The Truth About Honesty

Women's struggle for acceptance in the field of public administration is an on-going concern in both the academic and practitioner worlds. It is well documented that women have made progress in securing careers in the public service, and these successes seem to facilitate the entry of additional women into managerial and leadership positions (Lewis, 1988; Saltzstein, 1986). As promising as these findings are, the overall number and proportion of women-to-men in the public service remain disproportionately low, especially for managerial, decision-making, and top-level positions (Naff, 1994; Guy, 1993; Rubin, 1990). Less documented is women's involvement in professional public service-related organizations, like the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), which can be an important mechanism for providing a variety of career development and advancement opportunities in public administration. Although the role of women is addressed to some degree in Pugh's (1988) history of the society, only in one recent study is it the primary focus of analysis. Rubin's (1990) examination of the status of women in ASPA offers both good and bad news. While having made major gains in leadership and participation throughout ASPA, women have not been as successful as their male counterparts in contributing to a more thorough understanding of our field as measured by publication in the Public Administration Review (PAR). The primary concern of Rubin's study was the role of women in ASPA, rather than the impact of women on public administration research.(1) Because of the potential consequences to the status of women in the society and in the profession of public service, we believe that the role of women in shaping the conduct of inquiry in the field merits further and more detailed analysis. The purpose of this project, therefore, is to expand upon Rubin's observations, probe into the patterns of research conducted by women, and analyze some of the possible explanations for the level and nature of scholarly contributions made by women. Methodology Scholarly contributions to public administration can be made through a variety of avenues. In addition to hooks and monographs, the field of public administration has witnessed a proliferation of high-quality, refereed journals in the last three decades. For this particular project, we choose to focus on one journal, Public Administration Review. It is the official journal of ASPA, and it is regarded by most practitioners and academics as the field's premier general readership journal-of-record. It also ranks very high in terms of impact on academia (Garand, 1990). As such, PAR attracts and publishes manuscripts that address a great diversity of topics (Watson and Montjoy, 1991; Perry and Kraemer, 1986; Stallings and Ferris, 1988). It also attracts manuscripts from a wide variety of settings throughout the United States and abroad. Contributing authors are affiliated with institutions at all levels of government, the private sector, nonprofit organizations, as well as large research universities and small liberal arts colleges. All regular and special issues, as well as symposia, in volumes 1 through 55 (1940-1995) were included in this study. We concentrated our efforts on research-based articles, which we define eclectically as all articles published in PAR, with the exception of introductory pieces, commentaries and editorials, correspondences, book reviews and book review essays, and pieces written for the TOPS (Those Other Publications) section. These kinds of articles were excluded from analysis, The research design consisted of recording the gender and institutional affiliation of each author. In the case of a female author, the article's topic was also reviewed. Findings A total of 3,352 research-based articles were published in PAR during the 56 years under examination. More than 88 percent (2,959) of the articles were authored by men, and slightly more than 7 percent (248) were written exclusively by women. …

At issue is the method used to define in the discipline. For example, when we discuss ethics, we base our inquiry on regime values and ignore the broader established literature concerning the common spiritual of mankind. Like much of western culture, secularization as a value strongly influences public administration. This article examines the history of in public administration research and questions secularization with its removal of linkage between spiritual wisdom and public values. Research in public administration evolved from a valueneutral basis immortalized in Woodrow Wilson's political/administrative dichotomy, to a logical positivism basis advanced by Herbert Simon, to a call for the return to value-based traditions. Recent research in the field, including research on ethics for public administrators, has acknowledged that do play an integral role and that the value-free neutrality approach was invalid. This article makes the case that public administration should not narrow its choice of to only secularization but should use the full range of human inquiry available to us, including the various Holy Scriptures from not only the Jewish and Christian traditions but other traditions as well, such as the Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic. The excitement and meaning of our very existence-indeed. the future of life itself on this planet-is linked to the administrative process. Theory, and practice are inexorably interwoven and enmeshed. It is this complex net which is the center of attention in the study of public administration. (Simmons and Dvorin 1977, 3-4) In their book Public Administration Values, Policy, and Change (1977), Robert Simmons and Eugene Dvorin make a strong argument (as noted above) for the importance that play in public administration. They note the existence of a 473/Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Much of this article flows from two sets of activitiesfirst, from the editing of a collection of chapters addressing philosophy and public administration. Some of the ideas in the article reflect those draft articles-an example is the draft chapter by Lance deHaven-Smith. Second, from a speech given at a joint conference of the Institute of Canadian Public Administration and the American Society for Public Administration, held in 1995 in Toronto, and from a paper presented at the Ninth National Symposium on Public Administration Theory, which was held in 1996 in Savannah, Georgia. J-PART 7(1997): 3:473-487 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.71 on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:07:35 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

What was the value in changing ASPA's Code of Ethics? Until recently, the Code of Ethics of the American Society for Public Administration symbolized the confusion in the field rather than its insights. The fine content of the former code was lost in numerous, unequal categories and discursive language. The new code has five principles or decision-making sources upon which public administrators should draw. This article demonstrates how the five sources are prominently discussed in the literature and arc useful for practitioners. Even more, the new code should provide an authoritative framework for the field. At an elementary level, the code prohibits egregiously unethical behavior. At a more sophisticated level, the code recognizes that the really tough administrative decisions occur when two or more of the legitimate decision-making sources compete. Thus the code is far more than a list of legalistic prohibitions. It is a powerful tool for decision analysis on the one hand and an aspirational call for excellence in the profession on the other. The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) recently streamlined and substantially revised its Code of Ethics so that it would be more useful for practitioners and better reflect the literature on public sector ethics. The new code collapses 12 categories of unequal importance into 5 overarching principles. In this article I provide the intellectual and scholarly background used in the selection of those five organizing principles. Historical Background of ASPA's Code of Ethics ASPA adopted a loose set of ethical principles in 1981. In 1984, ASPA approved a formal Code of Ethics which was expanded the next year to include implementation guidelines. When published in small type, the Code and Implementation Guidelines were two full pages. In 1993, ASPA's leadership encouraged the Professional Ethics Committee to revise the Code of Ethics. Although no specific charge was given, the following complaints were noted by the committee: 1. The highlighted principles did not distinguish between overarching principles and subordinate concepts and were too numerous to remember easily. 2. Despite good content, the code rambled and had inconsistent styles. 3. Because of the weak organization, it was difficult to find a specific point without reading the document from the beginning. The Professional Ethics Committee drew heavily on the previous 1985 code in its revision but decided to (1) use broader categories that would be recognizable to the scholarly community and memorable for the practitioner community; (2) consolidate the code into a dense, one-page document; and (3) number and display principles and points for ease of use. A subcommittee redrafted the code in the spring of 1994, then the full committee edited it, and a preliminary draft was shared with the National Council. In the fall, a draft was published in PA Times with a request for comments. After revising it based on the comments received, the revised Code of Ethics was unanimously adopted at the 1994 December meeting. Problems in Identifying Sources of Decision Making Which Are the Key Sources or Roles? One of the most commonly agreed-upon notions in the field is that administrators have numerous roles, or value sets, which are sources for the decisions they make. For example, an administrator may concentrate quite appropriately on legal issues at one point, organizational issues at another, and personal interests at still another. Although there is widespread agreement that these roles and their concomitant value sets exist, that agreement quickly dissipates when one tries to identify and name which roles or value sets are crucial for public administrators. Researchers have divided up an administrator's major roles in many ways. Some researchers are famous for specializing in a single area, even though their views are broad, such as Rohr's (1989) concentration on regime values (law and legal tradition) and Frederickson's (1990) attention to social equity (public interest), but many researchers have consciously divided the roles to cover all the major decision-making bases. …

s struggle was a private one, with only his family and a few colleagues aware of it.But even for those who knew, the announcement of his passing was devastating, despite his retirement at the end of 2007 and no shortage of recognition of his many accomplishments.

Moral education, Derek Bok (1990) reminds us, once occupied a central place in the intellectual life of students and professors. Strengthening or building the character of students was part and parcel of academe, at least until World War II. College presidents and professors believed that character building contributed to educated class committed to a principled life in the service of (Bok, 1990, 66). This view and practice, Bok contends, has been largely abandoned, having lost ground to logical positivists, the growth of big science, and the spectacular advances of technology. The secularization of society also took its toll on moral education in the halls of academe. In public administration, questions of morality and ethics became captives of the Wilsonian legacy of neutral competency, which found expression in the dominant operating philosophy of public managers to get the job done. Getting the job done right meant for all practical purposes doing what was right or ethical. Professionals in the pro-state tirelessly pursued the holy trilogy of efficiency, economy, and effectiveness (Stillman, 1991). In combination with a heavy dose of clientelism and paternalism, questions of morality and ethics were largely relegated to the sidelines in the teaching and practice of public administration, even though new public administration theorists made a determined effort to inject values into the life of the administrative state. Then came Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, and the Wall Street-HUD-Capitol Hill scandals of the 1980s. The near impeachment and removal of a sitting president stirred the American soul and prompted renewed public interest in governmental ethics. Thus, in 1978 President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Ethics in Government Act, committing federal employees to standards of behavior believed to be in the best interests of the American public. Six years later, in 1984, the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) adopted an ethics code designed to raise the ethical standards and practices of its members. And in the late 1980s, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) incorporated language into its curriculum standards that called for public administration programs to enhance the student's values, knowledge, and skills to act ethically and effectively. These laudable efforts -- federal legislation, ASPA's code of ethics, and NASPAA's new language -- were clear signals to the public and academe that ethical behavior is needed and expected of government officials. Moreover, the message sent to public administration graduate programs was unequivocal -- ethics education cannot and should not be relegated to the curriculum sidelines. Indeed, the evidence points to the fact that MPA programs have moved steadily over the past 25 years toward the incorporation of ethics instruction and courses in their curriculums. A 1995 survey of NASPAA-member schools found that about a dozen schools added ethics courses in the 1970s, with another ten schools added to the list in the early and mid-1980s (Menzel, forthcoming). The adoption curve increased sharply in the late 1980s and 1990s following NASPAA's change in the language of its accreditation standards. By the mid-1990s, 78 NASPAA-member, MPA-degree-granting schools offered an ethics course. Among these 78 schools, one of every four requires matriculating students to complete an ethics course (Menzel, forthcoming). The purpose of this article is to extend previous research in order to address what is probably the most important but least investigated question facing faculty and public administration programs that provide ethics instruction: Does ethics education make a difference? That is, does formal ethics instruction in graduate public affairs/administration (PA/A) schools help public service professionals resolve ethical dilemmas? Stated differently, does ethics pedagogy matter? …

Norma M. Riccucci was born in Torrington, Connecticut, and is currently a Distinguished Professor at Rutgers University, Newark, in the School of Public Affairs and Administration. Riccucci has published broadly in the areas of social equity, employment discrimination, diversity management, and human resource management. Some of her award-winning publications include: Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge (American Society of Public Administration Research Section 2012 Best Book Award), and How Management Matters: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform (American Political Science Association Best Book Award 2009). She is the recipient of many honors and is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. In 2005, she was inducted into Phi Beta Delta Honor Society for International Scholars and received the 2006 American Society for Public Administration's Charles H. Levine Award for Excellence in Public Administration Research, Teaching, and Service. She is also the recipient of the American Society of Public Administration Section on Women in Public Administration's Rita Mae Kelly Award for Research Excellence and served as the president of the Public Management Research Association from 2007 to 2009. Riccucci received her doctoral degree in public administration in 1984 from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University and is a graduate of the University of Southern California (Master of Public Administration) and Florida International University (Bachelors of Arts in public administration).

IN HIS provocative article on Research in Public Administration, in the Summer, 1956, issue of this Review, Frederick C. Mosher asked, Is there a 'field' of public administration, or, in the academician's glossary, is there such a 'discipline'? If so what is its scope, its rubric, its method? He then added, I am not sure that either question can be answered. And, after acknowledging the relationship of public administration to political science and the other social sciences, he said, it would appear that any definition of this field would be either so encompassing as to call forth the wrath or ridicule of others, or so limiting as to stultify its own disciples. Perhaps it is best that it not be defined. One may ask of Mosher's statement, how can there be research in a field that is undefined? How can theoretical and practical problems be identified, hypotheses formulated, and research techniques applied, if we have been unable to demarcate our area of interest? In short, without such definition how can programs of research be planned and undertaken? The problem of definition also presented itself in discussions on research in public administration at the 1957 annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration. Practitioners found themselves discussing their needs for research in terms of solving problems of day-to-day operations. How big should an organization and methods staff in a governor's office be? How have state governments fared in introducing program-budgeting systems? What is a reasonable cost for the operation of a fire department of a mediumsized city? On the other hand, some persons with interests directed to teaching and academic research urged that there be more basic research, which in concept seemed to range all the way from studies having rather practical and value-oriented objectives to those seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge rather than for immediate utility. It was evident in these discussions that a common pool of understanding was lacking with regard to (a) what public administration is and whether it is a separate field or discipline from the other social sciences, and (b) the nature of research that has meaning for public administration. Behind these questions lay others about which there may also be lacking a consensus, such as the character of the training that should be given persons who expect to work in the public service, and the research function of the professional society that serves those who work in, and provide training for, the public service. Answers to the first set of questions are helpful in thinking both about training in public administration and about the role of the professional society. It is the purpose of these comments to suggest answers to the two questions posed above and to offer some thoughts on the research function of the professional society.

Public Administration ReviewVolume 70, Issue 4 p. 634-636 Educating American Public Administrators: Texts for the Introductory Course Jane Beckett-Camarata, Corresponding Author Jane Beckett-Camarata Kent State University Jane Beckett-Camarata is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Kent State University. She is past chair of the American Society for Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include state and local financial management, budgeting, revenue systems, financial emergencies, and debt markets.E-mail:jbecket1@kent.edu Larkin Dudley is an associate professor in the Center for Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech. She is a past president of the American Society of Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include organization theory and behavior, policy design and analysis, privatization, and public participation.E-mail:dudleyl@vt.eduSearch for more papers by this authorLarkin Dudley, Corresponding Author Larkin Dudley Virginia Tech Jane Beckett-Camarata is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Kent State University. She is past chair of the American Society for Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include state and local financial management, budgeting, revenue systems, financial emergencies, and debt markets.E-mail:jbecket1@kent.edu Larkin Dudley is an associate professor in the Center for Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech. She is a past president of the American Society of Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include organization theory and behavior, policy design and analysis, privatization, and public participation.E-mail:dudleyl@vt.eduSearch for more papers by this author Jane Beckett-Camarata, Corresponding Author Jane Beckett-Camarata Kent State University Jane Beckett-Camarata is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Kent State University. She is past chair of the American Society for Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include state and local financial management, budgeting, revenue systems, financial emergencies, and debt markets.E-mail:jbecket1@kent.edu Larkin Dudley is an associate professor in the Center for Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech. She is a past president of the American Society of Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include organization theory and behavior, policy design and analysis, privatization, and public participation.E-mail:dudleyl@vt.eduSearch for more papers by this authorLarkin Dudley, Corresponding Author Larkin Dudley Virginia Tech Jane Beckett-Camarata is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Kent State University. She is past chair of the American Society for Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include state and local financial management, budgeting, revenue systems, financial emergencies, and debt markets.E-mail:jbecket1@kent.edu Larkin Dudley is an associate professor in the Center for Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech. She is a past president of the American Society of Public Administration's Section on Public Administration Education. Her research and teaching interests include organization theory and behavior, policy design and analysis, privatization, and public participation.E-mail:dudleyl@vt.eduSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 July 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02184.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume70, Issue4July/August 2010Pages 634-636 RelatedInformation

This chapter reviews the expression of ethical values in public administration from the nineteenth century through the 1960s. It focuses on the promotion of standards for the field as a whole in American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) through a code of ethics. The chapter discusses the development of the ASPA codes to illustrate the challenges and accomplishments of converting widely held ethical expectations into a coherent set of ethical standards for all professionals who serve the public. The public administration community that organized as an association in 1939 had a strong value base and extensive informal professionalism on which to build. Spurred by Watergate and the attention to social equity raised by the New Public Administration, ASPA formed the Professional Standards and Ethics Committee (PSEC) in 1974. ASPA developed a workbook that assisted members in conducting self-diagnosis of their ethical values and responsibilities.

Studies of moral reasoning in public administration have used James Rest's Defining Issues Test (DIT) and the Stewart-Sprinthall Management Survey (SSMS), both derived from Lawrence Kohlberg's work, to assess the moral reasoning of government managers and personnel with disparate results. For example, in previous research with public administrators the SSMS has found higher levels of law and order or maintaining norms moral reasoning than the DIT. The purposes of this article are to (1) summarize the results of published research in public administration using the SSMS and the DIT, (2) compare the results of the SSMS and DIT in the same sample of public administrators, and (3) make recommendations for the use of these instruments in research and practice. In a sample of members of the American Society for Public Administration's Section on Ethics, a comparison of DIT-2 and SSMS moral reasoning scores demonstrated no significant differences between postconventional moral reasoning scores; however, there was a significant difference between maintaining norms percentage scores. This suggests that the two instruments may tap into different dimensions of moral reasoning. Liberals and moderates scored significantly higher than conservatives did in postconventional reasoning on the DIT-2 but not on the SSMS. These results support findings of previous research demonstrating the political dimensions of the DIT, as well as reinforce the multidimensional nature of moral behavior and moral judgment. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the use of both instruments.

Most Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs across the United States focus extensively on policy analysis, management, and leadership, because organizations like the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), and the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) have determined that these areas comprise the core intellectual and practical dimensions of the MPA and MPP degrees. The omission of required curricula that emphasize the legal and constitutional basis of public administration theory and practice should be of central concern to the public administration education community. Constitutional competence as well as a wide understanding of how the rule the of law affects nearly every dimension of public administration is not optional for effective and responsible democratic governance in the 21st century. If MPA/MPP graduates enter the public sector workforce without the knowledge that they can be held personally and professionally liable if they violate citizens’ constitutionally protected rights, public administration educators have not provided them with some of the most important skills necessary for constitutionally competent public sector management.

Establishing a code of ethics has been a challenge in public administration. Ethics is central to the practice of administration, but the broad field of public administration has had difficulty articulating clear and meaningful standards of behavior and developing a means of upholding a code of ethics. Although a number of specialized professional associations in public service adopted codes, starting with the International City/County Management Association in 1924 and others after 1960, the full range of public administrators did not have an association to represent them until the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) was founded in 1939. Despite early calls for a code of ethics in ASPA, the first code was adopted in 1984, with revisions in 1994, but neither code had a process for enforcement. A new code approved in 2013 builds on the earlier codes and increases the prospects for ASPA to work with other professional associations to broaden awareness of the ethical responsibilities to society of all public administrators.

The American Society for Public Administration's code of professional ethics culminates in an admonition to respect, supports and even study constitutions, both state and federal. However, an understanding of constitutionalism is an often neglected or perfunctory element in the educational program for public administrators. In his influential l887 essay on public administration, Woodrow Wilson reasoned that because there is near universal agreement about constitutional principles in modern society, concentration should be chiefly on problems of effective management. The recent rebirth of concern for education in professional ethics generally and ethics in public administration in particular also reveals a tendency to approach the issues in a way that is still insufficiently connected to constitutional norms. The remedy for such difficulties is a critique of the ideological temper on the basis of what might be called an ethic of constitutional government, which to the extent that it can be elaborated satisfactorily should be an important component of the education offered to future public administrators.

A key goal of public policy and public administration research is to inform policy decisions. It is not clear, however, to what extent this is the case. In this study, therefore, citations from policy documents to public policy and administration research were analyzed to identify which research contributed most to policy reports and decisions. Additionally, we identified which policy institutions used research literature more than others to justify their policy decisions. Our findings show that think tanks use public policy and administration research literature more often than governmental organizations when justifying policy reports and decisions.

Research in public administration: Reflections on theory and practice: Edited by Jay D. White and Guy B. Adams, Sage Publications (1994), 280 pp., £12.95