives? Lessons from Kenya. Africa Insight, 41(4), 176–191.
39.
NowellB.AlbrechtA. (2019). A reviewer’s guide to qualitative Rigor. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 348–363.
40.
NutleyS.LevittR.SolesburyW.MartinS. (2012). Scrutinizing performance: How assessors reach judgements about public services. Public Administration, 90(4), 869–885.
41.
O’ConnorM. K.NettingF. E.ThomasM. L. (2008). Grounded theory: Managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 28–45.
42.
O’HerrinK.BassettC. G.DayS. D.RiesP. D.WisemanP. E. (2023). Borrowed credentials and surrogate professional societies: A critical analysis of the Urban forestry profession. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF), 49(3), 107–136.
43.
O’NeillB. (2008). A model assessment tool for the incident command system: A case study of the San Antonio fire department. Applied Research Project. Texas State University.
44.
PerryJ. L.KraemerK. L. (1986). Research methodology in the “Public Administration Review,” 1975-1984. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/3110436
45.
ProvostF.KohaviR. (1998). Guest editors’ introduction: On applied research in machine learning. Machine Learning, 30(2–3), 127–132.
46.
RavitchB.RigganM. (2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Sage.
47.
RitchieJ.LewisJ. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.
48.
RudduckS. G.StoianoffN.WilliamsM. A. (2011, December). Visualizing the ‘shape of quality’: An application in the context of intellectual property. In SHAPES, Academia.
49.
Rycroft-MaloneJ.SeersK.TitchenA.HarveyG.KitsonA.McCormackB. (2004). What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice?. Journal of advanced nursing, 47(1), 81–90.
50.
SaundersT. C.HolahanJ. M. (1997). Criteria-specific rating scales in the evaluation of high school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(2), 259–272.
ShieldsP. M.RangarajanN. (2013). A playbook for research methods: Integrating conceptual frameworks and project management. New Forums Press.
53.
ShieldsP. M.TajalliH. (2006). Intermediate theory: The missing link in successful student scholarship. Journal of public affairs education, 12(3), 313–334.
54.
ShieldsP.WhetsellT. (2017). Public administration methodology: A pragmatic perspective. In RaadsheldersJ.StillmanR. (eds), Foundations of Public Administration (pp. 75–92). Melvin and Leigh.
55.
SmithJ. K. (1983a). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Education Research, 12(3), 6–13.
56.
SmithJ. K. (1983b). Quantitative versus interpretive: The problem of conducting social inquiry. In HouseE. (Ed.), Philosophy of evaluation (pp. 27–52). Jossey-Bass.
57.
SmithJ. K.HeshusiusL. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Education Research, 15(1), 4–12
58.
SpringerJ. F.HaasP. J.PorowskiA. (2017). Applied policy research. Garland Publishing, Inc.
59.
StallingsR. A.FerrisJ. M. (1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940–1984. Public Administration Review, 48(1), 580–587.
60.
StebbinsR. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Sage.
61.
StiversC. (2000). Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public administration in the progressive Era. University Press of Kansas.
62.
StrydomH. (2013) An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 49(2), 149–164.
63.
SuttonR. I.StawB. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–384.
64.
TwiningP.HellerR. S.NussbaumM.TsaiC. C. (2017). Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Computers and Education, 107, A1–A9.
65.
VadenJ. (2007). A model assessment tool for classroom technology infrastructure in higher education. Applied Research Project. Texas State University.
66.
van Popering-VerkerkJ.MolenveldA.DuijnM.van LeeuwenC.van BuurenA. (2022). A framework for governance capacity: A broad perspective on steering efforts in society. Administration & Society, 54(9), 1767–1794.
67.
VerhoevenN. (2007). Doing research: The hows and whys of applied research. Lyceum Books.
68.
WhiteJ. D. (1986). Dissertations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46, 227–234.
69.
WorsterW. T. (2013) The inductive and deductive methods in customary international law analysis: Traditional and modern approaches. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 45, 447–521.
70.
YinR. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
71.
YunJ. A.HamidullahM. F.McDougleL. M. (2020). An analysis of gender differences in public administration doctoral dissertation research. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 26(1), 73–95.
72.
ZhuL.WitkoC.MeierK. J. (2019). The public administration manifesto II: Matching methods to theory and substance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 287–298.
