Advertisement

Public Administration and Organizational Theory: Prescribing the Proper Dose

  • Étienne CharbonneauEmail author
  • Daniel Bromberg
  • Alexander C. Henderson
Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Since the founding of the field of public administration, scholars have struggled with questions related to the “publicness” of public organizations (Bozeman 1987). In this article, the extent of this “publicness” in organizational studies research is investigated by examining articles published in the most cited journals in the disciplines of business, management, and public administration. Specifically, the analysis seeks to determine whether research in generic management journals is actually generic or if sector-specific studies remain the norm. Previous researchers have sought to answer this question using citation analysis as a preferred method. Instead, this study turns its attention to the samples employed by the articles’ authors, enabling a deeper understanding of the current state of the organizational studies scholarship. The findings suggest that a preference for public or private samples remains, and that this preference is largely dependent on the disciplinary journal in which studies were published.

Keywords

Public administration Organization theory Organization studies Generic management Discipline 

References

  1. Althaus, C. (2015). What do we talk about now? Reflecting on publications in AJPA 1970–2015. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(2), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, R., & Esteve, M. (2015). Still like ships that pass in the night? The relationship between public administration and management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: a review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(s3), i301–i319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano-Gault, D., Demortain, D., Rouillard, C., & Thoenig, J. (2013). Bringing public organization and organizing back in. Organization Studies, 34(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashworth, R., Ferlie, E., Hammerschmid, G., Moon, M. J., & Reay, T. (2013). Theorizing contemporary public management: international and comparative perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, s1): s1–s1):s17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Bozeman, B. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can learn from one another: Publicness theory as a case-in-point. Organization Studies, 34(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, T. P., Lægreid, P. G. R., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth. NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, G. F. (2015). What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denis, J.-L., Ferlie, E., & Van Gestel, N. (2015). Understanding hybridity in ‘avoiding theoretical stagnation: a systematic review and framework for measuring public organizations value’. Public Administration, 92(3), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faulkner, N., & Kaufman, S. (2018). Avoiding theoretical stagnation: a systematic review and framework for measuring public value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henry, N. (1975). Paradigms of public administration. Public Administration Review, 35(4), 378–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joyce, P. (2016). The perils of evidence-based government: It’s a powerful tool, but sometimes it might really be better to reinvent the wheel. How academia is failing government, August 31. Governing Magazine.Google Scholar
  15. Kelman, S. (2007). Public administration and organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 225–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindquist, E. (2009). Public administration research and organization theory: Recovering alternative perspectives on public service institutions. In O. P. Dwivedi, T. A. Mau, & B. Sheldrick (Eds.), The evolving physiology of government: Canadian Public Administration in transition (pp. 40–71). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mainzer, L. C. (1994). Public Administration in Search of a theory: The interdisciplinary delusion. Administration and Society, 26(3), 359–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meier, K. J. (2015). Proverbs and the evolution of public administration. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael, B., & Popov, M. (2014). The failure of theory to predict the way public sector organization responds to its organizational environment and the need for a mosaic-view of organizational theory. Public Organization Review, 16(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, D., Greenwood, R., & Prakash, R. (2009). What happened to organization theory? Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nesbit, R., Moulton, S., Robinson, S., Smith, C., DeHart-Davis, L., Feeney, M. K., Gazley, B., & Hou, Y. (2011). Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration: avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(s1), i13–i28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2016). General government spending (indicator). https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm. Accessed 27 April 2016.
  23. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perry, J. L. (2016). Is public administration vanishing? Public Administration Review, 76(2), 211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollitt, C. (1998). Managerialism revisited. In B. G. Peters & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Taking stock: assessing public sector reforms (pp. 44–77). Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rainey, H. G. (2012). Organizations, politics, and public purposes: analyzing public organizations and public management. Political Science & Politics, 45(1), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36(2), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rousseau, D. M. (2007). Standing out in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 849–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van de Walle, S., & van Delft, R. (2015). Publishing in public administration: issues with defining, comparing, and ranking the output of universities. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Visser, M., & Van der Togt, K. (2016). Learning in public sector organizations: a theory of action approach. Public Organization Review, 16(2), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vogel, R. (2014). What happened to the public organization? A bibliometric analysis of public administration and organization studies. American Review of Public Administration, 44(4), 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright, B. E. (2011). Public administration as an interdisciplinary field: assessing its relationship with the fields of law, management, and political science. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zalmanovitch, Y. (2014). Don’t reinvent the wheel: the search for an identity for public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(4), 808–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.École nationale d’administration publiqueMontrealCanada
  2. 2.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Long Island UniversityBrookvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations