Is University Training "Practical"? Perspectives of Public Personnel Officials

Abstract

Academics in public administration programs are often insecure about the practical relevance of what we teach. Many of us at least occasionally suspect that officials who work in government agencies find us to be quaint residents of the ivory tower dealing with issues and espousing practices which are bereft of much relevance to them. In part because of our insecurity, we often talk about bridging the gap between academics and practitioners. A concern with what public administrators think about the applicability of university training is not some sympton of academic hypochondria. Academics in public administration or public management programs may have much to lose if officials believe that colleges or universities teach little that usefully can be applied on-the-job. For one thing, enrollments in mid-career training programs may diminish or fail to grow if administrators are in the grips of such pessimism. For another, rampant skepticism about the applicability of university training in the work place may make it more difficult for graduates of our programs to obtain jobs. More fundamentally, doubts about the applied virtues of university training may mean increased resistance to policy and administrative innovations developed by academics. Because the perspectives of government administrators on the practical relevance of university training are important, I included some questions on the subject in a mail survey of 1506 members of a major national personnel association. ' On the 1506 officials (all of whom worked for public agencies), 979, or 65 percent, returned the questionnaires. Virtually all of the respondents were involved in some aspect of professional personnel work. Nearly half of them were personnel directors or chief personnel officers.