Faculty, Graduate Student, and Graduate Productivity in Public Administration and Public Affairs Programs, 1986-1993

Download Faculty, Graduate Student, and Graduate Productivity in Public Administration and Public Affairs Programs, 1986-1993

Post on 20-Jan-2017

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>Faculty, Graduate Student, and Graduate Productivity in Public Administration and PublicAffairs Programs, 1986-1993Author(s): James W. DouglasSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1996), pp. 433-440Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/977042 .Accessed: 15/06/2014 08:32</p><p>Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms &amp; Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p><p> .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.</p><p> .</p><p>Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.</p><p>http://www.jstor.org </p><p>This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:32:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/977042?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>Faculty Grauate Studenst, and Graduate Productivity in Public Adininistraton and Public Affirs Programs, 19864993 </p><p>James W Douglas, University of Georgia </p><p>How productive have the faculties, graduate students, and gradu- ates ofpublic administration andpublic affairs programs been over the past several years? In order to answer this question, the author examined 11 journals published between 1986 and 1993. Publication totals were used to measure the productivity ofpro- grams. The author notes that many of the programs found to have highly productivefaculties in earlier studies by Legge and Devore (1987) and Morgan et al. (1981) have maintained top positions, while the remainder of the programs tended to change positions in an unpredictable manner. A relationship was also found to exist between programs with productive faculties and programs with productive graduate students and graduates. In addition, the author reveals thatfew scholars published more than two articles in the journals under review between 1986 and 1993. </p><p>It has been eight years since the productivity of pub- lic administration and public affairs programs was last measured by examining the faculty publications in selected journals (Legge and Devore, 1987). The purpose of this article is to duplicate and update the rankings presented by Legge and Devore and Mor- gan et al. (1981) and analyze how program produc- tivity has changed over the years. In addition, in an effort to ascertain the effectiveness of public adminis- tration programs in training and motivating students to conduct scholarly research, I measured the publi- cation productivity of the graduate students and graduates of public administration and public affairs programs. The analysis will show that a relationship exists between faculty and student productivity. </p><p>The role of public administration programs is not just to teach, it is also to advance the field and find ways to improve the practice of public administra- tion. Providing faculty productivity measures is meaningful because they indicate the extent to which programs are contributing to the knowledge in the field. Graduate student and graduate productivity measures are useful because they are a means of determining the degree to which programs are preparing students to add substantively to the field. Uncovering which institutions tend to excel in these tasks will provide a starting point from which to determine the program characteristics that lead to important research. It will also furnish prospective doctoral students with information that can assist them in selecting graduate schools that best meet their educational needs. </p><p>Public Administration Review * September/October 1996, Vol. 56, No. 5 433 </p><p>This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:32:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>Updating the Rankings: 1986-1993 </p><p>To employ the same methodology used by Morgan et al. and Legge and Devore, in this analysis, I adopted the journal article as the unit of analysis.' Programs were ranked based on the number of articles published by faculty members in 11 journals for the eight- year period 1986 through 1993. To remain consistent with previous studies, I examined the 10 journals used by Morgan et al. and Legge and Devore. These journals included: Journal of Poli- cy Analysis and Management, Policy Stud- ies Journal, Policy Studies Review, Admin- istration and Society, Public Administration Review, American Review of Public Administration, Public Adminis- tration Quarterly, InternationalJournal of Public Administration, The Public Man- ager, and National Civic Review.2 For the purpose of examining the productiv- ity of programs in public administration versus public policy journals, the first three journals listed were classified as public policy and the remaining journals as public administration. </p><p>In addition, I added The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theo- ry3 because it did not exist at the time of the earlier studies and has become recog- nized as a top journal in the field (For- rester and Watson, 1994). Because it could be argued that adding The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory to the analysis damages the com- parability of this study with the Morgan et al. and Legge and Devore studies, totals which exclude publications in The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory are also presented in this article in the Notes.4 </p><p>As Legge and Devore recognized, using this method to measure the pro- ductivity of programs is incomplete. Other forms of faculty output such as books, government reports, articles in journals that are more specific to certain public administration subfields (such as budgeting or personnel), and articles "in journals of basic disciplinary-focused research (such as American Political Science Review)" (Legge and Devore, 1987; 148) are not included in the study. Despite the importance of these types of scholarly output, I examined only the listed journals for several reasons. First, and most important, using </p><p>Table 1 Faculty Productivity Ratings and Number of Publications, 1986-1993 </p><p>Overall Overall Policy PA Ranking, Ranking, Journals, Journals, Total 1970-80a 1981-85b School 1986-93 1986-93 1986-93 </p><p>2 (tie) 1 Georgia 4.0 49.08 53.08 4 6 Southern California 5.0 38.0 43.0 2 (tie) 5 Syracuse 11.5 29.67 41.17 1 8 Indiana 6.0 27.09 33.09 17 3 Virginia Tech 1.33 30.42 31.75 5 (tie) 13 SUNY, Albany 5.5 22.25 27.75 21 (tie) 2 Florida State 4.0 23.7 27.7 45 12 George Washington 3.0 20.97 23.97 42 10 Georgia State 2.0 21.81 23.81 36 (tie) 21 (tie) Missouri, Columbia 3.0 20.33 23.33 8 16 American 2.0 21.0 23.0 34 (tie) 19 Oklahoma 5.5 15.67 21.17 5 (tie) --- California, Berkeley 6.33 12.33 18.67 --- 18 North Carolina State 1.0 17.50 18.50 18 (tie) 7 Kansas 2.0 16.0 18.0 --- --- Colorado, Denver 6.33 11.33 17.67 </p><p>9 Arizona State 9.17 8.5 17.67 --- --- San Diego State 1.0 15.58 16.58 --- --- Baltimore 0.5 14.91 15.41 7 4 Harvard 5.0 10.33 15.33 --- --- Penn State, Harrisburg 0.0 15.09 15.09 --- --- South Florida 3.0 11.31 14.31 21 (tie) 32 (tie) Rutgers 5.0 9.17 14.17 13 48 (tie) North Carolina 6.0 8.09 14.09 --- 43 Auburn 2.75 11.33 14.08 --- 28 Rider 0.0 14.0 14.0 31 --- Northern Illinois 2.83 10.83 13.67 --- --- Wisconsin, Madison 6.17 7.0 13.17 20 15 Penn State 4.0 8.86 12.86 27 17 South Carolina 2.25 10.58 12.83 </p><p>11 George Mason 1.5 11.0 12.5 --- --- Cleveland State 2.0 10.46 12.46 --- --- Louisiana State 2.0 10.17 12.17 </p><p>--- --- Wyoming 1.5 10.33 11.83 47 (tie) --- CUNYBaruch 4.0 7.17 11.17 34 (tie) 48 (tie) Missouri, St. Louis 3.0 8.0 11.0 --- --- SUNY, Binghamton 4.0 6.5 10.5 --- 20 Texas A &amp; M 5.0 5.5 10.5 36 (tie) --- Vermont 2.5 7.5 10.0 47 (tie) 14 Connecticut 2.0 8.0 10.0 40 (tie) 26 Minnesota 3.0 7.0 10.0 21 (tie) 32 (tie) Washington 5.5 4.33 9.83 --- --- Florida International 2.0 7.5 9.5 12 44 (tie) Pittsburgh 4.17 5.0 9.17 14 (tie) --- Michigan 7.33 1.75 9.08 --- 448 (tie) Southern Illinois 3.0 6.0 9.0 --- --- Florida Atlantic 0.5 8.5 9.0 </p><p>--- 40 (tie) Wisconsin, Milwaukee 2.5 6.33 8.83 --- --- Washington State 1.5 7.0 8.5 28 (tie) --- Texas, Austin 2.0 6.5 8.5 --- 40 (tie) Maine 0.0 8.5 8.5 --- --- Nebraska, Omaha 3.0 5.5 8.5 --- --- Oklahoma State 3.5 4.5 8.0 --- 40 (tie) Western Michigan 1.5 6.25 7.75 </p><p>a Morgan etal. study (1981). b Legge and Devore study (1987). </p><p>the listed journals enables the work of Morgan et al. and Legge and Devore to be updated. This approach permits a cumulative look at academic productivity within public administration and public affairs programs. Second, journals of basic disciplinary-focused </p><p>434 Public Administration Review * September/October 1996, Vol. 56, No. 5 </p><p>This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:32:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>Table 2 Percentage Difference in Productivity, 1981-1985 versus 1986-1993 </p><p>'81-'85 (x1.6) Percentage </p><p>School 1981-85 ADJ. 1986-93 Change </p><p>1. Georgia 31.96 51.14 53.08 +4 2. Southern California 20.16 32.26 43.0 +33 3. Syracuse 20.5 32.8 41.17 +26 4. Indiana 14.83 23.73 33.09 +39 5. Virginia Tech 22.5 36.0 31.75 -12 6. SUNY, Albany 12.5 20.0 27.75 +39 7. Florida State 23.0 36.8 27.70 -25 8. George Washington 12.83 20.53 23.97 +17 9. Georgia State 13.5 21.6 23.84 +10 10. Missouri, Columbia 9.5 15.2 23.33 +53 11. American 11.0 17.6 23.0 +31 12. Oklahoma 10.0 16.0 21.17 +32 13. California, Berkeley --- --- 18.67 --- 14. North Carolina State 10.33 16.53 18.5 +12 15. Kansas 14.99 23.98 18.0 -23 16. Colorado, Denver --- --- 17.67 --- 16. Arizona State 14.0 22.4 17.67 -21 18. San Diego State --- --- 16.58 --- 19. Baltimore --- --- 15.41 --- 20. Harvard 21.82 34.91 15.33 -56 21. Penn State, Harrisburg --- --- 15.09 --- 22. South Florida --- --- 14.31 --- 23. Rutgers 6.5 10.4 14.16 +36 24. North Carolina 4.5 7.2 14.09 +96 25. Auburn 5.33 8.53 14.08 +65 26. Rider 7.33 11.73 14.0 +19 27. Northern Illinois --- --- 13.67 --- 28. Wisconsin, Madison --- --- 13.17 --- 29. Pennsylvania State 11.36 18.18 12.86 -29 30. South Carolina 10.5 16.8 12.83 -24 31. George Mason 13.0 20.8 12.5 -40 32. Cleveland State --- --- 12.46 --- 33. Louisiana State --- --- 12.17 --- 34. Wyoming --- --- 11.83 --- 35. CUNY, Baruch --- --- 11.17 --- 36. Missouri, St. Louis 4.5 7.2 11.0 +53 37. SUNY, Binghamton --- --- 10.5 --- 37. Texas A &amp; M 9.83 15.73 10.5 -33 39. Vermont --- --- 10.0 --- 39. Connecticut 12.33 19.73 10.0 -49 39. Minnesota 8.0 12.8 10.0 -22 42. Washington 6.5 10.4 9.83 -5 43. Florida International --- --- 9.5 --- 44. Pittsburgh 5.0 8.0 9.17 +15 45. Michigan --- --- 9.08 --- 46. Southern Illinois 4.5 7.2 9.0 +25 46. Florida Atlantic --- --- 9.0 --- 48. Wisconsin, Milwaukee 5.5 8.8 8.83 0 49. Washington State --- --- 8.5 --- 49. Texas, Austin --- --- 8.5 --- 49. Maine 5.5 8.8 8.5 -3 49. Nebraska, Omaha --- --- 8.5 --- 53. Oklahoma State --- --- 8.0 --- 54. Western Michigan 5.5 8.8 7.75 -12 </p><p>research contain articles from a variety of fields. Determining which articles should be classified as public administration would be an unmanageable task. Third, it would be difficult to attain a list of government reports and public administration books. Fourth, determining how heavily to weigh government reports and </p><p>books in comparison to journal articles would be troublesome. Finally, government reports and books are not usually subject to the same rigorous review processes as are journal articles. It should be noted that the indicators of productivity used in this article are measures of faculty, graduate student, and graduate activity. No attempt is made to measure the impact that the publications under review have had upon the field. </p><p>Faculty Publication Totals Tables 1 through 3 present the results of the faculty publication </p><p>ratings for 1986 to 1993. Table 1 provides the publication totals for the top 54 programs.5 These totals are further divided to show the number of publications produced within public policy and public administration journals. Table 1 also includes the ratings computed by both the Morgan et al and the Legge and Devore studies. It should be remembered that the productivity totals were derived only from a select list of journals. As a result, programs that produce large numbers of books, government documents, and/or articles in other journals may rank low in Table 1. </p><p>Between the years 1986-1993, almost 1,100 faculty members from over 300 institutions contributed approximately 1,500 arti- cles to the listed journals. An average of 4.79 articles (3.54 public administration and 1.25 public policy) were produced by each pro- gram. Table 1 reveals that most of the top programs listed more than doubled this amount; the top 25 institutions averaged 23.30 articles, and the next 25 averaged 10.63 articles per program. </p><p>Significant changes from the previous rankings of public administration programs can be found in Table 1. Although 7 of the top 10 schools from the 1981-85 rankings by Legge and Devore (Georgia, Southern California, Syracuse, Indiana, Virginia Tech, Florida State, and Georgia State) remained in the top 10, Georgia, Southern California, Syracuse, and Indiana were the only schools to hold positions in the top 10 for each of the three time periods. Two of these schools, Georgia and Syracuse, managed to maintain their top 5 status in each of the three studies. Only half of the top 20 schools in the Morgan et al. study (1970-80) remained in the top 20. However, 15 of the top 20 schools from the Legge and Devore survey (1981-85) continued to hold top 20 positions, and none of the top 10 programs from the 1981-1985 period dropped out of the top 20. Of the top 10 institutions, Har- vard experienced the greatest fall, moving 16 places from 4th to 20th. Other top 20 schools that fell significantly included Texas A &amp; M (from 20th to 37th tie), George Mason (from 11th to 3 1st), and Connecticut (from 14th to 39th tie). </p><p>A number of schools dramatically improved their productivity ratings. Three schools that did not receive any ratings in either of the first two studies were now in the top 20. These programs were Colorado at Denver (16 tie), San Diego State (18), and Baltimore (19). In addition, California at Berkeley, which was not ranked in the Legge and Devore study but was ranked 5th in the Morgan et al. survey, was rated 13th. Overall, 21 programs not listed in the Legge and Devore study now s...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >