Public Administration Journals Research Articles

Carrying the Torch Forward, Meeting the Future, and Advancing the Charge

As the incoming editorial team, we explore the challenges and opportunities facing social equity in a complex global society and relate them to the opportunities for promoting social equity through the pages of the Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration (JSEPA). The authors discuss the importance of delivering equitable public service through knowledgeable civil discourse from a plurality of voices. The growth of JSEPA’s influence relies upon its inclusive contributions to the social equity discourse. The unending pursuit and submission of excellent research that asks thoughtful, future-focused questions exemplifies the discourse found in JSEPA, where we aim to illuminate the power and necessity of the fourth pillar of public administration—social equity. This pillar takes its rightful place alongside the traditional three pillars of public administration: effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. JSEPA provides a unique space with its focus on this fourth pillar and in doing so, contributes meaningfully to public administration journals committed to the traditional pillars.

Digital Government Transformation and Sustainable Development Goals: To What Extent Are They Interconnected? Bibliometric Analysis Results

The increasing prevalence of digital technologies has sparked interest in the relationship between digital transformation and sustainable development, leading to a surge in theoretical and practical research on this topic. This study conducts a bibliometric analysis of publications in the Web of Science database to examine the extent to which sustainable development goals are integrated into digital government transformation discourses. Using statistical properties of the citation network and the main path approach to identify key publication clusters, the analysis reveals limited research explicitly focusing on the link between digital government transformation and sustainable development goals. Furthermore, articles exploring this interconnection are notably scarce in public administration journals, indicating a significant gap in the literature that requires further investigation.

Crowdsourced data in public administration research: A review and look to the future

AbstractCrowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk and Prolific have emerged as data sources for researchers in the social sciences. This article delves into the past, present, and future use of crowdsourced data in public administration scholarship. Through a review of published articles in top public administration journals (years 2013–2022), we uncover a general growth in the use of crowdsourced data over time. Additionally, we document how researchers have leveraged crowdsourced data to study a diverse range of themes and topics, with particular emphasis on survey experimental approaches and the examination of citizen attitudes and responses. Moreover, drawing on insights from a survey among quantitative public administration researchers, we discuss why the use of crowdsourced data is unlikely to diminish in the foreseeable future—despite ongoing debates regarding data quality and validity. We provide a set of guiding questions for researchers to consider when using crowdsourced data in public administration studies.

Citizen Satisfaction Research in Public Administration: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

This study presents a systematic review of the 122 studies on citizen satisfaction in the field of public administration. The research aims to identify the current state of knowledge on citizen satisfaction by drawing on existing empirical results and conceptual arguments, highlighting research gaps, and developing a heuristic framework to guide future research. Based on a literature search of 12 major public administration journals, our findings indicate that citizen satisfaction has gained significant academic attention as a performance measure to monitor and assess public service delivery, particularly at the local level. Despite substantial scrutiny in diverse research contexts, quantitative studies still predominate, mainly using secondary survey data in their research. Furthermore, we observed an absence of an agreed-upon definition for citizen satisfaction and an over-emphasis on the expectancy-disconfirmation model to explain the satisfaction process, highlighting the need for scholars to move beyond the performance-expectation dyad. While reviewing a set of environmental, organizational, and individual-level antecedents and outcomes, we noticed few scholars have considered the effects of moderating variables on citizen satisfaction. As such, our paper concludes by identifying a few underexplored research themes that could facilitate knowledge-building regarding citizen satisfaction.

The Evolution of Social Network Analysis in Public Administration

Despite the importance of social network analysis (SNA) in public administration, comprehensive reviews on this topic are rare. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the application of SNA in network research within public administration. This research analyzes 144 empirical papers from top public administration journals (January 1997–January 2022), utilizing bibliometric and content analyses. The study identifies social capital, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the ecology of games framework, and resource dependence theory as the predominant theoretical foundations of SNA. The primary focus of these works is on collective action problems and public service delivery, with a trend towards the integration and comparison of theories. Through content analysis, we find a notable shift in SNA application from descriptive analysis to network inference, predominantly using Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs). It also reveals the growing significance of network visualization in SNA. The study concludes with potential future directions for SNA in public administration, highlighting its evolving role and significance.

Does sticking close to home make for better research? In‐state authorship and citation rates in public administration journals

AbstractObjectiveAlthough other social science disciplines have considered researcher positionality, whether a researcher belongs to the communities they study (insider) or does not (outsider), public administration scholars have yet to examine this aspect of scholarly production nor its impacts on perceptions of research quality.MethodsWe use a data set of 554 articles from eight top public administration journals that focus on a single or a few states in the United States as the research setting. Using in‐state authorship as a proxy for insider research, we test whether insider status significantly affects citation rates for these articles.ResultsFindings indicate that citation rates are higher for in‐state authors, but the journal impact factor serves as a critical moderating factor. Articles written by in‐state authors in Public Administration Review or Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (the field's top two journals) are cited around 30 percent more than out‐of‐state authors, and we estimate that the articles across journals likely to be cited most are written by in‐state authors.ConclusionAlthough there is room for strong insider and outsider research in social sciences, generally, and public administration, specifically, scholars should remain mindful of positionality from both the production and consumption sides of the research process.

Public Sector Collective Bargaining: A Meta-Review

Public sector labor unions and their commitment to collective bargaining are central to the study of public sector human resource management. This study explores collective bargaining scholarship in the United States as exemplified in the public administration literature. Systematically coding 220 articles from the top fifteen (mainstream) peer-reviewed public administration journals over a period of 50 years (1970–2020), this study examines how public sector collective bargaining is framed and conceptualized in public administration research, identifying, and studying the dimensions of public sector collective bargaining research in the United States. The primary purpose of this article is to map trends and gaps in local, state, and federal public sector collective bargaining scholarship, which is an essential public personnel function in need of further academic attention. It is also hoped that this study could stimulate future research into public sector collective bargaining.

Training on Journal Management and Index of Social Sciences and Public Administration Journals for Lecturers

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of training programs designed for lecturers involved in managing social sciences and public administration journals. It focuses on understanding the components of these training programs, evaluating their impact on journal management skills, and exploring case studies and best practices to provide a comprehensive overview of successful journal management strategies. Comprehensive training programs significantly enhance the journal management skills of lecturers. Key components of effective training include editorial process management, ethical standards enforcement, understanding and leveraging journal metrics, technical and administrative proficiency, and marketing and outreach strategies. Trained journal managers demonstrate improved efficiency in handling submissions, conducting peer reviews, and maintaining high ethical standards. The implementation of best practices, such as rigorous peer review processes and effective marketing strategies, leads to increased journal visibility, higher citation rates, and enhanced overall impact.

Conditions for Effective Implementation of Quality Management Systems in Public Administration

After the introduction of quality management systems (QMS), such as ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) in the private sector, they were also starting to be used in the public sector. However, the simple one-to-one transfer of QMS from the private to the public sector has been accompanied by criticism, mostly due to the specific nature of public administrations which would be incompatible with QMS concepts coming from the private sector. In addition, it turned out that circumstances of quality management systems implementation (QMS) are determinant for the success of QMS in public administrations. However, literature on relevant conditions for successful implementation is dispersed in qualitative case studies, country studies or one specific type of QMS. Therefore, this article gathers and synthesises relevant variables through a thematic literature review, which was carried out in internal databases of 21 leading public administration journals and three leading quality management journals, as well as in Google Scholar. Five variable categories, which are transversal to all analysed QMS could be detected in an inductive way: commitment and resources, structure and culture, attitude and skills, time, and measurement and communication. Given the high level of requirements related to the implementation of QMS and the limited pressure to adhere to quality management labels in the public sector, it is suggested that public administration managers also examine alternative non-systemic quality management tools to improve their organizations’ performance. Public administrations could use simplified QMS or even only a series of quality management tools in order to improve their performance. Research has shown that single quality management tools can have a positive impact on the performance of public administrations. Thus, there seems to be some potential for non-systemic quality management.

A Journal Dedicated to Social Equity and Public Administration

Written by the coeditors-in-chief, this essay introduces the Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration (JSEPA) and situates it among other public administration journals. Its mission, aims, and scope are explained. Manuscripts are welcomed that identify and probe societal structures and dynamics that create or perpetuate inequity, or that overcome it. Published for a global audience, it is a theoretically and methodologically inclusive journal. Because social equity is a moving target, always evolving, the pages of this journal will reflect its course.

Exploring Nonprofit Advocacy Research Methods and Design: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The study of nonprofit advocacy has evolved significantly over the past two decades, yet gaps still remain in our understanding of the processes and roles of nonprofit organizations in policymaking and policy change. In part, these gaps may be exacerbated by limitations in the methodologies and research designs used to examine advocacy, despite the growing scholarship base. To investigate this possibility, this article reports the findings of a systematic literature review of 264 scholarly articles that examine the antecedents, processes, and/or outcomes of nonprofit advocacy. The sampling method relies heavily on scholarship published in six leading nonprofit and public administration journals. Although theory suggests that nonprofit organizations have a vital role in facilitating policy processes, much of the advocacy research relies upon a limited form of research questions and methods. Findings also reveal a need for greater precision in describing data, design, and methods, and suggest a need for clearer, validated measures of both nonprofit advocacy efforts and the resulting outcomes. Finally, we suggest new areas for nonprofit advocacy research, including investigating new venues, different levels of analysis, employing emerging research methods, and examining advocacy over time.

Experimental Public Service Motivation Research: A Systematic Review and Future Directions

ABSTRACT This paper provides a systematic review of empirical experimental studies in PSM from 1992 to 2022. The paper adopted a systematic review methodology by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in sixteen public administration journals, via a systematic search using major online databases. The findings show that there has been a growing interest in the use of experimental designs in PSM studies over the last five years even though the growth has not been consistent. The findings uncovered that most experimental PSM studies involved surveys, laboratory, and field experiments. The paper contributes to the burgeoning PSM literature by systematically analysing in-depth the characteristics of experiments, which were then used to make recommendations to advance the field of experimental PSM.

Disciplinary Contributions to Nonprofit Studies: A 20-Year Empirical Mapping of Journals Publishing Nonprofit Research and Journal Citations by Nonprofit Scholars

In celebration of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly’s 50th anniversary, we present a bibliometric analysis of nonprofit research published between 1999 and 2019, within and outside of three core nonprofit journals— NVSQ, NML, and Voluntas. We seek to understand which journals, across scientific domains and social science disciplines, inform nonprofit research in one of three ways, by (a) publishing articles, (b) citing the three core journals, or being cited in these core journals. We found that nonprofit research published in economics and social sciences journals has kept pace with a large increase in indexed research. Meanwhile, though the core nonprofit journals robustly cite and are increasingly cited by business and management and public administration journals, they are less engaged with other social science disciplines. We discuss ways that the core journals could increase their visibility and penetration into these other disciplines and highlight perspectives potentially missing from the core journals.

Articulating Grounded Theory Methodology for Public and Nonprofit Administration Scholars and Practitioners

Abstract Grounded theory as a term and as a methodology has received increasing attention from public administration scholars since the mid-2000s. Unfortunately, the application of grounded theory methodology across social science research—including public and nonprofit administration—is often shrouded in vagueness; however, rigorously conducted grounded theory research, particularly classic ground theory, holds great potential to develop theory that is relevant to practice. This article seeks to provide clarity on grounded theory methodology by detailing it through the lens of classic grounded theory methodology (i.e., the foundational methodology). Additionally, the authors examine the interpretation and application of grounded theory methodology through a conceptual content analysis of top public administration journals. The analysis reveals scholars either do not have a clear understanding of grounded theory methodology or needs to improve their reporting of such, as the theory development process is not clearly reported. Insight on directions forward to improve the rigor of grounded theory research in the field is offered, including adhering to established methodology.

The trend and characteristics of China studies published in SSCI public administration journals: A bibliometric analysis

Scholars of China studies have been keen to publish in SSCI journals since mainland Chinese universities started to embrace international academic standards in the early 1990s. The widespread assumption is that publishing in SSCI journals contributes to not only the promising career of an individual scholar but also knowledge accumulation and development in the Chinese public administration field. However, it remains unanswered concerning which topic of China studies is more likely to arouse interest from journal editors and reviewers. As SSCI publications become increasingly desirable yet challenging for Chinese scholars, this study attempts to offer recommendations by exploring the trend and characteristics of China studies published in SSCI public administration journals, which are included in the Web of Science (WoS) database. This study uses bibliometric analysis to conduct a systematic review on 584 articles of China studies published in 47 SSCI public administration journals. It aims to generate various quantitative results, including journal ranking, title and keywords co-occurrences network, citation analysis, co-citation network, co-authorship network, bibliographic coupling network, and so on. In this way, this paper will reveal the latest trend and characteristics of China studies published in SSCI public administration journals. Consequently, it will help scholars enhance the quality and quantity of China studies, advance their chances of success in SSCI public administration journals, and broaden and deepen their contribution to the global academic community.

Rethinking Perspectives of Power in Collaborative Governance

Power is an important concept in understanding collaborative governance, however, the existing research is largely dominated by the functional and critical perspectives of power. Aided by a conceptual content analysis of power used in collaborative governance literature in the top public administration journals, we viewed power as a family resemblance concept that should be conceptualized through four perspectives: functional, critical, social construction, and pragmatic. We provide elaboration of each of these four perspectives and propose counterarguments to assumptions that have arisen due to the reliance on a functional or critical perspective of power. We conclude that viewing power as a family resemblance concept with at least four perspectives offers collaborative governance researchers the ability to adopt the best perspective that is the most useful for their analysis and most helpful for public administrators to understand power in their collaborative efforts.

How qualitative research methods can be leveraged to strengthen mixed methods research in public policy and public administration?

AbstractRecently, there have been a variety of arguments voiced to encourage that more attention be given to the role qualitative methods can play in mixed methods research in public policy and public administration. This article discusses these claims and describes the benefits of qualitative approaches, and how qualitative research methods can be leveraged to strengthen mixed methods research in public administration. We also provide a guide for improving the credibility of mixed methods research through increasing transparency and discussions of all methodological decisions. This study is based on a systematic content analysis of 186 mixed methods studies published in public policy and public administration journals between 2010 and 2018. We found that findings from the quantitative methods dominated the mixed methods studies, little diversity in data collection and analysis methods, and frequent failure to integrate insights from both methods. We also analyzed the 36 qualitative‐dominant studies in the sample, and illuminated seven different ways that authors of qualitative‐dominant studies leveraged the qualitative strand to strengthen mixed methods research. We developed lessons from our analysis of the qualitative‐dominant articles on how to incorporate qualitative methods in a thoughtful manner, articulate a role for each strand, and effectively support findings with one or more strands.

Is Florida Really that Interesting? State Geographic Bias in Public Administration Research

The authors examine whether there are geographic biases in public administration research. They use a dataset of 557 research articles from top public administration journals in which specific state names appear in the title or abstract. Findings suggest that not only is a mass of public administration research concentrated in four states (Florida, California, New York, and Texas), but specific thematic topics and policy areas are associated with each of those states. In general, this suggests that authors need to consider if continuing these trends creates a blind spot for research bias in the field, where the collective understanding of a specific topic is disproportionately influenced by data from a single state. The broad implications are that how states serve as a research setting should be actively considered by authors.

Assessing the correlates of CALEA accreditation: a state-of-the-art review

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to synthesize empirical research on the correlates of Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) accreditation.Design/methodology/approachThe authors performed keyword searches across 132 criminal justice, policing, and public administration journals to identify peer-reviewed articles that examine the relationship between CALEA accreditation and any output or outcome. Two keyword searches were utilized “commission on accreditation for law enforcement agencies” and “commission on accreditation of law enforcement agencies” in the event that authors misnamed the accrediting body. Only quantitative articles that utilized inferential statistics were included in the sample given that the authors aimed to assess the relationship between CALEA law enforcement accreditation and outputs and outcomes.FindingsOverall, there is a paucity of research on the relationship between CALEA accreditation and outputs and outcomes. Only nineteen, peer-reviewed, studies that utilize inferential statistics have been published on the topic as of the end of 2021. The largest number of studies explore the relationship between CALEA accreditation and community-oriented policing and gender representation. Given the dearth of quantitative studies on CALEA accreditation, and the lack of studies using experimental or quasi-experimental designs, current findings on the topic should not be viewed as proof of cause and effect relationships but as correlations.Originality/valueThis article represents the first systematic review of the correlates of CALEA accreditation.

DEFINING AND ASSESSING THE VALUE OF CANONICAL MIXED METHODS RESEARCH DESIGNS IN PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

AbstractMixed methods research (MMR) designs are well suited for answering policy‐relevant questions, yet they remain underutilized in public policy and public administration scholarship. To provide a deeper understanding of the effective use of such designs, this article examines the prevalence of MMR in public policy and public administration journals, drawing a key distinction between “canonical” and “non‐canonical” MMR. Canonical mixed methods studies are characterized by (1) an explicit rationale for using mixed methods (i.e., a clear connection between methodological decisions and research questions), (2) effective integration of qualitative and quantitative strands, and (3) design transparency. We demonstrate the value of a canonical approach in public policy and public administration research by highlighting differences in quality between canonical and non‐canonical mixed methods studies. Our findings indicate that a canonical approach to mixed methods research makes positive contributions to methodological quality and knowledge development.