This research article examines the relationship of individual scholars to overall research production and develops new ranking schema upon the absence of top individual scholarship as demonstrations of individual scholarship relative to total rankings. The study creates a ranking system focused on the impact of individual scholars in public administration research. The contributions of this ranking system are to provide a different view than traditional ranking schemas at the institutional and departmental level. In addition, questions about the significance of scholarship within the discipline and for academic institutions outlines the reinforcing nature of systems aimed at identifying a “best” within public administration. Comparisons of findings are discussed in contrast to reputational and prestige ranking systems. Subsequent discussion is focused on the importance of individual scholarship to the institutional rankings through evaluating individual movement between institutions.
BaldwinJN (1988) Comparison of perceived effectiveness of MPA programs administered under different institutional arrangements. Public Administration Review48(5): 876–884.
6.
BehnR (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review63(5): 586–606.
7.
BrewerDJGatesSGoldmanCA (2001) In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. Brunscwick: Transaction Publishers.
8.
BurrisV (2004) The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review69(2): 239–264.
9.
CharbonneauÉBernierLBautista-BeauchesneN (2018) Punching below its weight: Canadian public administration scholarship on the world stage. Canadian Public Admin61(3): 361–384.
10.
ClearyRE (1990) What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed?Public Administration Review50(6): 663–673.
11.
CoeCK (2003) A report card on report cards. Public Performance & Management Review27(2): 53–76.
12.
CutrightM (2003) In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education (review). The Journal of Higher Education74(2): 238–240.
13.
DillDD (2009) Convergence and diversity: The role and influence of university ranking. In BarbaraMBjørnS (eds) University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers97–116.
14.
FerrisJMStallingsRA (1988) Sources of reputation among public administration and public affairs programs. American Review of Public Administration18(3): 309–325.
15.
FinneganDEGamsonZF (1996) Disciplinary adaptations to research culture in comprehensive institutions. Review of Higher Education: 19(2): 141–177.
16.
FowlesJFredericksonHGKoppellJGS (2016) University rankings: Evidence and a conceptual framework. Public Administration Review76(5): 790–803.
17.
FredericksonHG (2001, January/February). Getting ranked. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning33(1): 48–55.
18.
FredericksonHGStazykEC (2016) Ranking public policy and administration graduate programs, 1995–2016: An analysis and discussion. American Review of Public Administration46(5): 507–525.
19.
GardnerSK (2010) Keeping up with the Joneses: Socialization and culture in doctoral education at one striving institution. The Journal of Higher Education81(6): 658–679.
20.
HalamachiA (2002) Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review25(4): 370–374.
21.
HughesR (1925) A study of the graduate schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University Press.
22.
JencksCRiesmanD (1968) The academic revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23.
JohnesG (1988) Research performance indications in the university sector. Higher Education Quarterly42(1): 54–71.
24.
JonesG (1997) The changing politics and policies of higher education. International Higher Education7(5): 16–17.
25.
KnepperHJScutelnicuGTekulaR (2019) Why gender and research productivity matters in academia: Exploring evidence from NASPAA-accredited schools. Journal of Public Affairs Education. DOI: 10.1080/15236803.2019.1565066.
26.
KovenSGGoetzkeFBrennanM (2008) Profiling Public Affairs Programs. Administration & Society40(7): 691–710.
27.
LashmanD (2017) Ranking Research Productivity of the Arts and Science Colleges in Kerala. Gandhinagar, Gujarat: INFLIBNET Centre, 282–291.
28.
LovettCM (2005). The perils of pursuing prestige. The Chronicle of Higher Education51(20): B20.
29.
MarshHW (1979) Annotated bibliography of research on the relationship between quality of teaching and quality of research in higher education. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Office of Institutional Studies.
30.
MarshHW (1984) Students evaluations of teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology (76)5: 707–754.
31.
MassyWFZemskyR (1994) Faculty discretionary time. Journal of Higher Education65(1): 1–22.
32.
McCormickACZhaoC-M (2005) Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning37(5): 51–57.
33.
McPhersonMSchapiroM (1999) The future economic challenges to liberal arts colleges. Daedalus128(1): 47–73.
34.
MeredithM (2004) Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report College rankings. Research in Higher Education45(5): 443–461.
35.
MichaelSO (2005) The cost of excellence: The financial implications of institutional rankings. International Journal of Educational Management19(5): 365–382.
36.
MilemJFBergerJBDeyEL (2000) Faculty time allocation: A study of change over twenty years. The Journal of Higher Education71(4): 454–473.
37.
MorcolGHanS (2018) The National Research Council’s rankings of doctoral programs in public affairs. International Journal of Public Administration41(8): 630–644.
38.
MorganDRMeierK (1982) Reputation and productivity of public administration/ public affairs programs: Additional data. Public Administration Review42(2): 171–173.
39.
MorganDRMeierKJKearneyRC, et al. (1981) Reputation and productivity among U.S. public adminsitration and public affairs programs. Public Adminsitration Review41(6): 666–673.
40.
MorphewCC (2002) A rose by any other name: Which colleges became universities. Review of Higher Education25(2): 207–224.
41.
NeaveG (1979) Academic drift: Some views from Europe. Studies in Higher Education4(2): 143–159.
42.
O’MearaKBloomgardenA (2011) The pursuit of prestige: The experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. The Journal of the Professoriate4(1): 39–73.
OsborneDHutchinsonP (2004) The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent fiscal crisis. New York: Basic Books.
45.
PerrowC (1961) Organizational prestige: Some functions and dysfunctions. The American Journal of Sociology66(4): 335–341.
46.
RodgersRRodgersN (2000) Defining the boundaries of public administration: Undisciplined mongrels versus disciplined purists. Public Administration Review60(5): 435–445.
47.
ScutelnicuGKnepperHJ (2019) A tale of two journals: Women’s representation in public administration scholarship. Public Integrity21(1): 38–53.
48.
ShinJCToutkoushianRK (2011) The past, present, and future of university rankings. In ShinJCToutkoushianRK (eds) University Rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–16.
49.
ShinJHarmanG (2009) New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review10(1): 1–13.
50.
StuartDL (1995) Reputational rankings: Background and development. In WalleriRDMossMK (eds) New Directions for Institutional Research No. 88: Evaluating and Responding to College Guidebooks and Rankings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 633–661.
51.
UsherAMedowJ (2009) A global survey of university rankings and league tables. In BarbaraMKBjørnS (eds) University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 3–18.
52.
UvegesJA (1987) Identifying the impacts of NASPAA’s MPA standards and peer review process of education for the public service: 1975–1985. International Journal of Public Administration9(2): 193–227.
53.
Van de WalleSvan DelftR (2015) Publishing in public administration: Issues with defining, comparing and ranking the output of universities. International Public Management Journal18(1): 87–107.
54.
van RaanAF (2007) Challenges in ranking universities. In SadlackJNian CaiL (eds) The world-class university and ranking: Aiming beyond status. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES, 87–121.
55.
VazireS (2017a) Our obsession with eminence warps research. Nature547(7661): 7.
56.
VazireS (2017b) Against eminence. PsyArXiv. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/djbcw (accessed 21 February 2019).
57.
WebsterDS (1992) Reputational rankings of colleges, universities, and individual disciplines and fields of study, from their beginnings to present. In SmartJC (ed) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press, 8: 234–304.
58.
WilliamsASlagleDRWilsonD (2014) Ranking universities for scholarship in public administration research, 2006–2010. Journal of Public Affairs Education20(3): 393–412.
59.
WholeyJSHatryHP (1992) The case for performance monitoring. Public Adminsitration Review52(6): 604–611.
60.
ZemskyRWegnerGMassyW (2005). Today’s colleges must be market smart and mission centered. The Chronicle of Higher Education51(45): B6–B8.
