Scholarly research in American public administration has been maligned by both academicians and practitioners. The criticisms range from dissatisfaction with research designs in doctoral dissertations to claims that refereed journal articles lack theoretical foundation. This article examines the application of quantitative methodologies in a random sample of four mainstream public administration journals over a 4-yearperiod. The evaluation reveals that a significant number of authors in the sample used inappropriate quantitative techniques. The implications of these findings are discussed within the broader context of policy prescription and evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dahl, R. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review, 7, 1-11.
2.
Houston, D. J. , & Delevan, S. M. (1990). Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review, 50, 674-681.
3.
Kweit, M. G. , & Kweit, R. W. (1981). Concepts and methods for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
McCurdy, H. E. , & Cleary, R. E. (1984). Why can't we resolve the research issue in public administration?Public Administration Review, 44, 49-55.
5.
Meier, K. J. , & Brudney, J. L. (1993). Applied statistics for public administration (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
6.
O'Sullivan, E. , & Rassel, G. R. (1989). Research methods for public administrators. New York: Longman.
7.
Simon, H. A. (1947). A comment on the science of public administration. Public Administration Review, 7, 200-203.
8.
Waldo, D. (Ed.). (1953). Ideas and issues in public administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Welch, S. , & Comer, J. (1988). Quantitative methods for public administration. Chicago: Dorsey.
