West Chester University Week 5 Public Administration Education Discussion

User Generated

Glxrr

Humanities

West Chester University

Description

Objectives

  1. Evaluate contemporary problems inherent in the workplace and public governance in the context of classical ideas and theories found within public administration literature
  2. Understand and articulate the major paradigms of the field of public policy and administration
  3. Interact effectively and demonstrate composure, professionalism, and respect for others.

What is Due?

  1. Week 5 Discussion initial post: Consider the following questions this week.The roots of public administration are often described as part of the progressive era and the reform of government and/or society. Has the field of PA deviated from these roots? How does education affect the practice, and possible evolution, of public administration?Describe the relationship between the education and professional practice of public administration. Should education or practice be considered more important? (minimum 200 words)

Introduction

Public administration, unlike many other fields, does not have a single or central core theory. In fact, there isn't consensus about what defines, or the scope of, public administration.Public administration can be considered a social science as well as a professional field. Some public administration researchers argue that the discipline is inherently a science, while others believe that it is more like an art or a blend of science and art. The central debates and overarching theory have changed over time, similar to other social science disciplines.

NASPAA, the global standard in public service education, considers the DPA to be an academically rigorous doctorate that should command respect equal that of the PhD. While there are commonalities with the PhD in regard to emphasis on empirical methods, DPA students “become sophisticated in research methods so they can identify and seek answers to problems they encounter in practice” (Meek and Johnson 1998, p. 63). Robert Denhardt (2001), father of modern public service values, argues that the profession should focus on education at the post-masters level, which includes the doctorate.

The DPA is intellectually valued within the discipline for its focus on the practitioner (Sherwood 1996). As a discipline public administration is concerned with the identification of answers for pressing public problems. Graduating advanced level practitioners with the ability to ask the right questions and formulate appropriate solutions is of great value to both society and the knowledge of public administration (Clayton 1995). Furthermore, while the DPA “tend(s) to be aimed more at practitioner training, that does not translate into lower levels of scholarly productivity for those graduates” (Brewer, Facer II and O’Toole Jr 1999).

Our assigned readings cover the history and nature of public administration education, with a focus on the Doctorate of Public Administration. This week we review the significance of studying public administration, and also examine the purpose and goals of a DPA. This week we are discussing the issues that underlie the intellectual and practical context of public administration, as well as working to articulate the major paradigms of the field of public policy and administration.

Required Readings

Read: Clayton 1995, Denhardt 2001, Hambrick 1997, Riccuci Chapter 1, Slagle and Willams 2018, and White et al 1996

Riccucci, N. (2010). Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown Press. ISBN: 1589017048

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EDUCATION

Public Administration Education
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliations

1

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EDUCATION

2

Public Administration Education
The establishment of public administration was based on the need to reform governments
and societies during the progressive era. Indeed, the concepts of public administration can be
traced back to the earliest civilizations of Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia (Denhardt, 2001).
Although public administration has evolved across different...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags