28 April 2017 | The Role of the Pubic Administrators and Some Implications to Our Programs, By Stuart Bretschneider*

Andrew Osoorio, · Categories: monthly_posts

Recent efforts by the new administration to change a wide variety of policies and programs has led me to look back at how our field has thought about the role of the public administrator.  Much of the current thinking on this is still rooted in the work by political scientists from the 1940s and 1950s.  This is not surprising given that in that time period we saw the emergence of the administrative state.  The Frederick-Finer debate, Dwight Waldo’s The Administrative State and his debates with Herbert Simon on this all dealt with the tension between scientific and professional competencies on the one hand and politics and the support of democratic institutions on the other.  These ideas have never really gone away and continue to play an important part in how we conduct our scholarship and how we train our students. My concern in this posting is to ask is we might be failing our students in our efforts to cover both professional skills on the one hand and understanding of democratic institutions and their role in maintaining and supporting them.

Let me start with some potential deficits on the professional side of the scale.  I remember having a discussion with Jack Knott shortly after the great recession about the growing emphasis in our field of private provision of public services.  My concern with this trend was that sometimes these options are portrayed in relatively un-critical often positive ways. Essentially public-private partnerships, social impact bonds and other such alternatives are by designed to provide private firms access to public dollars in new and more diverse ways.  Since the inception of our nation our governments have purchased goods and service from private firm but these new forms dramatically increase the diversity of forms and amount of this.  We almost never assume the motivation for selling the government various goods or services are to do good and most of our procurement activities begin by assuming “caveat emptor.” Shouldn’t this be the same standard when entering into a public-private partnership or considering social impact bond? My suggestion to Jack at the time was we should teach our students sufficient economic theory so that they would understand an appropriate starting assumption for any negotiations around programs of this sort begin with the idea that our potential private sector partner seek a deal that permits them to rent seek.  I further argued that the professionally competent public administrator had to have sufficient training in designing such contracts (e.g. corporate and public finance) as to prevent that rent seeking outcomes.  While some may argue this is being overly pessimistic, my response is that if this starting point is wrong little is lost but if it is correct and not sufficiently accounted for the cost are extremely high.  Think of this as a min-max strategy.  Nevertheless, how many of our program provide this level of capacity in our graduates.

Now let me turn to other side of the tension, understanding of and support for democratic institution.  Society as a whole has difficulty understand the design principles of our constitution and our federated form of government but this should not be the case for our students and a good public administrator.  The media, for example, constantly decry problems of grid lock in Congress but as any good and well train public administration student knows (of should know) that is exactly the outcome desired by the founding fathers.  During the Obama years Republicans marshaled the Courts and Congress to block administration efforts while today we see the same thing by Democrats. As individuals we have preferences and may view Republican’s under Obama as obstructionist and Democrats under Trump and protectors or vice versa but this is overly self-serving. To what extent are we providing our students with the simple insight that grid lock is the normal state of affairs, not an aberration? Along with this insight is the basic idea that our democratic structures and institutions were designed to prevent external groups (e.g. political parties) from capturing and controlling all the branches of government and exercising unconstrained political authority.

We actually have numerous example of how this system works.  In the 1980s President Reagan appointed Ann Gorsuch Burford to run the EPA with the expressed objective of shrinking the agency and walking back environmental standards.  Sound familiar?  During that time Democrats and some Republican thwarted those efforts.  In fact Congress confronted the President over a constitutional issue surrounding executive privilege and disclosure of agency document as part of that conflict.  In today’s situation we again have a President attempting to gut the EPA.  Some of my colleagues have argued that because the President’s party controls Congress, Trump is more likely to succeed.  While I believe that schisms in the Republican Party make this more problematic than that, from an institutional perspective we still have the system of Courts and Laws that slow down any such process of change. See how the initial immigration bans we delayed and more importantly transformed as a result of Court challenges. We also have the potential in the future if there is a Democratic President and/or Congress to reverse this direction.

Another example of how Democratic Institutions work is through the election cycle themselves.  I have a very distinct memory of Carl Rowe arguing they had created a ‘permanent republican majority,’ only to find there temporary majorities in both Houses of Congress give way. It is in the genius of the system that it favors divided government and political completion not efficient political processes.  This is not a guarantee for all time but a recognition that we must do a better job of preparing our students to understand and support these forces.

There are real threats though.  The use of contracting, especially with private sector firms, increase the likelihood arguments for efficiency over democratic process may lead to attempt to change our democratic institutions.  Also we have seen some liberal democracies slide towards autocracy in the past few years like Poland, Hungary, Egypt and even some older more established democracies like Turkey in recent years.  We need to remember that both Hitler and Mussolini came to power initially through democratic elections.

I always recognize I might be wrong in my assessment.  But ask your students what would be their basic assumptions in trying to establish a public-private partnership and why they made those assumptions?  Ask your students if divided government is bad and we should be strive for less conflict in policy making? I would be interested in what you hear.

* Foundation Professor of Organization Design and Public Management | Center for Organization Research and Design (CORD) | Arizona State University

23 March 2017 | Making a Difference in the Real World through Public Affairs Research, By Stephanie Moulton

Andrew Osoorio, · Categories: monthly_posts

In light of the recent election in the U.S. and reliance on “alternative facts”, it is easy to feel disheartened about our role as researchers– particularly researchers who care about issues that are often central to public debates.  This topic recently came up during one of our monthly fireside chats between faculty and doctoral students at the Glenn College. How can we make a difference in our profession? Should we close our laptops and take to the streets instead? Certainly there is a time to engage in political activism, and as citizens who genuinely care about the future of our country and protecting the public interest, we can and should feel empowered to speak out.  But we can also make a difference through our research- something that we are uniquely trained and positioned to do.

During our fireside discussion, my colleague Jill Clark said something that got my wheels turning. She said that part of our role as researchers is to create “implementation resources” that can be used by practitioners on the ground as they carry out their important work.  She was speaking in the context of her work related to local food policy. As engaged scholar, Jill often collaborates with local nonprofit organizations, government agencies and policymakers to collect and compile data that she will use for her research.  Together through the research process, as survey data is collected and statistics are compiled, implementation resources are created that both groups can use for their purposes. For Jill, this is likely an academic paper to be submitted for publication, which may be of little value (at least in the short term) for the local partners. For the local partners, it may be a graphic presentation of local food data documenting the needs on the ground, which would fall far short of the standards of our academic peer review process.  Jill’s research is making a difference in the real world, not only through her academic publications, but through the creation of implementation resources.

After the discussion, I went back to my office and brushed off Heather Hill’s 2003 JPART article on implementation resources, “Understanding Implementation: Street‐Level Bureaucrats’ Resources for Reform.”  In the article, Hill defines implementation resources as “individuals or organizations that can help implementing units learn about policy, best practices for doing policy, or professional reforms meant to change the character of services delivered to clients” (269). It occurred to me that in our role as public affairs researchers, we can make a difference in the real world through our day to day process of collecting and collating data and sharing our findings. As we pull together data for our analyses, we are often creating information and artifacts, facilitating learning, and bringing together groups who may not have previously been connected. We as public affairs researchers can be more intentional about our role in the creation of implementation resources. And by doing so, we can perhaps have an even greater impact on the real world than we do through the occasional academic article that gets picked up by policymakers or brought directly into the public debate.

10 March 2017 | Expertise, Advice Seeking, and the President, By Michael Siciliano

Andrew Osoorio, · Categories: monthly_posts

Individuals across the organizational spectrum face complex work tasks and decisions that require them to reach out to others for information and advice.  An important question is: “Which individuals are sought for advice and why?” Particular sources of information influence the way in which we understand novel events and shape the criteria and options we use to make decisions.  As someone interested in bureaucratic behavior and the formation of help seeking relationships within public organizations, one dynamic in the early weeks of the Trump administration has proved particularly interesting – how President Trump makes decisions and from whom he seeks advice when formulating those decisions.  In some cases, he articulates his opinion, but relies on experts in his administration to determine policy.  This approach was on full display when ABC’s David Muir interviewed him on January 25th.  President Trump stated that he believed torture, and in particular waterboarding, was an effective interrogation tactic.  However, he said he would defer to the advice of James Mattis, his Secretary of Defense.  Mattis has openly stated that torture does not work and that you get further with “a pack of cigarettes and a beer.”  In this instance, the opinion of the expert, Secretary Mattis, supersedes the President’s own position.

In most other cases, Trump relies on family members and a small number of close strategists to design policy.  This approach was highly publicized in the aftermath of the controversial travel ban signed on January 27th. Many criticized the ban for being developed without accessing or properly integrating expert opinion and for avoiding standard inter-agency processes.  Many homeland security and justice department staff were unaware of the details of the executive order.  Some reports suggest Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly only saw final details shortly before the signing.  In this instance, the ban appears to have been developed by the White House in isolation, with limited input from experts or from the agencies tasked with implementation.

What might lead one to defer to experts in one area and seemingly ignore them in another? In a recent study [1], I examined the role of expertise in shaping the advice seeking behavior of bureaucrats.  The study took place in a large public school district in the Midwest.  The research aimed to understand how teachers, when in need of help or advice, utilized the expertise and knowledge of their peers. I want to highlight three of the findings and then use those findings as framework for thinking about the President’s decision-making.

First, there are psychological costs associated with advice seeking.  An individual’s decision to seek advice from another is not solely driven by a rational pursuit of information.  As humans, we are hesitant to make others aware of what we do not know.  For these reasons, people weigh the value of the potential information against the psychological costs incurred from obtaining that information.  Teachers in the study were asked to rate, on a five point scale, how comfortable they felt seeking help and assistance from each of the other members of their school. On average, just a one point change in how comfortable a teacher felt with another, corresponded to a nearly 25% increase in the likelihood of seeking that person for advice.

Second, accessibility matters. The world’s foremost expert on a given subject may be just down the hall, but if they do not make themselves accessible to you in a timely manner, than their expertise is not really useful to you.  People have a natural tendency to form perceptions of those around them and those perceptions function as a social lens to guide behavior.  As with psychological costs, teachers were asked how accessible they perceived each of their coworkers to be.  A one unit change on a five point accessibility scale translated into a 65% increase in the odds of seeking that person out for advice.  When people need help, they want it as soon as possible.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the role of expertise may depend on the type of information sought.  In the study, rather than conceptualize help seeking as a general action, specific knowledge domains known to be critical for effective teaching were used.  In particular, two domains were chosen which varied in their level of knowledge explicitness: (i) student behavior and classroom management (less explicit/more tacit), and (2) instructional material design and student assessment (more explicit/less tacit). The instructional material design and student assessment domain is more explicit, as the knowledge associated with that domain can be captured and transferred in written documents, such as tests, quizzes, and lesson plans. I asked teachers to nominate the coworkers they deemed as expert in each of the two knowledge domains and to identify who they sought for help when in need of that knowledge.

The results were surprising. In the more tacit knowledge domain of classroom management, teachers tended to ignore the experts.  In fact, across all five schools in the study, peer expertise had no influence on whether or not that person was sought for advice on classroom management. For the less tacit and more explicit knowledge domain concerning instructional material design, the results were quite different.  Peer expertise was now found to be a significant predictor of help seeking in the majority of the study schools.

What can explain this difference in social behavior when it comes to expertise?  One theory relates to the distinction between process- and product-focused goals.  While this distinction is often used to characterize fundamental differences in public vs private organizations, it aligns directly with different knowledge types and their level of explicitness.  For process-oriented tasks, such as managing behavior in the classroom, there is likely no single best solution as the problems related to this aspect of work are constantly changing.  In this context, the advantages of seeking the expert may be reduced, and individuals may be more likely to turn to close colleagues or those who hold similar views as way to minimize the social and psychological costs associated with advice seeking.  In comparison, with product-focused goals, obtaining expert advice may be of primary concern, as one aims toward innovation and developing a single best solution (in the case of teachers, the best lesson plan or quiz). This suggests that the relative weight of the costs and benefits shifts depending on the knowledge and context.

What are the implications of these findings for the decision-making of the Trump administration?   While generalizations are limited, applying the results can be instructive and offer fodder for further thought and research on how advice networks operate within our bureaucracies as well as in the highest levels of our administration. Take for instance, the reports of President Trump’s call to his then National Security Advisor Mike Flynn to ask whether a strong dollar was good or bad for the US economy. One way to think about why such a call would occur is to consider the psychological costs of seeking that advice.  As Derek Thompson of the Atlantic put it: “Reaching out to a national security adviser for economic advice further suggests that Trump doesn’t have many people he can trust with a brief, and potentially embarrassing, question about policy.”  Exactly.  The key word being embarrassing.  Of course he could have called an economist.  He is the President.  But doing so would have required him to suffer the psychological costs of admitting that he (a business mogul who was elected in part on the belief that he can rebuild the US economy) didn’t know the answer to a basic economic question.

Going back to the first two examples: torture and the travel ban. In the first instance of whether waterboarding works, one could argue that seeking advice on torture is product focused, in the sense that there can be a correct answer to whether a particular type of interrogation tactic works.  Ignoring the moral aspects of this issue, either you should interrogate suspects in a particular way or you should not. It is a question about the most effective means for securing needed intel. And individuals like Secretary Mattis are in a unique position to have an answer. In that case, and on a policy topic for which no one expects President Trump to be an expert, the benefits of relying on an expert seem to outweigh the costs.  Contrast this with the travel ban.  There is no single solution for how best to keep America safe. Broad aspects of national security, and most other complex policy areas, are certainly process driven.  This creates an environment where ideologies take center stage, and those in charge rely on pre-existing opinions and beliefs to drive their decisions.  When there is no right or wrong answer, going to an expert who may hold a different underlying philosophy may not provide sufficient benefit.

Given the collective level of government experience among the President and his close White House advisors (Bannon, Kushner, Miller), we should pay attention to whether they seek and utilize outside advice when crafting policy decisions and from whom they obtain that advice.  I suspect there will be continued and growing battles over the role of expertise in the administration.  As a recent example, the newly appointed National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told council members at an all-hands meeting that the phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ harms American security. CNN reported that McMaster urged President Trump to avoid that phrase in his February 28th address to a joint session of Congress. For those of you that watched, you know that the President ignored that advice and in his speech warned of ‘radical Islamic terrorism’.

[1] Siciliano, M.D. (2017). Ignoring the Experts: Networks and Organizational Learning in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1): 104-119.

February 2017 | Some Principles of Strategic Thinking, By John M. Bryson

Andrew Osoorio, · Categories: monthly_posts

For the next several months I’ll be concentrating on writing the fifth edition of Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. (The current edition came out in 2011.)

From the very first edition I have emphasized that strategic thinking, acting, and learning matter most, not any particular approach to strategic planning. Indeed, if public leaders and managers find that a planning approach gets in the way of strategic thinking, acting, and learning, they should drop the approach and try a different one.

Not surprisingly, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about strategic thinking, acting and learning. I was thus intrigued by a review of Whiplash: How to Survive our Faster Future (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2016) by Joi Ito and Jeff Howe. While I haven’t read the book yet, a New Year’s Day review in the New York Times Book Review got me thinking.

Apparently Ito and Howe have formulated some broad theories of technological change that go by such titles as “pull over push” and “compass over maps.” This last theory I found particularly intriguing – especially given my interest in mapping as a tool for strategy development. After all, I’ve co-authored books about the strategic uses of causal mapping with titles like Visual Strategy (Wiley, 2014) and Visible Thinking (Wiley, 2004).

What might compass over map mean? It implies that while having a map is good, you actually need a compass to do much of anything with a map, such as follow a route. So really the theory should be compass over map over route.

Still, how do you decide what direction to take? How do you decide what route to follow? A compass by itself won’t tell you, since you need a purpose first. Purpose helps orient you, so that you can know where north is. That allows you to use the compass to continuously reorient yourself so you can keep going in the direction of your purpose. Purpose also helps you create the map you need, meaning the mental map of images, interpretive schemes, and logic needed to navigate in a world that requires both sense-making and sense-giving. A sense of purpose allows you to sharpen your focus on just the information that is actually relevant to your journey; otherwise, you will be simply overwhelmed and confused by all the information that’s available. So now we have: purpose over compass over map over route.

And where does a sense of purpose come from? Well, authentic and virtuous public purposes typically emerge from deliberative argumentation. Drawing on Michael Barzelay and Fred Thompson (2010), we can say that deliberative argumentation consists of engaging with others in:

Only through that kind of deliberation can a virtuous sense of purpose emerge – one worthy of the high callings of most public and nonprofit organizations. In other words: deliberative argumentation over purpose over compass over map over route. Strategic thinking, acting, and learning begin with deliberative argumentation. Nothing else will do.

References

Barzelay, M. & Thompson, F. (2010). Making Public Administration a Design Science. Public Administration Review, 70(Suppl. 1), S295–S297.

January 2017 | Thinking about Undergraduate Education in Public Affairs, By Mary K. Feeney*

Andrew Osoorio, · Categories: monthly_posts

Public affairs programs across the country are developing undergraduate certificates, concentrations, minors, and majors in public administration, affairs, policy, and service. Some view this as an opportunity to expand programming and resources while, for others, it is another challenge in an environment of tightened budgets, expanded administration, and increased pressure to do more with less. Undergraduate programming offers a number of opportunities for our traditional graduate programs and students. Here, I outline some of the challenges and opportunities we face as we work to develop top-notch undergraduate programs that advance public service.

What We Gain from Undergraduate Programs

Universities and departments approach undergraduate degree programs with different needs and expectations. Especially for public universities, there is a need to generate revenue and students in seats translate to revenue. The second, and potentially bigger pay off is a pipeline to graduate programs – enabling us to attract students from a variety of undergraduate majors to public service. Third, we have the opportunity to engage the community in ways that are not done by traditional political science programs. Fourth, undergraduate programs are an opportunity for PhD students to get needed teaching experience, ideally with the guidance of a knowledgeable advisor. Finally, and possibly most important, undergraduate programs are a mechanism to effectively train citizens for the future – best fulfilling our public service missions.

What Undergraduates Gain from Us

Our jobs ask us to prepare young adults to be thoughtful employees and citizens, preparing them to think critically, analyze evidence, engage stakeholders, and solve public problems. Modern students must develop the savvy to consume a variety of media, parse out legitimate information, and use evidence based arguments as they engage in public service. It is our job to teach within a framework of public service, helping students understand how the world works around them, e.g. how policy is made and the many factors that shape it, how change or stagnation occurs, and how government works or doesn’t. Undergraduates need us to prepare them for a life of public-minded service in complex, interconnected private, nonprofit, and public organizations that shape the public sphere.

The Challenge

 Many of us were not trained to interact with and teach undergraduates, let alone develop stand-alone undergraduate programs. In fact, many of us have been teaching graduate courses such as public and nonprofit management, statistical methods, and program evaluation, which do not translate easily to undergraduates. We face a few challenges when developing public affairs undergraduate programs:

(1) Differentiate from our graduate programs. The BA/BS is not the same as a graduate degree in a professional field. Undergraduate programs should not mimic the graduate curriculum, serving as an MPA- or MPP-lite. Rather, they should be introductory, liberal arts degrees in public affairs. That means teaching citizenship, public engagement, policy and public affairs (via the public, nonprofit, and private sectors), logic, and other key components to prepare students for a life of civic engagement and public service.

(2) Differentiate from political science programs. In order to prepare undergraduates for a life of public service, we need to teach American government. However, we should be using American government as the basis for a more applied education in public service. Offering students an introduction to how government sets the stage for complex policy making, careers in public administration, and action in civil society.

(3) Stimulate interest in public administration, policy, and service. I view my job, when teaching undergraduates, as inspiring them toward public service – be that in the private, public, or nonprofit sector. Most of the undergraduate students I encounter want to change the world; make it a better place. They are empathetic, kind, tolerant, and well prepared to navigate a diverse work place and society. What they lack is know how. They often have simplistic views of how policy is made, who holds power, and how to effect policy change. Moreover, they are not adequately prepared to sort through opinion, evidence, and “alternative facts”. Through liberal arts training and experiential learning, we have an opportunity to better prepare them to be the change they want to be. We can help them understand the complexity of policy-making and the hard work that will be required to bring the change they seek. If ending homelessness were easy, we would have done it already. But it’s not easy. And the best part of our job is imparting a bit of knowledge and skill to a large group of energetic young people who can chip away at the big challenges our society faces.

*Associate Professor and Lincoln Professor of Ethics in Public Affairs | School of Public Affairs | Arizona State University

Email: mkfeeney@asu.edu

Twitter: @mkfeeneyASU

December 2016 | Does Public Administration Want Diversity…Really? By Leisha DeHart Davis

admin, · Categories: monthly_posts

Earlier this year, Dr. Marybeth Gasman of University of Pennsylvania wrote a Hechinger Report op-ed piece, where she argued that elite universities do not have diverse faculties because they do not want them. Her op-ed cited a litany of excuses used by the Ivies to exclude faculty of color, including low-quality scholarship and the absence of a pipeline. Her counterargument was that pipelines can be created and scholars from minority-serving institutions can be recruited and mentored. What’s lacking is the desire to do so. In response to her op-ed (which was picked up by the Washington Post), she received 6000 emails ranging from gratitude for her candor to overtly racist sentiments.

Gasman’s op-ed raises the same question for the public administration field: do we really want diversity?  As I contemplated the question recently, I realized that the question itself makes two assumptions: (1) that public administration is not a diverse academic field and (2) that the field itself – its associations, conferences, journals, and editorial boards — bears responsibility.

To shed light on the validity of these assumptions, I invited comments through an anonymous Qualtrics survey posted on twitter, the Academic Women in Public Administration email list, and PMRA’s listserv. Twenty-five people posted comments, the substance of which were thoughtful and thought-provoking.

For those inclined to dismiss the results because they are not the product of a large-n survey or random sampling, imagine yourself listening to 25 of your colleagues gathered at a percolator session at PMRC.

The survey asked only one question, “Based on your experiences, is public administration a diverse and inclusive academic field? Why or why not? If not, what can be done? All thoughts, ideas, comments, suggestions, critiques welcome.”

The comments ranged from hopeful to pessimistic. Some were resigned, others were angry. A few were perplexed by the challenges of diversity and inclusion in public administration, but keenly aware of the need for it.  Some themes that emerged:

Public administration is (not) a diverse academic field. A few commenters believe that public administration is diverse and inclusive; most do not.

Across comments, the point was made that diversity is more than gender: it’s race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, physical ability, and political persuasion.With regards to political persuasion, two commenters felt there was no room for conservative voices in the field, with one arguing that the characterization of the right as hateful is hateful in and of itself.

One commenter argued that international students, particularly those from China and Korea, bring diversity to PA. As if hearing the argument across cyberspace, another commenter countered that, while Asian students do indeed bring diversity, that cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring the call for U.S. public administration to be more inclusive of women and faculty of color.

Of the affirmants, one felt that the study of administration’s impact on race, gender and income was a strength of the field. Other yeses came from those comparing public administration to other fields, such as political science and economics.

Another theme that emerged was the notion that public administration is a white field that excludes minority voices. This exclusion is thought to take place through a narrow range of acceptable quantitative methodologies and theoretical frames and through informal networks that privilege homosocial reproduction in hiring and publication.

Some were of the opinion that white men were overrepresented in power positions, whether in editorships, “manels”, or publication in top-ranked journals.

The creation of Academic Women in Public Administration was viewed by some as positive, but others suspect self-serving motives and white feminism at play. (Note to fellow AWPA-ers: these comments provide a valuable opportunity for self-evaluation in 2018).

Public administration gives social equity lip service, thought some, without adequately operationalizing it or incorporating it into research. Several commenters noted the paradox of social equity in public administration: it is bandied about as a foundational value, but largely absent from mainstream PA research.

Moving PMRC from University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill was a positive move for diversity and inclusion, but… The board’s decision to move the conference was based on HB2, the state’s bathroom bill that requires public restrooms to be designated for the gender of one’s birth.  But one commenter wondered why PMRA had not taken a similar stance when North Carolina passed a law in 2013 that undercut voting rights that disproportionately affected minority citizens (subsequently invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals).  

Now to the second part of the question: what can be done about increasing diversity and inclusion in public administration? Here are some suggestions identified by commenters for moving the field forward into the 21st century:

**Recognize that the absence of faculty and students of color at our conferences reflects a problem. From this perspective, it is no longer good enough to explain away our lack of diversity using the self-serving explanation that we simply have high standards. May this explanation never again escape our lips.

**Intentionally diversify editorial boards, place term limits on editorial positions and be transparent in the selection of journal editors, employing input from board members. Some commenters recommended these tactics as a way of opening the field to more diverse intellectual perspectives. 

 **Reach out to new faculty in the field, particularly faculty of color. Suggestions for outreach included showing interest in emerging scholars’ research and formally mentoring faculty of color.

Now back to the original question. Does public administration want diversity… really? The answer to this question will be revealed as PMRA decides how it will move the conversation forward.

November 2016 | The Past as Prologue: A Discussion with PMRA Founder H. George Frederickson, By Rosemary O’Leary*

admin, · Categories: monthly_posts

As Vice-President and President-Elect of PMRA, I have spent the last year learning more about our thriving organization. I have been very impressed with the leadership of Don Moynihan, from whom I often receive official emails or documents at 1:00 in the morning. Don is a tireless leader who has given his all to PMRA the last few years. I am delighted he will be President for six more months, and then remain on the PMRA board as Past-President for two years. Thank you, Don!

As I thought more about building on the past successes of PMRA, I reached out to its founder, my colleague H. George Frederickson. George and I talked extensively about how PMRA has grown and changed, as well as its future challenges. Here are some highlights of our discussion:

The Future of PMRA is Closely Connected to Our Journals and Conferences

I will use George’s insights, as well as other PMRA members’ advice, as I plan my upcoming two years as PMRA President. Please email me at oleary@ku.edu with your ideas and comments. I look forward to working with you and continuing the legacy of the PMRA founders.

* Edwin O. Stene Distinguished Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Kansas

October 2016 | Studying Networks Over Time, By H. Brinton Milward

admin, · Categories: monthly_posts

One of the most frequently heard recommendations for network researchers from those who review interorganizational network papers for JPART and other top journals is “I wish you had studied this network over time.”  While this is sometimes possible based on finding detailed historical records (Padgett & Ansell, 1993) or we can occasionally replicate the study of a previously studied network (Milward, et al. (2010), the typical network paper sent to JPART is a study of one or a small number of public and nonprofit networks over a short span of time–typically the length of time it took the researcher to conduct the network survey.  Elite interviews with network participants can ask about the history of the network but when it comes to mapping the structure of the network to establish the nature of the connections between the actors/organizations in the network the questions are typically a variant of, “Have you engaged in any kind of joint activity in the last six months?”  Network research is a retail endeavor and very time consuming as it requires high response rates to adequately map the network.  The benefit of studying the life-cycle of a network is potentially great.  Does network effectiveness vary over time and if so how?  Are some governance models more effective than others for different stages of the network life-cycle?  Is there a process at work by which networks tend to differentiate and integrate? What is the role of human agency in the success and failure of networks?  Over time do networks become political actors in their own right that can forge a measure of autonomy (Carpenter, 2001)?

Assuming that we could map networks over time, there would still be a host of problems. As networks are viewed as flexible and temporary organizational forms, would you be studying the same network over time?  If there is a new governance mechanism, would that be the same network or a new one?  Moreover, networks can differentiate or merge.  How can we study the life-cycle of a network?  Could we observe the network over a long period of time or send out surveys during different phases of the observation (Isett, et al. 2011)?

This blog post is an attempt to begin a dialogue among public management researchers about how we might begin to design research that would capture the life-cycle of a network using methods that allow the researcher to capture exit and entry of organizations, new governance schemes, and shifts in the task or purpose of the network over time.  Let the dialogue begin!

References

Carpenter, D.P. (2001) The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928.  Princeton University Press.

Isett, K.R., Mergel, I.A., LeRoux, K., Mischen, P.A., & Rethemeyer, R.K. (2011). Networks in Public Administration Scholarship: Understanding Where We Are and Where We Need to Go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 1), i157-i173.

Milward, H. B., Provan, K. G., Fish, A., Isett, K. R., & Huang, K. (2009). Governance and collaboration: An evolutionary study of two mental health networks. The State of Agents, a special issue of Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, i125-i141.

Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1259-1319.