Public administration research since 1980: slipping away from the real world?

Author:

Pollitt Christopher

Abstract

Purpose This paper seeks to explore one particular aspect of recent PA research: the apparently widening gap between top academic research and practitioner concerns. This topic was commissioned by the Editor of IJPSM. Evidence of this sliding away from the “real world” is presented. The reasons for it are discussed including Q1 increased measurement, competition and professionalization within academia. Whilst these trends bring significant benefits, a case can nevertheless be made for re-balancing PA research. The purpose of this paper Q2 is to sketch some ways of approaching these trends. Design/methodology/approach This paper was commissioned by the editor. The author has chosen to examine the often-cited gap between academic research and current practitioner concerns. The author has done this using as the author’s main evidence base all the main articles published by the highest impact journals over the years 2015 and 2016. Findings Over the past 30 years more and more of the PA research published in the highest impact journals has become further and further removed from the immediate concerns of practicing administrators and managers. At the same time publication in these journals has become more salient for academic careers. Research limitations/implications Whilst the identified trends bring significant benefits (in terms of increasing professionalization and methodological sophistication) they also carry negative consequences for the historically important dialogue between academics and practitioners. A case can be made for attempting to re-balance PA research. Some ways of approaching this are sketched. Practical implications The academic practitioner dialogue, which, historically, has been vital for academic PA, is currently under some stress. Professionalization and competition within the academic world seem to have widened the gap between the top journals and the “real world.” A case is made that the PA academic community needs to find ways of giving this issue more systematic discussion. Originality/value If the argument is largely correct, then current trends threaten the future of academic PA research. This paper is not the first to identify this threat, but it is one of the first to give it extended consideration and systematically to consider possible causes and remedies.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Political Science and International Relations,Public Administration,Geography, Planning and Development

Reference39 articles.

1. Designing resilient institutions for transboundary crisis management: a time for public administration;Public Administration,2016

2. Bouckaert, G. and Van de Donk, W. (Eds) (2010), The European Group for Public Administration (1975-2010): Perspectives for the Future, Bruylant, Brussels.

3. Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (Eds) (2016), Public Management and Governance, 3rd ed., Routledge, Abingdon and New York, NY.

Cited by 24 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3