The DPA: Contributing to Society's Need for Scholarship and Leadership
Author(s): Ross Clayton
Source: Journal of Public Administration Education, Vol. 1, No. 1 (May, 1995), pp. 61-66
Published by: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration
(NASPAA)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40215097
Accessed: 06-07-2018 19:26 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) is
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public
Administration Education
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:26:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The DPA: Contributing to Society's
Need for Scholarship and Leadership
Ross Clayton
University of Southern Clifornia
Near the end of his presidency at Harvard, Derek Bok criticized
universities for their inability to help solve society's problems. In a 1990
article in the Los Angeles Times, he is quoted as saying, "Whether you are
looking at ... schools like schools of education, or schools of public
administration or social work . . . you are struck by what an inverse
relationship there is between what society needs for these institutions and
what we are taking most seriously."
How do we as scholars in the professional field of public administration measure up in what we value? What do we take most seriously,
particularly with respect to doctoral level education? Are we in danger of
letting ideological viewpoints outweigh our responsibilities to society and
the professional practice of public administration?
This is an invited essay; what follows is a personal set of observations
which grow out of substantial experience working with MPA, PhD and
DPA programs and students. Several themes are developed; namely, 1)
simplistic, ideologically-based generalizations about the merits of DPA
programs warrant considerable skepticism; 2) DPA programs differ from
both MPA and PhD programs in important and valuable ways; and 3)
variations in the purposes, designs and modes of delivery of doctoral
programs are desirable.
1. Ideology and Generalizations
Examples of ideologically-based generalizations are noted and
discussed below:
a. The MPA should be the terminal degree for professionals; otherwise
the standing of the MPA will be diminished.
I have participated in the education of several thousand MPA
students and have reasonably frequent contact with numerous MPA
alumni. Not a single one has voiced this concern to me. Conversely,
many have gone on to seek their DPAs at significant personal expense
or expressed their wish that they could. Professionals dont seem to
61 1 Journal of Public Administration Education
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:26:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The DPA:
have difficulty appreciating the qualitative differences between
education for the MPA, the PhD and the DPA. Is it possible th
real concern being expressed is maintaining a clear distinction
between the academy and the profession?
b. Public administration practitioners don't "need" doctoral-level
educations.
Who should decide the needs of public administration
practitioners? Is it those who provide the education, those who
make the considerable personal investment and use the education
or both? Or is it academicians who have little experience with
doctoral level education other than that aquired through their own
doctoral studies? Individuals who received their doctoral
educations in single disciplines rather than multidisciplinary
programs or professional schools occasionally have difficulty
conceiving of alternative approaches to quality doctoral education
that don't emulate their experiences.
Paternalism in assessing the educational needs of young, preservice students may be justifiable, but is it appropriate for the
needs of mature, professionally accomplished individuals?
I think not.
c. DPA degrees are second class; the PhD is the qualitatively
superior degree.
DPA degrees vary from program to program as do PhD
degrees; granted, they have qualitative differences from some
PhD programs in Public Administration, but that does not mean
those differences make them inferior. The differences quite likely
are important and desirable ones. What is essential to assess is
whether they are impacting their defined domains positively and
achieving their purposes including assisting society in addressing
its problems in a quality manner. In short, how well coaligned are
they with their contexts, given their objectives?
If feasible, it is important to assess each doctoral program on
its own merits rather than to generalize about PhD or DPA
programs as though they were homogeneous phenomena.
2. Degree Differentiation
Does a legitimate need exist for a professional doctorate? Do
practitioners who do not want academic careers need education
beyond the MPA? These are normative ways of framing the issues to
be addressed by this series of essays on the DPA. However, in my
view, they are not particularly useful ones, given that the likely
answers will largely reflect the value orientations of those who
address them and may not be at all informed by empirical realities.
62/J-PAE, May 1995
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:26:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The DPA:
Given that we have in the United States a number of longst
DPA programs such as those at USC, the University of Geo
and Arizona State University, it may be more instructive t
the issues more descriptively in terms of what societal valu
programs have, and how they differ from MPA and PhD
programs. Addressing these questions will inform the dialo
this issue and may be more useful than simply asserting an
ideological position.
Do DPA program graduates help solve society's problem
The answer is resoundingly clear that they do. Examples ar
endless and include individuals in leadership roles such as c
county manager, politician, career executive and appointed
executive as well as professor and academic administrator.
notable recent example is Edward Perkins who served as U
Ambassador to the United Nations and now serves in Australia.
It is a mistake to label or discuss the DPA as a practitioner
degree because a sizable proportion of the holders of the degree
are full time academics or academic administrators, and there are
legions of DPA "pracademics" who both teach and practice.
Conversely, many PhDs are working as practitioners.
There are important pragmatic reasons why individuals
aspiring to academic careers opt for DPA programs; these relate
more to the ways universities package and deliver doctoral
education to those who cannot devote several years to full time
study than they do to the particular label put on the degree.
These reasons have little or nothing to do with the quality of
doctoral students or the specifics of degree requirements; they
relate primarily to program quality and the accessibility of
doctoral education programs.
For example, we have students from ten different states in
our USC DPA program in Sacramento. This domain is only
possible because of our intensive semester format, but it is also
partially attributable to the quality of the faculty and the rigor of
the program.
DPA education builds upon prior graduate education
including MPA classes, but there are qualitative differences from
MPA coursework. These differences are manifest in faculty
expectations of students in terms of their ability to conceptualize,
move easily between levels of abstraction, think comparatively,
and be self conscious about modes of social inquiry. Like the
PhD, the DPA requires research competencies and a depth and
breadth of knowledge of research literature that goes well beyond
expectations of MPA students.
Distinguishing the DPA from the PhD is more difficult.
Students admitted to these programs at USC do not differ
63 1 Journal of Public Administration Education
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:26:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The DPA:
significantly in terms of their GRE scores or prior GPAs. The
DPAs must have a minimum of five years of professional
experience, but many PhD students meet that criterion. Much
the coursework for the two programs is the same, but there ar
some noteworthy differences. PhD students must offer a forei
language while DPAs have no language requirement; the latter
must demonstrate their competency in quantitative analysis
techniques and public policy. PhD students are required to stud
the subfield of political economy; DPA students are not. The
qualifying examination processes for the two degrees differ
somewhat, and the PhD requires a faculty member from outsi
the school on guidance committees and the DPA does not.
Perhaps, the more defining differences relate to the modes
instruction and interaction with faculty. PhD students have m
of their classes on a weekly basis and are on campus regularly.
DPA students have their classes in the intensive format and are
less frequently on campus; for them there is more interaction
through telephones, correspondence e-mail, and fax. These
differences are not inconsequential; the PhD student has more
opportunity for socialization into the academy through possible
daily involvement in ongoing research and campus activities. PhD
students contribute to a community of learning by assuming roles
as TAs and RAs.
Conversely, DPA students contribute to the community of
learning by sharing their substantial professional experiences.
Many DPA students are on the cutting edge of public policy and
management issues and are able to contribute to the faculty
members knowledge base, to the richness of seminar discussions
and to the education of MPA students. DPA students are
commonly in positions where they have ready access to
significant research opportunities and can make immediate
applications of thier acquired knowledge in addressing societally
relevant problems. If they migrate into the academy as faculty,
that experiential base lends relevance to their teaching and
research.
3. Desirability of Variations in Degrees
In the concluding section of this essay the argument is advanced
that variation in doctoral programs in public administration is
desirable.
The "politics" surrounding doctoral education can be fierce.
Faculty have strong viewpoints about what constitutes quality
doctoral education. Few resist the tendency to assert that their
viewpoint, whatever it is, is going to advance academic qualityunlike the viewpoints, programs or approaches they denigrate which
often turn out to be strawmen or imagined realties.
64/J-PAE, May 1995
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:26:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The DPA:
Why is it that some academicians feel so comfortable pres
for others' academic programs while being oblivious to their o
programs' shortcomings or improvement needs and opportunit
Bok is right that we are failing in responsibilities to address so
problems, what can be done to improve the academy's contrib
at least in public administration?
Let me suggest that what we should not strive to homoge
doctoral education through narrowly defined standard setting
accreditation processes, or by denigrating DPA programs whic
contribute in many important ways both to practice and the a
We should provide doctoral level education programs characte
both academic rigor and societal relevance; there is no reason
believe these are either-or choices.
There is much merit to encouraging greater experimentation
with approaches to doctoral education in public administration. The
field needs more innovative capacity, not standardization of already
discerned "best practices" which are quickly outdated. Every field has
its share of Luddites; we should not allow ourselves to indulge other's
illusions that their viewpoints and the "truth" are entirely congruent.
65 1 Journal of Public Administration Education
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:26:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The DPA:
66/J-PAE, May 1995
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:26:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Big Questions/Big Issues
PAR readers encouraged the editors to focus more attention on the so-called "Big Questions/Big Issues" of the field of public
administration. In response to this suggestion, we created a new forum for scholarly discourse simply called "Big Questions/Big
Issues." In this issue, Robert B. Denhardt, co-recipient ofthe 2000 PAR Marshall E. Dimock Award, addresses the big questions of
public administration education.—LDT
Robert B. Denhardt
Arizotna State Universify
The Big Questions of Public
Administration Education
Following Beht)'s observation that scientists in other fields understand the big questions of their
disciplines and focus attention and their discussions on those questions, public administration
scholars have attempted to identify the "big questions" in public management and public administration. In this article, I suggest that scholars in public administration should also be attentive to
the big questions of public administration education, those timeless and enduring concerns that
speak to the basic perspectives that we bring to the educational process. Specifically, I identify four
big questions: Do we seek to educate our students with respect to theory or to practice? Do we
prepare students for their first jobs or for those to which they might aspire later? What are the
appropriate delivery mechanisms forMPA courses and curricula? What personal commitments do
we make as public administration educators? I argue that these big questions in public administration education are far more connected than we usually think, and by posing these questions in
terms of processes of human development we can at least provide a framework through which we
might develop more coherent answers to these big questions, answers that recognize and build on
the diversity of our students and our faculty.
Following Behn's observation that scientists in other
fields understand the big questions of their disciplines and
focus attention and their discussions on those questions,
public administration scholars have attempted to identify
the "big questions" in public management and public administration (Behn 1995; Kirlin 1996, 2001; Neumann
1996). My purpose here is to offer several big questions
for public administration education—those timeless and
2. Do we prepare students for their first jobs or for those
to which they might aspire later?
3. What are the appropriate delivery mechanisms forMPA
courses and curricula?
4. What personal commitments do we make as public administration educators?
enduring concems that speak to the basic perspectives we
Robert B. Oenhardt is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona
,
.
,
,
.
,
...
,
brmg to the educational process, especially at the masters
level. Specifically, I would like to suggest four basic ques,
,
.
i j T u r
UI-
j - - » t -
tions that educators in the field of public admmistration
have debated for many decades:
1
^»/^ «/£. c ^ ^ l - tn f>HiifQtP n i i r cfiiHpntc w i t h r p s n p r f t n
1. Do we seek to educate our students with respect to
theory or to practice?
526 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
Stafe University and a visiting scholar at the University or Delaware. Dr
Denhardt is a past president of the American Society for Public AdministraHon and also a member of the National Academy of Public Administration.
He/iospi/b/is/iec// 4 boo/cs,/nc/uc/ing Managing Human Behavior in Public
^ ^ j Non-Profit Organizations, Theories of Public Organization, Public Administration: An Action Orientation, In the Shadow of Organization, ondThe
Pursuitof Significance. He/lOspuW/'shedover75orf/c/es/nprofess/ona//our-
^^,^^ ^^.^^a., .^ ^^ ^^^^ of leadership, management, and organizational
change. His doctorate is from the University of Kentucky. Email: rbd@asu.edu.
After examining each question individually and noting
the issues each embraces, I would like to suggest that looking at these questions through a developmental perspective might aid us in clarifying how these four questions
relate to one another and, in tum, how we might be able to
come up with better answers to these questions, answers
that recognize and build on the diversity of our students
and faculty.
pre-service or in-service. Many teachers of public administration have had the counterintuitive realization that preservice students, who have dealt more recently with theory
and might be expected to be tuned in to theoretical arguments, are more interested in the "nuts and bolts" of administrative practice; in-service students, even though they
have been away from the academic world for a while, feel
they know practice and are therefore more concemed with
the theoretical context, with what things mean. Others have
noted that different students, reflecting different learning
The Big Questions
styles or even differences in psychological types, have a
Do we seek to educate our students with respect to theory greater or lesser affinity for either theory or practice. Some
or to practice? Educators in the field of public administra- psychological types seem more comfortable with theory,
tion have long been concemed with the question of theory while others are more comfortable with the details of adversus practice (see, for example, Broadnax 1997; Denhardt ministrative practice. Indeed, the same is true of faculty:
et al. 1997; Denhardt and White 1987; Hummel 1997; Some faculty are more interested in theory, while others
Marshall 1997; Miller 1997; Sellers 1998; Ventriss 1991; are more interested in practice. The same faculty member
Weschler 1997). Indeed, if the tension between politics and may be more interested in theory at one point and more
administration is central to the field of public administra- interested in practice at another.
tion, then the tension between theory and practice is cenDo we prepare students for their first jobs or for those
tral to public administration education. The theory/prac- to which they might aspire later? Most pre-service MPA
tice question cuts in many different ways. Some point out students move from their graduate degree programs into
that theories of public organization provide a basis for un- positions that are primarily technical or analytical, such as
derstanding practice and should inform everything a "re- budget analysts, personnel analysts, or administrative asflective practitioner" does. Others suggest that theories sistants. Few move directly into management positions,
typically stand at some distance from practice, so under- though many fully expect to assume greater and greater
standing theory may not aid practice—and practice is what responsibility as they move through their careers, probmakes the difference.
ably including management responsibility. (And wouldn't
Others argue more modestly that leaming theory is equiva- it be interesting if we could accurately predict which stulent to leaming the "logic" of the field, and students need to dents have management potential, something that grades
understand the basic logic of the field rather than the imme- in graduate school don't seem to predict.)
diate details of today's practice (which may not be
On the other hand, in-service students, who are already
tomorrow's). Still others argue that students not only need some years into their careers, have probably graduated from
to leam the logic, they also need those skills that allow them their initial analytical positions into management jobs. In
to put the logic into practice. A final, partially overlapping addition, many were previously working in substantive
group equates the distinction between theory and practice fields such as human services, transportation, criminal juswith that between knowledge and skills and argues that stu- tice, etc. But as they were promoted into a management
dents need a base of knowledge, but they also must develop position, they suddenly found their background and expespecific skills they can use in administrative situations.
rience in their "home" discipline simply didn't prepare them
There is also an interesting debate about whether theory for the work of public management. Indeed, many of those
leads practice or practice leads theory. Most public ad- who retum to school as in-service students do so out of a
ministration theorists think of their work as opening new desire to leam about their new job as a manager.
possibilities for practice. But many scholars might argue
It appears that students require different kinds of knowlthe opposite, that researchers in public administration edge and skills at different points in their careers. Pre-serobserve practice and then reflect practical developments vice students need analytic skills in the next several years,
in their theoretical work (such is typically the case in while in-service students are more likely to need managebudgeting). Obviously, this debate suggests important ment skills right away. Do we teach, then, analytical skills
problems for research and development in the study of that pre-service students will need first and hope, as they
public administration. It also speaks to the relationship move up the ladder, they will acquire the skills they need—
between theorists and practitioners, and between the uni- remembering that research has indicated that managers who
versity and the community.
perform brilliant analytical work often cannot develop the
Interestingly, student reactions to the theory/practice action orientation needed in a line position (Yukl 1998,
question differ, in part according to whether the student is 259)? Or do we teach management skills, knowing they
The Big Questions of Public Administrotion Education 527
will not be the skills graduates will need first, but hopefully will some day (Wooldridge 1987)? If we are teaching both pre-service and in-service students, do we separate them and teach different material to each group,
material appropriate to the career stage, or do we keep them
together, perhaps hoping that each group will leam from
the other? If we keep them together, do we teach toward
the one audience or do we try to hit some middle ground
acceptable to each?
What are the appropriate delivery mechanisms for MPA
courses and curricula? This question has become a consuming one in recent years, though it has been with us for a
long time in different guises. Today, the question is how
technology—specifically distance leaming—changes the
way we deliver courses and curricula and how it might alter
what our students leam (Banas and Emory 1998; Leavitt
and Richman 1997; Leip 1999; Mingus 1999; Rahm, Reed,
and Rydl 1999; Reed 1999; Stowers 1999; Timney 1996).
If students are leaming from a distance, is there something
lacking in terms of student/faculty or student/student interaction? How can we create distance leaming approaches that
permit something more than typing and reading?
These questions are important and contemporary but,
in different guises, they have been a part of the discussion
of public administration education for many years (Balfour
andMarini 1991; Cunningham 1997; Denhardt et al. 1997;
Hamilton and Pajari 1997; Massic 1995; Newman 1996;
Robyn 1998) For example, should classes be conducted in
a didactic style with the teacher bearing the greatest responsibility for leaming? Or should students be asked to
engage in discussions, simulations, cases, or exercises designed to elicit their active involvement in the leaming process? Are there different approaches to acquiring knowledge versus leaming skills? If we wish to develop student's
skills, how do we go about it? Should students be encouraged to fulfill intemships that give them on-the-job leaming experiences? What is the relationship between projects
and related experiences that occur in the community and
the educational program? What is the role of experiential
education in the classroom?
What personal commitments do we make as public administration educators? We tend to focus on the student—
how the student is changing, what is leamed, what is developed—and focus less on ourselves. But many of the
most thoughtful teachers in public administration, as in
other fields, recognize the relationship between teachers
and students inevitably changes both. Once we understand
that basic idea, we cannot help recognizing that what occurs personally in the student/teacher relationship is every
bit as powerful—in fact, probably more powerful—than
the simple transmission of information from one to another. Leaming is a process of sharing—and sharing goes
both ways.
528
What does this mean for teachers of public administration? When I asked a colleague about the big questions of public administration education, she responded
that one question is, "How can I arrange a class so it appeals to people with every sort of style? It's hard for me
to empathize with people who approach learning via specific details. I really like dealing with the 'big picture.'"
Of course, the same could be said about the faculty member who prefers dealing with the specific details facing
students who want the big picture. The point is that the
teacher's frame of reference, indeed the teacher's basic
psychological makeup, is very much involved in the process of education.
When we approach the big questions of public administration education, one of the biggest questions is how we
conceive of our own role in that process. What are the
"metagoals" of public administrafion education? What are
we trying to accomplish? One metagoal might be the continuous development and renewal of a cadre of practitioners to carry out the tasks of administration. One might be
the development of specific technical, analytic, and managerial skills. Others might be the continuous improvement
of the practice of administration, assisting practitioners in
self-renewal, or providing a context through which we can
assist reflective practitioners to better understand and appreciate their world.
We might also think about the personal qualities or
perspectives that we bring to the educational process.
What are the psychological styles we bring to the classroom? What assumptions and personal value commitments do we hold? What are the lenses through which
we view student perfonnance? Are we looking for someone who can remember technical detail? Are we looking
for someone who can apply a certain logic to new problems? Are we concemed that students understand the big
picture? Are we looking for someone who does well on
tests, or someone whose personality seems to fit the image of the public manager?
Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
A Developmental Perspective
The big questions in public administration have, in part,
remained big because we haven't developed a framework
for dealing with them. One problem is that we treat these
questions (and others) as separate and distinct from one
another; another is that we assume there will be one right
answer for each question. In the remainder of this article,
I want to suggest that the big questions of public administration education are far more connected than we typically recognize, and understanding their relationship
might aid us in arriving at better answers to these questions. Moreover, I want to suggest that, given the diversity of our field and our students, these questions may
have to be answered by saying, "it depends." I'd like to expressing our own intentions. In any case, the combined
explore these questions by suggesting that the teaching/ effort of learning and maturation is ultimately oriented
learning process in public administration is deeply bound toward increasing our independence from the external
up with issues of personal development both for students world and from our own impulses. As figure I shows,
and faculty; consequently, our answers to the big ques- each step in the learning/development sequence has imtions of public administration education must reflect both plications for the types of problem-solving capacities that
the intellectual and psychological needs and interests of we evidence in "the real world, " including the real world
our students—and our own. Let me begin with three ob- of public administration and the real world of teaching
servations, which I will then elaborate.
public administration.
To phrase this argument in terms that apply to public
• First, public administrators not only need to acquire
knowledge about the field, they need to develop skills to administration education, one's cognitive knowledge conaffect change in the public sector, and they need a cer- sists of one's store of information about the world and one's
tain psychological grounding or maturity to do so in the standard way of interpreting the world, one's awareness
most effective and responsible way. Administrators not and one's judgment. For a would-be administrator, this area
only need to know about communications, they need to would include the administrator's factual knowledge about
be able to communicate; they not only need to know programs, policies, and processes, as well as his or her
about leadership, they need to be able to lead. They need intellectual understanding of the moral and political context within which administrative action occurs. For a teacher
to be able to "walk the talk."
• Second, public administrators have different needs that of public administration, this would include understanddepend on where they are in their career and where they ing the field, knowing the pedagogy of public administraare in their organization. Those who work at the techni- tion, and having the capacity to work back and forth becal level (which includes most graduates early in their tween theory and practice.
One's interpersonal or behavioral skills are those culcareers) have one set of educational needs, while those
who work at the executive level (generally those who turally specified and culturally approved ways of interacthave been out of school for some time) have a different ing that we employ in our normal exchanges with others.
For the would-be administrator, these skills involve such
set of needs.
• Third, given the educational process typically involves standard pattems of behavior as communications, motivaclose human interaction between teachers and students, tion, delegation, negotiation, understanding or reading bewe must acknowledge that students' developmental needs havioral cues, or engaging in relationships of power and
are paralleled by a set of developmental needs of fac- authority; they are the skills that enable us to act within
ulty, and the dynamics of teacher/student interFigure 1 Developmental Needs and Managerial Skills
actions is key to effective and responsible teachDevelopmenta General problemKnowledge and
Knowledge and
ing/learning.
sequence
solving capacities
skills for
skills for teachers
In my view, students in public administration
administrators
need not only knowledge about the field, they also Cognirive
Cognitive accomCognitive knowledge Understanding of
of policies and
how to teach public
need to act, effectively and consistently, to make development plishment and
control of external
programs, as v/ell as administration and
things happen. Fortunately, recent work on human
objects
the moral and
the capacity to work
development makes just that point, arguing that
political context of
back and forth
the field
between theory and
the adult human being's ability to think and act is
practice
the result of both learning and maturational pro- Linguistic or
Affective understand- Interpersonal or
Skills in applying a
cesses, distinct aspects of personal development interactive
ing and understand- behavioral skills;
variety of pedagogiskills involved in
cal techniques to
that result in three sets of developmental activi- development ing of others
managing change;
communicate with
ties: cognitive development, linguistic developpatterns of behavior students in a way
as communications.
that enhances
ment, and psychosocial development (Habermas
motivation.
knowledge, skills.
1979; Kohlberg 1971). This view of human develdelegation.
and values
opment acknowledges that cognitive development
negotiation, or
engaging in
is of great importance, but our capacity for action
relationstiips of
requires learning and development beyond cognipower and authority
tive knowledge. Specifically, our linguistic devel- Psychosocial Self-reflection, self- Intrapersonal or
Capacity to
understond oneself
opment (our ability to communicate with others) development critique, self-control. "action" skills:
self-direction, selfmaturity, selfin a way that makes
permits interaction, while our psychosocial develexpression, selfconfidence, selfpossible authentic
esteem
esteem
relationships with
opment allows us greater clarity and direction in
students and others
The Big Questions of Public Administration Education 529
organizational and interorganizational systems to mediate to varying substantive concerns, others related to the presdisputes and to influence change processes. For the teacher sures of the moment such as stress and uncertainty. For
of public administration, these would include skills in ap- this reason, it is important to relate these leaming and matuplying a variety of pedagogical techniques to communi- rational issues to the context within which people find themcate with students in a way that enhances knowledge, skills, selves. It was noted earlier the possibility that administrators play different roles at different points in their careers
and values.
Finally, one's intrapersonal skills are those capabili- (as do educators). I now suggest that these career stages
ties that provide psychological and moral grounding for combine with the different levels of psychological develour actions (Aristigueta 1997; Denhardt and Aristigueta opment just reviewed to form specific life "tasks" that vary
1996; Holmer and Adams 1995). These skills give us the depending on the individual.
confidence to actually do what we have learned cognitively
James Thompson's classic (1967) formulation of three
and perhaps even practiced behavioraily on previous oc- overlapping levels of organizational responsibility may aid
casions, even under pressures not to do so. They also per- our thinking about this point: The technical suborganization
mit us a degree of independent self-reflection, an attribute is concemed with the effective perfonnance of the actual
associated with Kohlberg's higher levels of moral devel- task of the organization; the managerial suborganization
opment (Kohlberg 1971). Together, these skills enable us is concemed with mediating between the technical group
to act with confidence in translating norms and ideas into and those at the institutional level and with providing the
action. For the would-be administrator, these range from resources necessary to accomplish the technical task; and
building sufficient maturity and self-confidence to oper- the institutional suborganization is concerned with the reate effectively and responsibly in public organizations, to lationship between the organization as an institution and
being able to independently sort through organizational the wider social or political system it is a part of
issues and the role of the agency in the governance sysThompson's work was reflected more recently in a
tem. For the teacher of public administration, these might study by the Office of Personnel Management (1985) that
include the capacity to understand, in a deeper and
more personal way, the basis for our study of pub- Figure 2
lic administration and to understand ourselves in a Personal Development and the Career Administrator
way that enables us to connect with others, includTechnical
Managerial
Institurional
ing our students, in a more authentic fashion.
Through this formulation, it is clear that the problems of acquiring the skills that enable us to act
effectively and responsibly in organizational and
educational settings must be seen as intimately connected to the more generalized process of self-development. Students need to leam cognitive knowledge and the skills required in the interpersonal
world, but they need more: They need to build confidence and self-esteem, so that they can act in a
way consistent with their beliefs and values. (This
is one way of saying, "act with integrity.") The same
is true of faculty members. In either case, those who
are secure in their own identity (the result of personal developmental processes) are more likely to
act in accord with their knowledge and principles
(both of which are the result of leaming), even under pressures not to do so.
Developmental Requirements for
Administrators through the Years
Cognitive
knowledge
Basic analytical skills
in human resources.
budgeting and
financial processes,
information
management
(including computer
literacy), analytical
techniques, and an
understanding of
public policy and the
organizational
environment
Knowledge of
technical and
managerial systems,
as well as organizational design and
operation, the latter
including topics such
as power and
influence, motivation.
delegation, and
establishing
supportive communications
Knowledge of
interorganizational
relationships and
organizational
environments.
including those
related to both
executive and policy
roles
Interpersonol Basic communicaskills
tions skills such as
speaking, writing.
listening, as welfas
the capacity to work
in typical organizational settings.
including teams and
other groups
Skills and abilities
required in the
internal management
of public organizations and those
required to support
the policy process.
including influencing
others, communicating, delegating, etc.
Ability to accurately
project the
organization's
activities to the
public and to
negotiate, facilitate.
and build consensus
across organizational boundaries
Intrapersonol Sufficient maturity
skills
and self-confidence
to operate effectively
and responsibly in
public organizations
Growing skills in selfreflection and selfcritique; increased
awareness and
understanding of self
and others
Strong psychological grounding
enabling independently derived
perspectives
concerning
organizational and
environmental
relations and the
role of public
organizations in the
governance system
It is important to note that the levels of development described here do not represent a chronological sequence. Rather, there are wide variations in
where people stand developmental ly, some related
530
Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
sought to identify the types of skills needed at different
levels of the federal government. It argued that as managers move up the organizational ladder, they must accumulate increasingly broader sets of skills. The researchers pointed out that those at the front line must do the
technical work of the organization, that is, they must demonstrate technical competence. But as they move into
supervisory positions, they must apply communications
skills, interpersonal sensitivity, and begin to reflect the
characteristics needed at higher levels—leadership, flexibility, an action orientation, and a focus on results. Middle
managers must demonstrate all these characteristics of
effectiveness, but they also begin to acquire those skills
needed at the next level—a broad perspective, a strategic
view, and environmental sensitivity.
To this point, I have argued the value of thinking of public administration education in the context of personal development (that is, cognitive development, interpersonal
or behavioral skills, and intrapersonal or action skills), and
have suggested the need for different competencies at different points in one's career (from the technical to the
managerial to the institutional or executive level). In figure 2, these issues are combined, placing personal development on the vertical axis and career development on the
horizontal axis. I have then filled in some examples of the
kinds of leaming and development that would be appropriate at each point.
Rethinking the Big Questions
Recognizing the interplay of leaming, psychological
development, and career context suggests that the task of
public administration education is considerably more complex than the traditional big questions of public administration education imply. While the big questions are typically phrased in a way that suggests there is one "right"
answer to each question, our discussion of personal and
psychological development of students and faculty suggests the issues are much more complex. (Indeed, one of
the reasons these questions continue to be discussed is exactly because they don't have one right answer.)
Educators in public administration have frequendy assumed there is one best way to construct programs and
policies and that we should take a one-size-fits-all approach
to our students. For example, most MPA curricula around
the country look pretty much the same, and certainly within
a particular university it is rare for the requirements to differ substantively, except in the case of areas of specialization (Cleary 1990). Similarly, MPA admission criteria rarely
differ according to the background or experience of the
applicant. The way we approach the theory/practice distinction is largely determined by curricular choices and
even more by the experiences and interests of individual
faculty, rather than by acknowledging that different students need a different mix of theory and practice. Similarly, teaching styles and approaches are relatively uniform,
with variations most likely reflecting individual faculty
members' preferences rather than an effort to match the
teaching style with the material. If, on the other hand, we
recognize and capitalize on the diversity of our audiences
and our faculty, we might come closer to answering the
big questions of public administration education. How,
then, would we reformulate the big questions?
Do we seek to educate our students with respect to theory
or to practice? There are good reasons to suggest that students at one stage of their career are more open to theoretical versus practical questions than those at a different stage.
Students with more experience seem to be more interested
in the theoretical context of public administration than do
students who are fresh out of undergraduate programs. That
is consistent with our developmental perspective, which
suggests that as students mature, they are likely to become
more self-critical and reflective, more interested in integrating their beliefs and values. Moreover, there are reasons to believe that an interest in theory versus practice
simply reflects an individual's psychological type. Some
people are simply more interested in theory than others—
and that goes for faculty as well as students.
If our students differ with respect to their needs and interests in theory or practice, and if faculty do as well, then
one way to approach the theory/practice issue is to create
diverse opportunities for students and faculty to meet their
own particular needs and interests. For example, we might
try to more carefully identify the stages, both in our students' career development and in their psychological development, where greater attention to theory makes more
sense, and to emphasize theory in educating students who
find themselves at those stages. Similarly, we might try to
identify faculty who are more inclined to theoretical interests and make sure they are involved in teaching students
who have these needs and interests. Of course, we should
do the same thing with respect to students and faculty whose
interests are more practical.
Do we prepare students for their first jobs or for those
to which they might aspire? Figure 2 suggests that students
at different career stages—or, more accurately, students at
different levels in their organizations—have different substantive needs in terms of knowledge and skills. For example, those at the institutional level are likely to need
greater knowledge of organizational environments and the
process of policy development than others; similarly, they
are also more likely to need skills in negotiating or
brokering across organizational boundaries. We might even
explore the possibility that people in some areas do work
that is more knowledge based, and people in other areas
do work that is more skill based. For example, completing
The Big Questions of Public Administration Education 531
a technically based policy analysis is more knowledge
based, while communicating with and trying to motivate
employees is more skill based.
Having an understanding of the diiferent knowledge and
skill requirements for people in different places within
public organizations might enable us to design specific
programs that meet the needs of students at those levels.
Indeed, we may even need to think differently about the
metagoals of public administration education, depending
on which group we are addressing. For some, our main
goal might be skill development; for others, our main goal
might be providing a moral and intellectual context. An
obvious recommendation is for us to design different MPA
curricula for pre-service students than for in-service students (along the lines indicated in figure 2). Or, in cases
where program size does not allow that, a set of common
core courses might be followed by different electives. At a
minimum, the capstone experience could be different for
the two types of students.
We might even want to explore an advanced practitioner degree, specifically designed for top-level executives,
even including those who already have MPA or related
degrees. Currently, this kind of training occurs primarily
in concentrated non-credit training or executive development sessions, but a new degree program could also be
built to meet the needs of those at the top levels of public
organizations. This degree need not be a doctorate, because it would not be a research-oriented degree (Adams
and White 1994,1995; Brewer etal. 1998, 1999; Clayton
1995; Felbinger, Holzer, and White 1999; Hambrick 1997;
McCurdy and Cleary 1984; Sherwood 1996; White,
Adams, and Forrester 1996). Rather, it would be a completely new degree that would equip students with the
knowledge, skills, and values needed for practice at the
highest levels of government.
What are the appropriate delivery mechanisms for MPA
courses and curricula? Recognizing the diversity of our
students' needs and interests suggests that different delivery mechanisms are appropriate at different stages in students' personal psychological development and in different career locations. Our understanding of the
developmental process suggests that public administration
students need to acquire cognitive knowledge, interpersonal
skills, and intrapersonal skills. Obviously, different educational approaches might be employed at each of these
levels. For example, students may acquire cognitive knowledge by reading books, listening to lectures, or conducting
research projects (to mention just a few approaches). Leaming interpersonal skills, on the other hand, might more
appropriately involve experiential leaming, including cases,
group exercises, and simulations. Building one's
intrapersonal skills might be stimulated by joumal-keeping exercises, intemships, or other real-world experiences.
532 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
Leaming can take place in different environments, and
many of the skills and knowledge fragments that successful administrators acquire come from a much broader range
of experiences than those associated with our degree programs. Much of our students' cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal leaming takes place outside the MPA experience—and that leaming may differ with respect to the
different levels of knowledge we have been discussing. For
example, classroom experiences may be better suited to
developing cognitive knowledge, while on-the-job training or administrative experience may be appropriate (or
even necessary) for developing interpersonal and
intrapersonal skills (though I would argue that all three
levels can be improved both in the classroom and in the
real world).
This perspective might also help us to understand the
contemporary debate on distance leaming, suggesting that
distance leaming is far better suited to helping students
acquire cognitive knowledge than interpersonal or
intrapersonal skills. When properly presented, distancelearning techniques may prove even more valuable than
the traditional classroom lecture. (For example, students
can leam at their own pace; they don't have to depend on
often haphazard notes; and they can query the professor
without embarrassment.) On the other hand, the acquisition of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills depends on
having the opportunity to engage with faculty members,
with other students, and with practitioners under conditions that allow students to practice behaviors and to build
self-esteem. It's hard to imagine that this kind of leaming
could occur without face-to-face interaction.
What personal commitments do we make as public administration educators? The developmental perspective
presented here reminds us that, just as our students are
growing and developing throughout their time in our programs, we are growing and developing as well. Faculty
interests and orientations change over time, based on new
substantive concems that come to occupy us and on social
and psychological changes in our own lives. A faculty
member who starts out teaching budgeting may become
interested in environmental policy. One who starts out creating abstract theory may become far more practical over
a period of years (or vice versa). Faculty perspectives may
change depending on administrative experiences they have
in the university or consulting experiences they have outside. In either case, schools and departments of public administration (as well as the larger universities within which
they reside) should be attentive to the changing needs and
interests of faculty over time.
Faculty members move through several stages over the
course of their careers. The novice professor is concemed
with getting accustomed to the academic world and establishing competence; the professor early in an academic
career is concemed with achievement and confirmation;
the mid-career faculty member enjoys a rewarding and influential phase, though he or she may begin to recognize
important upcoming transitional issues; the faculty member late in his or her career may enjoy considerable respect, but also may begin a sometimes difficult process of
disengagement (Baldwin 1990,31-7). These career stages
not only affect the faculty members' own interests, they
affect the way faculty relate to one another and to students.
For example, a young faculty member may bring important and contemporary academic insights and cutting-edge
material to students and other faculty, while a senior faculty member may play an important mentoring role for
younger faculty as well as advancing practitioners.
Designing a faculty development program that not only
nurtures and supports younger faculty, but attends to the
changing needs and interests of mid-career and senior
faculty is perhaps the best way to match the needs and
interests of faculty with those of students. Faculty and
program administrators must recognize the diverse and
changing substantive interests of students and faculty, as
well as their needs for not only acquiring cognitive knowledge, but also developing their interpersonal skills and
building a strong and independent foundation of reflection and value critique. Only in this way will we be able
to design educational programs that meet the needs of
our students, prepare them for involvement in the professional community, and utilize the full range of interests
and skills of our faculty.
Conclusion
The developmental perspective proposed here does not
answer the big questions of public administration education, though it may provide a new perspective from which
to consider these questions. Specifically, it suggests that
the diversity of our students' needs and interests are extremely complex and need to be analyzed with more precision than we often employ in discussions of curricula,
admissions policies, and related topics. Additionally, it
suggests that students and faculty come together as both
are engaged in important stages of personal, professional,
and psychosocial development. We come into students'
lives at a very important time, a time of exploration and
change, a time of evolving commitment and self-realization, a time of discovery and new commitments. Learning
will be most effective when it involves a process of mutual
sharing, one in which the student and the instructor enter
into a relationship that creates the conditions under which
appropriate leaming and personal development can flourish, both for the student and the teacher.
Acknowledgments
TTie author would like to express appreciation to his colleagues
in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University for
their help in shaping these ideas. Special thanks go to Jeff
Chapman, Joe Cayer, Janet Denhardt, Larry Mankin, Barbara
McCabe, and Lou Weschler.
References
Adams, Guy B., and Jay D. White. 1994. Dissertation Research
in Public Administration and Cognate Fields. Puhiic Administration Review 52(4): 565-76.
. 1995. The Public Administration Doctorate. A Degree
in Search of a Purpose. Journal of Puhiic Administration
Education 1(1): 67-76.
Aristigueta, Maria. 1997. Strategy and Theory for Intrapersonal
Development in Public Administration Education. Journal of
Public Administration Education 3(2): 163-76.
Baldwin, Roger C. 1990. Faculty Career Stages and Implications for Professional Development. In Enhancing Eaculty
Careers, edited by Jack H. Schuster, Daniel W. Wheeler, and
Associates, 20-40. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Balfour, Danny L., and Frank Marini. 1991. Child and Adult, X
and Y: Reflections on Public Administration Education. Public Administration Review 51(6): 478-85.
Banas, Edward J., and Frances W. Emory. 1998. History and
Issues of Distance Education. Public Administration Quarterly 22(3): 365-83.
Behn, Robert D. 1995. The Big Questions of Public Management. Public Administration Review 55(4): 313-24.
Brewer, Gene A., Rex L. Facer II, Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr., and
James W. Douglas. 1998. The State of Doctoral Education in
Public Administration: Developments in the Field's Research
Preparation. Journal of Public Affairs Education 4(2): 12335.
. 1999. Determinants of Graduate Research Productivity
in Doctoral Programs of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 59(5): 373-82.
Broadnax, Walter. 1997. Educating Tomorrow's Public Administrators. Journal of Public Administration Education 3(3):
391-6.
Clayton, Ross. 1995. The DPA: Contributing to Society's Need
for Scholarship and Leadership. Journal of Public Administration Education 1(1): 61-6.
Cleary, Robert E. 1990. What Do Public Administration Masters Programs Look Like? Do They Do What Is Needed?
Public Administration Review 50(6): 663-73.
Cunningham, Bob. 1997. Experiential Learning in Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Education 3(2):
219-28.
The Big Questions of Public Administration Education 533
Denhardt, Robert B,, and Maria P. Aristigueta, 1996. Developing Intrapersonal Skills. In Handbook of Public Administration, edited by James Perry, 682-96. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Denhardt, Robert B. and Jay D. White. 1987. Integrating Theory
and Practice in Public Administration. In Reforming American Government, edited by Don Calista, 311-20. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Denhardt, Robert B., Jerome R. Lewis, Jeffrey R. Raffel, and
Daniel Rich. 1997. Integrating Theory and Practice in MPA
Education. Journal of Public Administration Education 3(2):
153-62.
Felbinger, Claire, Marc Holzer, and Jay D. White. 1999. The
Doctorate in Public Administration: Some Unresolved Questions and Recommendations. Public Administration Review
59(5): 459-64,
Habermas, Jurgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of
Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hambrick, Ralph. 1997. The Identity, Purpose, and Future of
Doctoral Education. Journal of Public Administration Education 3{2): 133-49.
Hamilton, Diana, and Roger Pajari. 1997. Effective Communications among Stakeholder: A Key Component for Successful Internship Programs. Journal of Public Administration
Education 3(2): 202-16.
Holmer, Leanna L., and Guy B. Adams. 1995. The Practice Gap:
Strategy and Theory for Emotional and Interpersonal Development in Public Administration Education. Journal of Public Administration Education. 1(1): 1-22
Hummel, Ralph P 1997. On the Usefulness of Theory to Practitioners. Journal of Public Administration Education 3(3): 37582.
Kirlin, John J. 1996. The Big Questions of Public Administration in a Democracy. Public Administration Review 56(5):
416-23.
. 2001. Big Questions for a Significant Public Administration. Public Administration Review 61(2): 140-3.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1971. From Is to Ought. In Cognitive Development and Epistemology, edited by Theodore Mischel,
151-236. New York: Academic Press.
Leavitt, William M., and Roger S. Richman. t997. The High
Tech MPA: Distance Leaming Technology and Graduate Public Administration Education. Journal of Public Administration Education 3(t): 13-28.
Leip, Leslie, 1999. An Internet Integration Plan for the MPA
Curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education 5(3): 24762.
Marshall, Gary S, 1997. Theory and Generation X. Journal of
Public Administration Education 3(3): 397^04,
Massic, Cynthia Zeliff. 1995. Teaching Introduction to Public
Administration via the Case Method. Journal of Public Administration Education 1(2): 102-15.
534 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
McCurdy, Howard E., and Robert E. Cleary, 1984. Why Can't
We Resolve the Research Issue in Public Administration?
Public Administration Review 44( 1): 49-55.
Miller, Hugh T. 1997. Why Teaching Theory Matters. Journal
of Public Administration Education 3(3): 363-74.
Mingus, Michael S. 1999. Toward Understanding the Culture of
Internet-Mediated Leaming. Journal of Public Affairs Education 5(3): 225-36.
Neumann, Francis X., Jr. 1996. What Makes Public Administration a Science? Or, Are Its "Big Questions" Really Big? Public Administration Review 56(5): 409-15.
Newman, Meredith, 1996. Practicing What We Teach: Beyond
the Lecture. Journal of Public Administration Education 2( 1):
16-29.
Rahm, Dianne, B.J. Reed, and Teri L. Rydl. 1999. Intemet-Mediated Learning in Public Affairs Programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education 5(3): 213-24.
Reed, B. J. 1999. Web-education: A Phantom Menace? Journal
of Public Affairs Education 5(3): 275-80.
Robyn, Dorothy, 1998. Teaching Public Management: The Case
for (and against) Cases. International Journal of Public Administration 21{6/Sy. 1141-6.
Sellers, Martin P. 1998, Teaching Public Administration with an
Eye on Praxis. Public Administration Quarterly 22(2): 25264.
Sherwood, Frank. 1996. Revisiting the Premises of a DPA Program After 25 Years. Journal of Public Administration Education 2(2): 107-17.
Stowers, Genie N. L. 1999. Computer Conferencing in the Public Affairs Classroom. Journal of Public Affairs Education
5(1): 57-66.
Thompson, James. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York:
Wiley.
Timney, Mary M, 1996. Can Technology Produce a Learned
Public Administrator? Journal of Public Administration Education 2{\):S6-91.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (0PM). 1985. The Management Excellence Framework. Washington, DC: Office of
Personnel Management.
Ventriss, Curtis, 1991, Contemporary Issues in American Public
Administration Education. Public Administration Review 5(1):
4-14.
Weschler, Louis F. 1997. Leaming about Theory through the Path
of Reflective Experience, Journal of Public Administration
Education 3(3): 383-90.
White, Jay D., Guy B, Adams, and John P. Forrester. 1996.
Knowledge and Theory Development in Public Administration: The Role of Doctoral Education. Public Administration
Review 56(5): 441-53.
Wooldridge, Blue. 1987. Increasing the Professional Management Orientation of Public Administration Courses. American Review of Public Administration 17(4): 93-100.
Yukl, Gary. 1998. Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
The Identity, Purpose, and Future of Doctoral Education
Author(s): Ralph Hambrick
Source: Journal of Public Administration Education, Vol. 3, No. 2 (May, 1997), pp. 133-148
Published by: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration
(NASPAA)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40215166
Accessed: 06-07-2018 19:23 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40215166?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) is
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public
Administration Education
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Identity; Purpose, and Future
of Doctoral Education
Ralph Hambrick
Virginia Commonwealth University
Doctoral education in public administration is characterized by a mild
disorientation. It is "mild" in the sense that the overworked term "crisis"
does not apply, but it is problematic nonetheless. Otherwise, and if it
were not such a cliche, "identity crisis" might be appropriate. This
disorientation was made apparent by the two-article symposium on
doctoral education in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Public
Administration Education (Clayton, 1995; Adams and White, 1995) and
was reinforced by a follow-up article (Sherwood, 1996). The articles by
Clayton and Sherwood defend the Doctor of Public Administration
(DPA) by means of an argument for diversity and the need to provide
doctoral-level education for practitioners. The other symposium article
(Adams and White) argues for singleness of purpose in public
administration doctoral education - prepare scholars for the academy
and research productivity- and contends that that purpose, or perhaps
any purpose, is now not served well by either the Ph.D. or the DPA. In
different ways, both arguments miss the mark. The articles are
interesting and provocative, but ultimately disappointing; none captures
the fundamental issues in an effective or accurate way nor provides aid
in establishing the compass the field needs. Further, the trends and
opportunities for progress in doctoral education in public administration
run counter to the positions taken in all three articles.
In reviewing these three articles and providing additional speculation
about the future of doctoral education in public administration, I wish
to make three points:
• The DPA as a distinct degree no longer serves a unique or
necessary purpose and should not be the focus of attention in
developing the future of the field.
• We should maintain diversity and should not attempt to make
doctoral education serve a single purpose.
• Developments within and beyond public administration offer
significant opportunities for an exciting future for doctoral
education (and squabbling over the differences between the DPA
JPAE, 3 (1997):2: 133-148
and Ph.D. is a distraction from pursuing those opportunities).
Journal of Public Administration Education/133
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A Failed Defense of the DPA: Or Why the DPA
Should Not Be the Focus of Doctoral Education
The central theme of the Clayton and Sherwood articles is defense of
the DPA against its critics. Based largely on the University of Southern
California Ph.D. and DPA programs, the authors argue that the DPA and
the Ph.D. are different and that this difference should be valued. In
critically examining the differences they articulate, however, the
distinction between the two degrees appears minimal at best, raising the
question of whether the Ph.D. and the DPA are different enough to
warrant separate degrees.
Clayton indicates that Ph.D. students at USC must take a foreign
language while DPA students do not; that political economy is a subfield not required in the DPA program; that the qualifying examinations
are somewhat different for the two degrees (but he does not indicate in
what way); that Ph.D. classes are scheduled on a weekly basis while
DPA classes are in an intensive format; that some DPA students live a
distance from campus and that much of their interaction is by e-mail,
fax, and phone; and that there is a five-year experience requirement for
admission to the DPA program, but not for the Ph.D. Sherwood gives
additional emphasis to practitioner experience and the added
expectation that the DPA degree is designed primarily to enhance
continued work as a practitioner (at least up to retirement at age 55); he
also says the DPA dissertation, rather than contributing new knowledge,
is a more personal project that frequently uses the student's own agency
as the context for research.
Foreign Language. Although the foreign language requirement may be a
distinction between degrees at USC, many Ph.D. programs in public
administration as well as other professional fields do not require foreign
language competency. On the other hand, it is not unthinkable,
especially in this era of globalization, for DPA programs to require or
encourage language study.
Qualifying Examinations. Qualifying or comprehensive examinations
are a feature of both DPA and Ph.D. degrees, so the fact that there is
some difference between the form of the examination at USC is not
particularly significant. Indeed, around the country, there is substantial
variation in the manner in which examinations are structured and in the
content covered, with differences from one Ph.D. program to the next
and from one DPA program to the next.
Class Scheduling. One innovation that DPA programs have encouraged
is a class schedule that accommodates part-time students. An intensive
format (with weekend or even week-long seminars) is one way this is
done. There is no reason that such formats cannot be used in Ph.D.
Journal of Public Administration Education/134
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
programs; indeed they are in some programs. Even greater variation in
scheduling is likely as electronic communication becomes a more
integral component of graduate education.
Interaction. Clayton indicates that many DPA candidates, who are likely
to be part-time students and fully employed professionals, spend less
time on campus than do Ph.D. students and thus interact differently
with faculty. In the prototypical DPA program and the traditional Ph.D.
program, this is a likely difference. These expanded forms of
communication, however, are becoming commonplace even for
students on campus. Further, some Ph.D. programs are beginning to
accommodate distance learning, for example, through electronic
communications and occasional travel to campus.
Experience/Practitioner Orientation. The purported experience or
practitioner difference is viewed at several levels in the Clayton and
Sherwood articles. One is simply the experience requirement for
admission (five years in the USC program). How firm such a
requirement is in DPA programs across the country is not certain.
Although such an experience requirement could be a part of Ph.D.
programs, it is not likely to become a common feature. Nevertheless,
many Ph.D. students do have substantial, and in many cases high-level,
professional administrative experience.
At another level, the DPA is construed as a program of study intended
specifically for persons who plan to continue as practitioners and not
enter the academic environment. On this point, there is less certainty
and some difference between the two articles. Sherwood argues that
"there ought to be greater vigilance to see that the DPA is a practitioner
degree" (109). Clayton, on the other hand, states that "it is a mistake to
label or discuss the DPA as a practitioner degree because a sizable
proportion of the holders of the degree are fall time academics or
academic administrators, and there are legions of DPA 'pracademics'
who both teach and practice. Conversely, many Ph.D.s are working as
practitioners" (63). Career plans are seldom fully predictable. Some
students enter a doctoral program expecting to remain a practitioner
and are seduced by the intellectual environment and perceived lifestyle
of the faculty. And many students in Ph.D. programs decide that
teaching is not their career choice and enter other forms of
employment, including public service.
In some ways, the most fundamental difficulty in attempting to design
one educational experience for the practitioner and another for the
academic is that it is not clear just what the differences should be.
Should the skills learned be different? Should the literature covered be
different If so, different in what way? Neither Clayton nor Sherwood nor other literature - gives much attention to these questions.
Journal of Public Administration Education/135
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Dissertations. Sherwood makes the case that a DPA dissertation is
different from a Ph.D. dissertation. Speaking from the perspective of his
term as director of the Washington USC DPA Program, he argues that
the Ph.D. dissertation process traditionally prevents students from
pursuing "an inquiry into something about which they really cared and
in which they had had involvement" (112). For DPA students, "the
purpose was to advance their personal learning... to secure as much
objectivity as possible in situations where the gut was involved" (113).
The Ph.D. dissertation, he argues, is expected to contribute new
knowledge, while the DPA dissertation is not necessarily expected to do
so. He justifies the different standard for the DPA dissertation on the
grounds that it is more relevant to the future practitioner careers of
students and that, despite the difference of expectation, it is in fact good
scholarship.
In reviewing Sherwood's differentiation between the Ph.D. and DPA
dissertations, an important point to recognize is that this distinction is
not maintained with any consistency across DPA programs. At least
some DPA programs do expect a contribution to knowledge, and at
least some Ph.D. programs will allow students to pursue subjects from
an agency with which the student has professional involvement. Further,
if the DPA dissertations that focus on the student's own agency are as
good as Sherwood describes them to be, I expect they do contribute to
knowledge - especially given the post-positivist expansion of what is
considered "knowledge."
Do the above factors distinguish the DPA from the Ph.D. in any
fundamental way? Do they add up to a set of differences that warrant
different degrees? I do not believe that they do. I contend that Clayton
and Sherwood have not made an adequate case for the need for
separate degrees for academics and practitioners. Still, there is a good
deal in both the Clayton and Sherwood articles with which I agree. I
fully agree with the position that talented, mid-career professionals
should be brought into doctoral education, and the DPA has been a
leading force in making that happen. Excellent students come from the
practitioner ranks, and their experience is a strong asset in the
classroom while they are students and makes an important contribution
to future performance whether in teaching, scholarship, or continued
work in a practitioner role. The DPA has provided "cover" in the
academic environment for the format features that have made the
degree more accessible to mid-career participation. It has encouraged
and legitimized doctoral education for some who would have
considered it inappropriate or out of reach. I agree with Clayton that
there is a compelling argument to treat DPA programs and DPA degree
Journal of Public Administration Education/136
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
recipients equally with those who hold the Ph.D. The character of the
two degrees in themselves does not reflect differences in rigor, quality,
or attention to research, even though many observers inside and
especially outside of public administration believe they do.
Although DPA degree holders should be treated equally with those
holding a Ph.D., I believe there are at least five reasons why the DPA is
not the likely or appropriate future focus of doctoral education in public
administration:
• There is not adequate differentiation to warrant separate degrees.
• Historically, the opportunity to fully develop a distinct practitioner
degree was lost when the National Association of Schools of Public
Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) declared both the Ph.D. and
the DPA to be research degrees.
• The Ph.D. is diversifying for a variety of reasons, removing the need
for a different doctoral track.
• The DPA has a public relations problem that shows no sign of
disappearing.
• The career paths of individuals are too complex and variable for a
"tracking" system to work.
Differentiation. The first reason is the argument made above in
reviewing the Clayton and Sherwood articles. As the DPA and Ph.D.
have developed, there is no convincing rationale for a practitioner
doctorate that distinguishes it from the Ph.D. Many of the touted
differences between the two degrees are simply matters of format,
factors that are superficial at best. Such format features are not essential
to either degree; they are not adequate to justify separate programs.
History. As an opportunity for the profession to give sustained attention
to the development and promotion of a practitioner degree, the
historical moment was lost and is not likely to be regained. The
opportunity to fully play out the idea of an advanced practice public
administration degree was severely undermined when NASPAA declared
both the Ph.D. and the DPA to be "research degrees." The "NASPAA
Policy on Doctoral Education in Public Affairs/Public Administration,"
approved in 1983 and amended in 1987, states in its opening sentence:
"Doctoral programs in public administration and related fields should
prepare students to undertake significant research in their subsequent
careers, whether in government, academic life, or other settings; the
capacity to do significant research, rather than access to a particular
career setting, is the appropriate goal of doctoral training." That
document goes on to state that "the name of the degree associated with
Journal of Public Administration Education/137
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
doctoral training is a question of secondary importance" and that "either
name [DPA or Ph.D.] is appropriate for a strong, doctoral-level program
of research training. Neither is appropriate for a program that fails to
give this training" (2). This declaration of sameness essentially removed
the DPA degree's reason for being. It took away any potential
momentum and left advocates of the DPA in the weakened position of
saying "the DPA is just as good as a Ph.D."
Diversification of the Ph. D. Doctoral education, broadly speaking, is
undergoing change, and making the Ph.D. more accessible to midcareer, part-time students is an important feature of this change. As the
Ph.D. becomes more readily available to practitioners, the demand for
the DPA is likely to decline.
The Public Relations Problem. Because the Ph.D. is the more established
and widely recognized degree and because proponents of the DPA
have not been able to establish a convincing and distinctive purpose,
the DPA will always be suspect in the eyes of many. The DPA, despite
the quality of the degree, has a public relations problem. This is true in
the academic world and also in the world of practice. It is also a
problem among international students, an increasingly important source
of doctoral students in public administration. There is not a significant
difference between the degrees, so why is the DPA sometimes
denigrated? Academic snobbery? Misunderstanding? Mistaking format
(inputs) for quality (hopefully measured on the basis of outputs)? The
proponents and recipients of the DPA have not been able to escape the
need to explain what the degree is. It appears that the DPA will always
play catch-up and never quite make it.
Career Diversity. The career choices of individuals are not easy to
predict or control. In fact - and this is acknowledged freely by Clayton
and grudgingly by Sherwood- many DPA recipients do enter the
teaching field. The doctorate is an opportunity for career change, and
the DPA is in fact good preparation for teaching, especially in a
professional setting. Careers are not controllable, nor should they be.
The Clayton and Sherwood articles are, I believe, representative of the
case to be made for the DPA as a separate degree. Yet they do not
provide a persuasive argument that the DPA should be maintained and
supported as an advanced practitioner degree, distinct from the Ph.D.
Perhaps there is just not an adequate logic for a separate doctorate in
public administratioa? Minimally, I think, there is not a need met by the
DPA that cannot be met by the Ph.D. as it is evolving.
Journal of Public Administration Education/138
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A Failed Attack on Both Degrees: Or Why We
Should Not Attempt to Make Doctoral Education
Serve a Single Purpose
The Adams and White article does have the virtue of not distinguishing
between the DPA and the Ph.D. Their article denigrates both equally.
Their argument is essentially this: The public administration doctorate
should have a single purpose, and that purpose should be the
preparation of scholars for the academy. The purpose of doctoral
education should be to produce research scholars who can and do
contribute to knowledge (operationalized as producing quality
dissertations and publishing in refereed journals). By their assessment,
however, based primarily upon the review of dissertation abstracts and
citation indices, doctoral programs are not fulfilling this purpose
effectively.
A number of specific points in the Adams/White essay deserve critical
attention, but I mention only a few in passing here, reserving attention
for their primary organizing theme - the purpose of doctoral education
in public administration. For example, in concluding that public
administration doctoral education is of low quality, specifically that
public administration dissertations are of low quality and that the
number of refereed journal articles produced by public administration
graduates is low, what is the standard used? Do the authors use an
idealized/hypothetical standard - perhaps a romanticized assumption
about performance in traditional academic disciplines, e.g., physics or
political science? Why are traditional sciences or social sciences not
included in the mix of fields reviewed? Perhaps that would help in
providing realistic grounding for the study of dissertations and citation
indices. What percentage of those holding doctorates should be
expected to produce refereed articles, and over what period of time?
What is a good score? I would expect the "20-80" principle to apply
here as in most other activities: 20 percent of the people will do
80 percent of the work.
And how is the quality of dissertation research judged? Do they use the
right quality indicators? And how are these indicators operationalized?
Judging dissertation quality based only on dissertation abstracts is
suspect even if an instrument is used to guide the judgments made. Is
an abstract an adequate indicator of the quality of work? A great abstract
could be followed by a poor piece of work and vice versa.
While these questions deserve to be pursued with regard to this and
other articles about dissertation quality, the point on which I focus is the
organizing assumption of the Adams/White essay that the purpose of
doctoral study should be to prepare students for faculty roles in the
Journal of Public Administration Education/139
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
academy and that their productivity should be measured by the quantity
of refereed articles. Adams and White spell out the assumption this way:
If public administration were regarded like most other
academic fields and disciplines, the traditional purpose of the
doctorate - the development and dissemination of knowledge
relevant to the field and preparation of the professoriate -
would hold for public administration as well. Most
academicians in public administration probably continue to
think of the doctorate in precisely that way. However, the
evidence simply does not support this view. Indeed, the public
administration doctorate appears to lack any clear, defined
purpose.
The knife is twisted this way: "The traditional purpose of doctoral
education is not, we suppose, the only viable purpose for the public
administration doctorate. But, at least it is a purpose" (76, italics in
original).
Indeed, the traditional purpose is not the only purpose. A fortunate
thing about education is that it can be used for more than one purpose;
a fortunate thing about public administration education is that it is
considered relevant for more than one purpose. The doctorate can and
does pay off in many other ways. Many who have earned a doctorate,
perhaps especially those in public administration and public policy,
have other career opportunities for which doctoral education may be
quite beneficial. A single purpose is a strait jacket we should not
impose. While that makes our world a little "messier," I believe it also
makes it a richer and more meaningful one.
The Adams/White piece suggests that it is desirable for doctoral
education to have a single purpose - that those with doctorates should
pursue careers as scholars who publish in refereed journals. Sherwood,
on the other hand, argues that those with DPA degrees should pursue
different career paths- that the DPA prepares graduates for one career,
the Ph.D. for another. In my view, neither position is correct. Rather,
both degrees should prepare graduates to contribute to the
development and effective use of knowledge in the field. Neither
should assume any particular career path - indeed, should not assume a
single path. The field should promote the possibility of multi-career
paths, not that all individuals will pursue multiple careers. The future
studies literature is filled with the proposition that individuals
increasingly will have multiple careers. A fortunate characteristic of
public administration is that those careers can be mutually reinforcing.
For a Ph.D. program to educate students only for academic positions is
to inhibit and limit rather than liberate and expand. For a DPA to
educate only for practitioner roles is to do the same. Our ability to
Journal of Public Administration Education/140
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
design appropriate and effective "pigeonholes" is not nearly so well
developed. To do that would mean that students are sure about career
plans, that doctoral programs can educate for specific roles, and that the
right kind of job will be available when the student graduates. The
world, perhaps for the best, is far less predictable than such a model
would imply.
Many with the Ph.D. choose to work as practitioners. This is true not
only of holders of a degree in public administration, but of many other
fields as well. Many with the DPA choose careers in the academic
world. Some choose to move between practitioner and academic roles,
or to do both simultaneously. In short, neither degree is or should be
an automatic career sorting device. Historically, many of the seminal
contributors to the literature in the field were at home in both
practitioner and academic environments.
I contend that the DPA should be abandoned, but only if the argument
in Adams and White is not accepted. If the DPA is necessary to maintain
the freedom for programs and individuals to pursue varying ends, then
by all means keep it and strengthen it. One major function of the
doctorate for practitioners is to create the potential for career change, or
to spend some time teaching, even if practice continues as the primary
activity. The Ph.D. has the potential to serve this function more
effectively, not because it is a superior product, but because of
"consumer name recognition." If the Ph.D. is serving the diversity of
purposes that I believe it is beginning to serve, e.g. making doctoral
education accessible to mid-career practitioners and serving those who
wish to pursue academic as well as practitioner careers, or both, then
promoting the DPA loses its importance. If the careers that degree
holders pursue is reflective of the purpose their education serves,
doctorates in all fields serve more that the traditional purpose. Especially
in a field like public administration, that is as it should be.
Significant Opportunities and Challenges: Conjectures
About the Future of Doctoral Education
The Clayton, Sherwood, and Adams/White articles do help provoke
thought about issues facing doctoral education and about its future.
However, it is worth moving beyond the points they raise. Close
attention to the current and future status of public administration,
including the place of doctoral education, is advisable in these times
when the field is buffeted by a number of forces, both internal and
external. The following, building in part on the themes just discussed,
reflect some of my speculation about the future of public administration
doctoral education. I believe doctoral education in public administration
has a rich and interesting future in store.
Journal of Public Administration Education/141
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The doctoral degree will be accepted as legitimate and credible for
practitioner roles. Traditionally, a doctoral degree has not held much
credibility for most public sector practitioner positions. In the past, many
public sector practitioners have not used the "Dr." "Ph.D." or "DPA" title
even if they held the degree; they sometimes would hide the fact that
they had received the degree. Because master's degrees are becoming
so common, many more practitioners will pursue a doctorate to
distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack. And as more
practitioners attain the degree, doctoral degree holders in practitioner
roles will begin to "come out of the closet." The doctoral degree will be
accepted as legitimate preparation for both practitioner and academic
careers. Many of those with the doctorate will move back and forth
between academic and practitioner roles. The old notion of designing
doctorates just for academic careers will increasingly become obsolete.
The fact that many professionals routinely will have "several careers,"
including time in academe, will push toward legitimizing the doctorate
for practitioner careers.
The DPA mill approach extinction. Ironically, just as the doctorate
becomes a My accepted part of practitioners' career patterns, the DPA
will reach a period of strong decline, as will DSWs, DBAs, DEDs, and
other non-Ph.D. doctorates. The Ph.D. will be the degree of choice.
Despite efforts in the 1970s and '80s, a rationale for the DPA as a.
distinctive degree was never effectively developed or sold. In the early
•80s when NASPAA declared both DPAs and Ph.D.s to be research
degrees, the potential for a meaningful distinction was weakened, and
with no distinction the rationale for maintaining the less-recognized
degree disappeared. Contrary to the notion that the DPA was for
reflective practitioners who would remain in agency positions, those
with the DPA will be just as likely to enter academic careers as were
those with the Ph.D. Indeed, some argue that the reflective practitioner
is just what the professionally oriented MPA classroom needs, making
the case that the DPA is a more suitable degree than is the Ph.D. for
teaching in public administration. The academy will not embrace this
deviation from the mainstream, however. In most universities a pecking
order will continue to be imposed, building pressure to convert DPA to
Ph.D. programs. Accompanying the pressure from traditionalists to
abandon the DPA will be a reduced demand because of the increasing
flexibility of Ph.D. programs. Incremental adaptation of the Ph.D. will
prove an easier task in the academy than accepting a "new" degree.
The gap between master's and doctorate will be creatively filled. Many
professionals want to continue with their education and hope to use
education as a way to separate themselves from the competition.
Especially for practitioners, the step from the master's degree to the
Journal of Public Administration Education/142
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
doctorate is an inhibiting one, yet many still have a desire for education
past the master's level. While the effort to legitimize the "ABD" (all but
dissertation) as a valid stopping point was not accepted, specialized
certificate programs will begin to fill the master's-doctoral gap; a variety
of post-master's certificate programs in high-level specialty areas will be
created. Admission to these programs typically will require a master's
degree. Most will be offered by universities, but increasingly such
programs will be given by think tanks, by private corporations, and by
governmental and non-profit agencies. These certificates will serve an
important credentialing function. The market for such programs will
build on the increasing number of master's degree holders in the
workforce. One consequence of the increased demand for post-master's
certificates will be additional competition with doctoral programs; some
students who might have pursued a doctorate will be satisfied with one
or more post-master's certificates. Both doctoral programs and postmaster's certificate programs will remain a growth market.
Post-doctoral education mill become commonplace. "Post-docs,"
apprentice-like fellowships for persons who hold a doctorate, once
were a phenomenon limited to the hard sciences and medicine, but will
become common in the social sciences, including public policy and
administration. A couple of forces push in this direction. One is the
increased complexity of some of the research being done and the
plethora of research tools available; an additional period of study will be
useful in developing mastery of the field and the variety of research
methods involved. A second force will be the job market, which will
not expand as rapidly as will the production of advanced degrees, so
more degree holders will be willing to work at the reduced wages of
the typical post-doctoral fellowship.
Artificial barriers to doctoral education mill be removed. The time and
location barriers that once made doctoral education impossible or
difficult for many persons will be virtually eliminated. In many
programs, for example, students are required to fulfill a one-year full-
time residency on campus for the Ph.D. After a long adjustment period,
during which many programs will find ways to by-pass the rule without
formally changing it, most programs will eliminate the full-time
residency requirement. Part-time study and study away from campus
will become fully legitimate. The DPA, as a degree originally designed
for mid-career practitioners who pursued their education on a part-time
basis, helped pave the way for this change. The concept of part-time
study by professionals will prosper, even though the DPA will not. Parttime study will be accepted in almost all types of doctoral programs, not
only in public administration, but other fields as well. A variety of
creative electronic learning programs will be a major force in removing
these time and space barriers.
Journal of Public Administration Education/143
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Doctoral-level education will prove especially appropriate for the use of
electronic communication, a tool that will make physical location a
trivial factor for many purposes. The relative independence of much of
the work at the doctoral level lends itself well to electronic tools. Some
programs will be conducted almost entirely through the "net." Others
will take different forms. Much of the instruction will be asynchronous,
but even for real-time activities electronic communication tools will be
used. For example, it will be common for seminars to have a
percentage of the participants connected electronically by monitors in
the seminar room. However, the seemingly irrepressible need for
human contact will prevent the complete elimination of physically
meeting together. Other location constraints, like physical proximity to a
library, no longer will be issues.
Accreditation and outcome assessment mill become apart of doctoral
education. Both accreditation and outcome assessment have been and
will continue to be resisted in doctoral-level education, but eventually
they will become a part of the oversight process in doctoral programs.
NASPAA, after an extended debate, began accrediting MPA programs,
but doctoral programs have thus far held out and are likely to continue
to do so until well into the second decade of the twenty-first century.
The "we must assure quality" argument ultimately will overcome the
"we should not suppress diversity" viewpoint. The movement will be
reinforced by the perception of some active members of the academy
that various programs are competing for students unfairly by making
their programs shorter and easier. The steady appearance of articles
criticizing the quality of doctoral dissertations, with only infrequent
counter arguments, will be another aspect of the argument for quality
control. And the seemingly inevitable tendency for accrediting groups to
seek new territory to cover will continue.
Accreditation, however, will not prove to be the force for conformity
that some fear. Indeed, one criterion that may be included in
accreditation guidelines will be a so-called "creativity clause." Programs
will be required to identify and then be evaluated on innovative ways
to meet their established goals and objectives. Other features of
accreditation will distinguish themselves from procedures of old. For
example, the accreditation standard requiring the availability of on-site
library facilities will be replaced with a standard ensuring that all
students have access to electronic communications capable of library
access. Whether accreditation will in fact improve quality will remain an
open question.
The focus on outcome measures is loosely related to the accreditation
process, but is separate from it. Outcome measures will continue to be
used internally by universities and to ward off interference by
Journal of Public Administration Education/144
This content downloaded from 204.235.148.97 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
governmental oversight bodies. Universities will cloak themselves in
words and phrases like accountability, assessment, outcome measures,
post-tenure review, and annual reviews, and these will become a
routine part of the fabric in higher education. More than one doctoral
program director will complain that "we spend so much time trying to
prove that we are doing well that we don't have time to do well."
Public universities will rush to get systems in place so that they can
aigue that action by legislators is unnecessary. But this is just part of a
larger scene. Outcome measures will be a routine part of management
and program evaluation practice in virtually all fields of endeavor.
Hospitals, government agencies, schools, and the rest will be part of this
effort. Doctoral programs simply will be part of a larger practice.
Doctoral students and faculty will be expected to "publish " more
Publication will be expected of doctoral students as well as faculty.
Many programs will require a refereed publication as a condition for
completion of the doctorate. More publication by doctoral faculty will
be expected, but there will be far more - and a much greater variety
of- publishing outlets, including electronic journals and other media.
The demands will be greater, but in a sense easier to meet. A "refereed"
product still will be valued above one that is not. But the refereed
journal will be joined by refereed software, refereed videos, refereed
instructional materials, and even refereed policy and evaluation studies.
The effort to measure productivity through citations in refereed journals
clearly will be too limited.
Dissertations tviU take a much under variety of forms. Just as
academically legitimate forms of publication will expand, so will
acceptable forms of dissertations. Dissertations once had a standard
lode, recognizable as dissertations even after revision and publication as
books. The familiar "five-chapter format" will be less common in the
future. One of the early breakaway practices was a series of three
linked articles serving as a dissertation. That practice never fully caught
on, but it helped legitimize the possibility of dissertatio...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment