faculty, graduate student, and graduate productivity in public administration and public affairs...

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

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 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

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .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.

    .

    Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:32:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    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

  • Faculty Grauate Studenst, and Graduate Productivity in Public Adininistraton and Public Affirs Programs, 19864993

    James W Douglas, University of Georgia

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Public Administration Review * September/October 1996, Vol. 56, No. 5 433

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:32:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • Updating the Rankings: 1986-1993

    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.

    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

    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

    Table 1 Faculty Productivity Ratings and Number of Publications, 1986-1993

    Overall Overall Policy PA Ranking, Ranking, Journals, Journals, Total 1970-80a 1981-85b School 1986-93 1986-93 1986-93

    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

    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

    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

    --- --- 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 & 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

    --- 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

    a Morgan etal. study (1981). b Legge and Devore study (1987).

    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

    434 Public Administration Review * September/October 1996, Vol. 56, No. 5

    This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:32:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • Table 2 Percentage Difference in Productivity, 1981-1985 versus 1986-1993

    '81-'85 (x1.6) Percentage

    School 1981-85 ADJ. 1986-93 Change

    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, Al

Recommended

View more >