This article replicates the 1981 study of Morgan and colleagues and focuses on the productivity of public affairs and administration programs in the United States from 1981 to 1985. While many of the highest-ranked programs retain their 1970-1980 positions, the article notes a dramatic improvement on the part of other institutions. In addition to examining overall productivity, the number of published articles is considered as a ratio to the number of faculty in order to control for the size of faculties. While some smaller programs are helped by the ratio measure, high productivity is more characteristic of doctoral degree-granting institutions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ADAMS, W. C. (1983) "Reputation, size, and student success in public administration/public affairs programs."Public Administration Rev.43: 443-446.
2.
Directory, Programs in Public Affairs and Administration (1984) Washington, DC: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration.
3.
McCURDY, H. E. and R. E. CLEARY (1984)"Why can't we resolve the research issue in public administration?" Public Administration Rev.44: 49-55.
4.
MORGAN, D. R. , R. C. KEARNEY, S. W. HAYES, and H. O. BIRCH (1981) "Reputation and productivity among U.S. public administration and public affairs programs."Public Admin. Rev.41: 666-673.
5.
MORGAN, D. R. and K. J. MEIER (1982) "Reputation and productivity of public administration/public affairs programs: additional data."Public Administration Rev.42: 171-173.
6.
ROBEY, J. S. (1979) "Political science departments: reputations versus productivity."PS12: 202-209.
7.
VOCINO, T. and R. H. ELLIOTT (1984) "Research note: public administration journal prestige: a time series analysis."Admin. Sci. Q.29: 43-51.
8.
WELCH, S. and J. R. HIBBING (1983) "What do the new ratings of political science departments measure?"PS16: 532-539.
