As an interdisciplinary field, public administration (PA) has evolved by borrowing and integrating knowledge from multiple disciplines, including philosophy. Consequently, the means by which these disciplines’ influence diffuses to PA may significantly influence PA research quality and direction. This study is a first step to quantitatively appraise the effect of philosophy on PA research alongside other disciplines. Using a dataset of 58,333 PA journal articles, their 2,224,146 references, and 563,237 philosophy articles extracted from the Web of Science database, this study explores the evolution of knowledge sources, temporal-geographical distribution, and thematic topics of PA journal articles under direct philosophical influences. Empirical evidence reveals that citing philosophy in PA research continues to grow, despite continuing to make up a lesser share of citations than political science, economics, management and law. Articles published in top PA journals tend to cite the most impactful philosophical journals. There is no significant difference in authorship structures between PA journal articles citing or not citing philosophy articles, but those that do have greater research impacts and demonstrate different topical preferences.
AberbachJPutnamRRockmanB (1981) Introduction. In Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1–23.
2.
ArchambaultÉVignola-GagnéÉCôtéG, et al. (2006) Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: the limits of existing databases. Scientometrics68(3): 329–342.
3.
BarthelRSeidlR (2017) Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences - status and trends exemplified in groundwater research. PLoS One12(1): e0170754.
4.
BellDWangP (2020) Just Hierarchy: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5.
BertelliAMMeleVWhitfordAB (2020) When new public management Fails: Infrastructure public–Private Partnerships and political Constraints in developing and Transitional Economies. Governance33(3): 477–493.
6.
BozemanB (2019) Public values: citizens’ perspective. Public Management Review21(6): 817–838.
7.
ClaytonPLanahanLNelsonA (2022) Dissecting diffusion: Tracing the plurality of factors that shape knowledge diffusion. Research Policy51(1): 104389.
8.
CooperTL (1994) Handbook of Administrative Ethics. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
9.
de JongMLuH (2022) City branding, regional identity and public space: What historical and cultural symbols in urban architecture reveal. Global Public Policy and Governance2(2): 203–231.
10.
DeLeonLDenhardtRB (2000) The political theory of reinvention. Public Administration Review60(2): 89–97.
11.
DenhardtRBDenhardtJV (2000) The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review60(6): 549–559.
12.
DurhamGH (1948) Coordination by special representatives of the chief executive. Public Administration Review8(3): 176–180.
13.
EggheLRousseauRVan HooydonkG (2000) Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science51(2): 145–157.
14.
EykensJGunsREngelsTCE, et al. (2023) Cognitive and interdisciplinary mobility in the social sciences and humanities: Traces of increased boundary crossing. Journal of Information Science15: 4.
15.
FineBMilonakisD (2009) From Economics Imperialism to Freakonomics: The Shifting Boundaries between Economics and Other Social Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
FredericksonG (1971) Toward a new public administration. In Toward a new public administration: the Minnowbrook perspective. In: ShafritzJHydeA (eds) Classics of Public Administration: Wadsworth Publishing.
17.
GarfieldE (2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association295(1): 90–93.
18.
GrajzlPMurrellP (2019) Toward understanding 17th century English culture: a structural topic model of Francis Bacon’s ideas. Journal of Comparative Economics47(1): 111–135.
19.
HoATKShenCXuY (2023) In search of public values in performance budgeting studies. Public Administration Review83(6): 1528–1541.
20.
HoodCPetersG (2004) The middle aging of New Public Management: into the age of paradox?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3): 267–282.
21.
JesenkoBSchlöglC (2021) The effect of web of science subject categories on clustering: the case of data-driven methods in business and economic sciences. Scientometrics126(8): 6785–6801.
22.
JiaTWangDSSzymanskiBK (2017) Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution. Nature Human Behaviour1(4): 0078.
23.
JingY (2008) Chinese public administration: history and current trends. Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy. Second Edition. Taylor & Francis, 297–300.
24.
JingYZhuQ (2012) Civil service reform in China: an unfinished task of value balancing. Review of Public Personnel Administration32(2): 134–148.
25.
KettlDF (2000) Public administration at the millennium: the state of the field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(1): 7–34.
26.
LePere-SchloopMNesbitR (2023) The nexus of public administration, public policy, and nonprofit studies: an empirical mapping of research topics and knowledge integration. Public Administration Review83(3): 486–502.
27.
LevittJMThelwallMOppenheimC (2011) Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology62(6): 1118–1129.
28.
LiangLRousseauRZhongZ (2013) Non-English journals and papers in physics and chemistry: bias in citations?Scientometrics95: 333–350.
29.
LiuYRousseauR (2010) Knowledge diffusion through publications and citations: a case study using ESI‐fields as unit of diffusion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(2): 340–351.
30.
LyuPHZhangMLiuC, et al. (2023) Global scientific production, international cooperation, and knowledge evolution of public administration. Public Administration101(3): 1134–1162.
31.
MainzerLC (1994) Public-administration in search of a theory - the interdisciplinary delusion. Administration & Society26(3): 359–394.
32.
MarchJGOlsonJP (1983) Organizing political Life: what administrative Reorganization Tells Us about government. American Political Science Review77(2): 281–296.
33.
MihrA (2022) The glocal between the local and the global. In Glocal Governance. Springer Briefs in Political Science. Cham: Springer.
34.
OngaroE (2020) Philosophy and Public Administration: An Introduction: Edward Elgar Publishing.
35.
OngaroE (2021) Non-Western philosophies and public administration. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration43(1): 6–10.
36.
OsborneS (2006) The new public governance?Public Management Review8(3): 377–387.
37.
PerryJWiseL (1990) The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review50(3): 367–373.
38.
RhodesRAW (1991) Theory and methods in British public-administration - the view from political-science. Political Studies39(3): 533–554.
39.
RodgersRRodgersN (2000) Defining the boundaries of public administration: Undisciplined mongrels versus disciplined purists. Public Administration Review60(5): 435–445.
40.
RosenbloomDH (1983) Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review43(3): 219–227.
41.
SabatierPA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences21(2-3): 129–168.
42.
ScharpfFW (1988) The joint‐decision trap: lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public administration66(3): 239–278.
43.
SorensonOFlemingL (2004) Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy33(10): 1615–1634.
44.
StallingsJVanceEYangJ, et al. (2013) Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(24): 9680–9685.
45.
StiglerGJ (1984) Economics: the imperial science?The Scandinavian Journal of Economics86(3): 301–313.
46.
TanRZhuY (2023) National stances and governance systems: a comparative study of low carbon governance in Germany, the United States, and China. Global Public Policy and Governance3(1): 219–242.
47.
TangLHuGY (2013) Tracing the footprint of knowledge spillover: evidence from US-China collaboration in nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology64(9): 1791–1801.
48.
TangLKuzmaJZhangX, et al. (2023) Synthetic Biology and governance research in China: a 40-year evolution. Scientometrics128(6): 5293–5310.
49.
VogelRHattkeF (2022) A century of Public Administration: Traveling through time and topics. Public Administration100(1): 17–40.
50.
WangQWaltmanL (2016) Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of web of science and scopus. Journal of informetrics10(2): 347–364.
51.
WeberM (ed) (2015) Bureaucracy, In Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification. Edited and Translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters. Palgrave MacMillan, 73–128.
52.
WilsonW (1887) The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly2(2): 197–222.
53.
WrightBE (2011) Public administration as an interdisciplinary field: Assessing its relationship with the fields of law, management, and political science. Public Administration Review71(1): 96–101.
54.
ZhouHYGunsREngelsTCE (2023) Towards indicating interdisciplinarity: Characterizing interdisciplinary knowledge flow. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology74(11): 1325–1340.
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.
