Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-1
Developing collaboration between research-oriented and practice-oriented experts in public administration: How does expert participation make a difference in public policy making and governance practice?
The contradiction between experts’ research (or theory) and practitioners’ practice has plagued public administration for over a century. However, this study emphasizes that experts themselves are not exactly the same. To address the contradiction between research and practice and to improve the role of experts, we need not only to improve the collaboration between experts and practitioners but also to strengthen the collaboration between research-oriented and practice-oriented experts. Using desertification control experiences in 12 counties in northern China as policy examples and through case studies and analysis of a survey of more than 4000 individuals, the study finds that the collaboration with high participation of both research-oriented and practice-oriented experts had the highest governance performance, due to reducing information and knowledge asymmetry, enhancing trust, and strengthening expert participation in public governance. The study also reveals that there are eight institutional design principles that are important for the success of experts’ participation. These principles emphasized knowledge and experts themselves, experts’ relationship with other social actors, and external support (support from laws and regulations and financial support). The study is enlightening to policy makers and public administrators in their endeavor to integrate research (theory) and practice, design public policy, and maximize the use of their knowledge and expertise to advance the cause of public administration.
AgranoffR (2005) Managing collaborative performance: Changing the boundaries of the state. Public Performance and Management Review29(1): 18–45.
2.
AlbækE (1995) Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policy making. Policy Sciences28: 79–100.
3.
AmabileTMPattersonCMuellerJ, et al. (2001) Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal44(2): 418–431.
4.
AnsellCGashA (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(4): 543–571.
5.
BoswellC (2008) The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy15(4): 471–488.
6.
BuickFBlackmanDO’FlynnJ, et al. (2016) Effective practitioner–scholar relationships: Lessons from a coproduction partnership. Public Administration Review76(1): 35–47.
7.
BunkerRD (1978) Organizing to link social science with public policy making. Public Administration Review38(3): 223–232.
8.
CairlJGGallagherPR (1968) Government, science, and technology: A bibliographical essay. Public Administration Review28(4): 373–381.
9.
CaoSLiCXinX (2009) Impact of China’s grain for green project on the landscape of vulnerable arid and semi-arid agricultural regions: a case study in Northern Shaanxi province. Journal of Applied Ecology46(3): 536–543.
10.
CampbellA (1992) Landcare in Australia: Taking the Long View in Tough Times (Third Annual Report). Canberra: National Soil Conservation Program.
11.
ChristensenRKPaarlbergLPerryJL (2017) Public service motivation research: Lessons for practice. Public Administration Review77(4): 529–542.
12.
ComfortLK (1994) Initiating change: A dialogue between theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory4(3): 323–325.
13.
CoplinWDMergetAEBourdeauxC (2002) The professional researcher as change agent in the government-performance movement. Public Administration Review62(6): 699–711.
14.
DavisDFMarquisC (2005) Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Instructional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science16(4): 332–343.
15.
DaviterF (2015) The political use of knowledge in the policy process. Policy Sciences48(4): 491–505.
16.
DennyBC (1967) Prologue science and public policy: A symposium. Public Administration Review27(2): 95–97.
17.
DodgeJOspinaSMFoldyEG (2005) Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review65(3): 286–300.
18.
DunlopCA (2009) Policy transfer as learning: Capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies30(3): 289–311.
19.
DunlopCA (2010) The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal: Biofuels policy in the UK. Policy Sciences43(4): 343–363.
20.
DunlopCA (2014) The possible experts: How epistemic communities negotiate barriers to knowledge use in ecosystems services policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32(2): 208–228.
21.
DunlopCARadaelliCM (2018) Does policy learning meet the standards of an analytical framework of the policy process? ThePolicy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization46(S1): S48–S68.
22.
DunlopCAJamesSRadaelliCM (2020) Can’t get no learning: The Brexit fiasco through the lens of policy learning. Journal of European Public Policy27(5): 703–722.
23.
EgebergM (1994) Bridging the gap between theory the case of administrative policy and practice. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration7(1): 83–98.
24.
EmersonKNabatchiTBaloghS (2012) Integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22(1): 1–29.
25.
EnglehartJK (2001) The marriage between theory and practice. Public Administration Review61(3): 371–374.
26.
EntwistleTDowneJ (2005) Picking winners to define and disseminate best practice. Public Policy and Administration20(4): 25–37.
27.
EvansM (2007) The art of prescription: Theory and practice in public administration research. Public Policy and Administration22(1): 128–152.
28.
FanSZhouL (2001) Desertification control in China. Ambio30(6): 384–385.
29.
GazleyB (2014) Good governance practices in professional associations for public employees: Evidence of a public service ethos?.Public Administration Review74(6): 736–747.
GraffyEA (2008) Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: Bridging theory and practice. Public Administration Review68(6): 1087–1100.
32.
HallJLJenningsJ ET (2008) Taking chances: Evaluating risk as a guide to better use of best practices. Public Administration Review68(4): 695–708.
33.
HenryN (1975) Paradigms of public administration. Public Administration Review35(4): 378–386.
34.
HillRGrantCGeorgeM, et al. (2012) A typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: Implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability. Ecology and Society17(1): 23.
35.
HolzerMCallahanK (1998) Government at Work: Best Practices and Model Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
JakobsenMJensenR (2015) Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal18(1): 3–30.
37.
KotlarskyJOshriI (2005) Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems14(1): 37–48.
38.
LambrightWH (2008) Government and science: A troubled, critical relationship and what can be done about it. Public Administration Review68(1): 5–18.
39.
LandryRLamariMAmaraN (2003) The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review63(2): 192–205.
40.
LiY (2015) Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis. Policy Sciences48(1): 25–50.
41.
LDCE (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) (2015) http://www.ldoceonline.com/ (2008, accessed 17 August 2015).
42.
MargerumRD (2008) A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management41(4): 487–500.
43.
MartinS (2016) Practical approaches to increasing the utilization of research. Public Administration Review76(1): 18–19.
44.
McGuireM (2006) Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review66(s1): 33–43.
45.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Desertification synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
46.
MetzenbaumS (2013) Performance management: The real research challenge. Public Administration Review73(6): 857–858.
47.
MillerHTKingCS (1998) Practical theory. The American Review of Public Administration28(1): 43–60.
48.
MooreEAKoontzTM (2003) A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources16(5): 451–460.
49.
NewlandCA (2000) The public administration review and ongoing struggles for connectedness. Public Administration Review60(1): 20–38.
50.
NewmanMEJ (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences98(2): 404–409.
51.
O’LearyRGerardCBinghamLB (2006) Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Special issue. Public Administration Review66(s1): 6–9.
52.
OrrKBennettM (2012) Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic–practitioner research. Public Administration Review72(4): 487–496.
53.
OspinaSMDodgeJ (2005) Narrative inquiry and the search for connectedness: Practitioners and academics developing public administration scholarship. Public Administration Review65(4): 409–423.
54.
OstromV (1980) Artisanship and artifact. Public Administration Review40(4): 309–317.
55.
OstromE (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56.
PattonMQ (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57.
PerryJL (2013) Reflections about relevance. Public Administration Review73(3): 386–387.
58.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63: 539–569.
59.
PoteeteARJanssenMaOstromE (2010) Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
PowellWWKoputKWSmith-DoerrL (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly41(1): 116–145.
61.
RaadscheldersJCN (2008) Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration. Public Administration86(4): 925–949.
62.
RadinBA (2010) Brenda Bryant: There is nothing more practical than a good theory. Public Administration Review70(2): 289–294.
63.
RadinBA (2013) Reclaiming our past: Linking theory and practice. PS: Political Science & Politics46(01): 1–6.
64.
ReedMS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation141(10): 2417–2431.
65.
ReedMI (2009) The theory/practice gap: A problem for research in business schools? Journal of Management Development28(8): 685–693.
66.
RooneyDMcKennaB (2008) Wisdom in public administration: Looking for a sociology of wise practice. Public Administration Review68(4): 709–721.
67.
SchönDA (1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
68.
StoneD (2007) Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration85(2): 259–278.
69.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basic of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
70.
StreibGSlotkinBJRiveraM (2001) Public administration research from a practitioner perspective. Public Administration Review61(5): 515–525.
71.
UN (United Nations) (1992) Managing Fragile Ecosystems: combating Desertification and Drought, Chapter 12 of Agenda 2. New York: United Nations.
72.
VangenS (2017) Developing practice-oriented theory on collaboration: A paradox lens. Public Administration Review77(2): 263–272.
73.
VangenSHuxhamC (2003) Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science39(1): 5–31.
74.
WagenaarH (2004) Knowing the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review64(6): 643–655.
75.
WangT (2003) Desert and Desertification in China. Shijiazhuang: Heibei Science and Technology Publishing House (in Chinese).
76.
WeissC (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review39(5): 426–431.
77.
WellensJ (1975) Levels of participation. Industrial and Commercial Training7(3): 93–96.
78.
WellsP (2012) Prescriptions for regional economic dilemmas: Understanding the role of think tanks in the governance of regional policy. Public Administration90(1): 211–229.
79.
WescottCG (2009) World bank support for public financial management and procurement: From theory to practice. Governance22(1): 139–153.
80.
WilsonW (1887) The study of public administration. Political Science Quarterly2(2): 197–222.
81.
YangL (2018) The role of experts and scholars in community conflict resolution: A comparative analysis of two cases in China. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research12(1): 66–88.
82.
YangL (2019) Knowledge-Driven Governance: The Role of Experts and Scholars in Combating Desertification and Other Dilemmas of Collective Action. Singapore: Springer.
83.
YangLWuJShenP (2013) Roles of science in institutional changes: The case of desertification control in china. Environmental Science & Policy27: 32–54.
84.
YangYWangSLiuQ (2004) The Apocalypse of China’s Desertification Control (Zhong Guo Zhi Sha qi Shi lu). Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe.
85.
ZhuXXueL (2007) Think tanks in transitional China. Public Administration and Development27(5): 452–464.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
