Public administration PhD programmes in Italy: comparing different disciplinary approaches

Abstract

PhD programmes in public administration (PA), although contributing to the development of the human side of the public sector and being responsible for the production of the producers of knowledge, are less investigated than other levels of education. Recent comparative research ascribes differences to the countries’ administrative cultures. The article aims at reviewing the ‘state of play’ of PA doctoral education in Italy, building on the hypothesis that differences in the nature, direction and intensity of change are also influenced by the different disciplinary approaches. The primary source of evidence is semi-structured interviews with the directors of 14 PhD programmes representing different disciplines, conducted from January to May 2010. Common challenges include the insufficient and unpredictable funding, the small scale problem, the pressure to internationalize and the lack of interdisciplinarity. The article argues that major differences exist among disciplines in terms of international openness and related strategies, relevance of curricula training and collaboration strategies. The survey provides a first evaluation of past reforms and raises some open issues: PhDs in PA are now characterized by more structured programmes that are held back by their small size; collaboration strategies are emerging although they are hindered by administrative burdens and autarchic behaviour. Points for practitioners The results have several policy and operational implications: they provide benchmark information to PA PhD directors on the state of the art of the strategies adopted to cope with current and future challenges. Having adopted the disciplinary rather than the country focus makes the conclusions potentially relevant also for other countries. Doctoral programmes (and doctorate holders) are increasingly considering the wider job market. For PhD programmes in PA this will require more attention to the public sector needs and the establishment of different forms of cooperation. On the other hand, in the public sector, attempts should be made to make the most of people holding doctoral degrees. Furthermore, as ‘the world of practice has crept into the inner sanctum of academia: doctoral research’ (Pollitt, 2006: 258), public managers attending PhD programmes (or willing to do so) may find interesting insights on the types and expected developments of doctoral education according to the different disciplines. Finally, the survey offers useful indications to policy-makers and public managers engaged in the reform of the higher education.