Recent critiques of public administration research have admonished scholars for the lack of rigor in their quantitative research. This study extends the ongoing debate by comparing research published in six public administration journals with that conducted in three related academic fields and three administratively focused practitioner-oriented fields. In general, it is found that public administration research is less oriented toward theory testing and is less quantitatively rigorous than that conducted in the academic fields. Although less conclusive, the findings of the comparison of practitioner-oriented fields suggest that although public administration research may not be atypical of that conducted in such fields, it cannot be counted among the more quantitatively rigorous of those fields.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, G. B. (1992). Enthralled with modernity: The historical context of knowledge and theory development in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52(4), 363-373.
2.
Bailey, M. T. (1992). Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public administration research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47-54.
3.
Blalock, H. M. (1979). Social statistics (rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Box, R. (1992). An examination of the debate over research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 62-69.
5.
Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967-1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-13.
6.
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.
7.
Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21.
8.
Freedman, D. J. (1992, November-December). Is management still a science?Harvard Business Review, pp. 26-38.
9.
Guba, E. G. (1987). What we have learned about naturalistic evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 8(1), 23-43.
10.
Hartman, A. (1990). Many ways of knowing. Social Work, 35(1), 34.
11.
Heimerdinger, J. J. (1993). Are social sciences and physical sciences more closely linked?Social Work, 38(3), 358.
12.
Houston, D. J. , & Delevan, S. M. (1990). Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 674-681.
13.
Houston, D. J. , & Delevan, S. M. (1990-1991). The state of public personnel research. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(1-2), 97-111.
14.
Hoy, W. (1982). Recent developments in theory and research in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 1-11.
15.
Hummel, R. P. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 31-41.
16.
Martinez-Brawley, E. E. , & Delevan, S. M. (1991). Considerations on integrative structures, conditions and alternative models for county human services delivery. Harrisburg, PA: Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
17.
Martinez-Brawley, E. E. , & Delevan, S. M. (Eds.). (1993). Transferring technology in the personal social services. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Work.
18.
McCarthy, M. M. (1986). Research in educational administration: Promising signs for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 3-20.
19.
McCurdy, H. E. , & Cleary, R. (1984). Why can't we resolve the research issue in public administration?Public Administration Review, 44(1), 49-55.
20.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Owens, R. G. (1982). Methodological rigor in naturalistic inquiry: Some issues and answers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(2), 1-21.
22.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Perry, J. L. , & Kraemer, K. L. (1986). Research methodology in the Public Administration Review, 1975-1984. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 215-226.
24.
Perry, J. L. , & Kraemer, K. L. (1990). Research methodology in public administration: Issues and patterns. In N. B. Lynn & A. Wildavsky (Eds.), Public administration: The state of the discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
25.
Reichardt, C. S. , & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Rodwell, M. K. (1987). Naturalistic inquiry: An alternative model for social work assessment. Social Service Review, 61(2), 231-246.
27.
Rubin, A. , & Babbie, E. (1989). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
28.
Scott, D. (1989). Meaning construction and social work practice. Social Service Review, 63(1), 39-51.
29.
Stallings, R. A. , & Ferris, J. A. (1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940-1984. Public Administration Review, 48(1), 580-587.
30.
Wasow, M. (1992). What are we doing to ourselves?Social Work, 37, 485-487.
31.
Weimer, D. L. (1992). Political science, practitioner skill, and public management. Public Administration Review, 52(3), 240-245.
32.
White, J. D. (1986a). On the growth of knowledge. Public Administration Review, 46(1), 15-24.
33.
White, J. D. (1986b). Dissertations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 227-234.
34.
White, J. D. (1990). Images of administrative reason and rationality: The recovery of practical discourse. In H. D. Kass & B. L. Catron (Eds.), Images and identities in public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
