Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-z5d2w Total loading time: 0.22 Render date: 2021-12-06T19:13:05.960Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

11 - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Alisa Hicklin
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma
Richard M. Walker
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
George A. Boyne
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Gene A. Brewer
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The preceding chapters have identified many ways that the study of public management and performance has grown both in scope and complexity, opening doors for continued theoretical advancement. Our knowledge of how the behaviour of public managers can affect organizational outcomes has grown substantially, and as a field, public management continues to develop. We have seen the ways in which questions of networks and governance have altered how we think about and study public management, and these lines of inquiry have offered incredible opportunities to ask new and interesting questions. These theoretical advancements have also led us to pursue new and better data on the behaviour of public managers and the outcomes they seek to affect. This increase in the availability of data has led to a diversification of methodological techniques employed in public management research, many of which have greatly expanded our ability to explore the multifaceted relationship between management and performance.

This chapter offers a discussion of the ways in which different methodological approaches could push our thinking into new areas of research – a discussion that will begin with two important caveats. First, I am not a methodologist, and this discussion is not written for methodologists. This chapter is simply an effort to encourage management researchers to consider different approaches and how those approaches can steer our thinking into new areas. This is not an attempt to be comprehensive, but it is a simple effort to spark conversation and creativity in thinking about future directions for research. Second, I realize that some may view this discussion as committing the unforgivable sin of encouraging scholars to learn a new trick and look for places to show it off. It is not.

Type
Chapter
Information
Public Management and Performance
Research Directions
, pp. 253 - 267
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agranoff, Robert, and McGuire, Michael. 2001. ‘Big questions in public network management research’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 3, 295–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Rhys, Boyne, George A., and Walker, Richard M.. 2006. ‘Strategy content and organizational performance: an empirical analysis’, Public Administration Review, 66, 1, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Bozeman, Barry, and Scott, Patrick. 1992. ‘Laboratory experiments in public policy and management’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 3, 293–313.Google Scholar
Brewer, Gene A. and Brewer, Gene A., Jr. Forthcoming. ‘Experimental methods in public management research: a demonstration parsing public/private differences’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Daley, Dorothy M. 2009. ‘Interdisciplinary problems and agency boundaries: exploring effective cross-agency collaboration’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 3, 477–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enticott, Gareth, Boyne, George A., and Walker, Richard M.. 2008. ‘The use of multiple informants in public administration research: data aggregation using organizational echelons’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 2, 229–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essex, . 2009. Essex Summer School in Social Science Data Analysis and Collection. University of Essex. .
Golden, Marissa Martino. 2000. What Motivates Bureaucrats? Politics and Administration During the Reagan Years. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicklin, Alisa, O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr., and Meier, Kenneth J.. 2008. ‘Serpents in the sand: managerial networking and nonlinear influences on organizational performance’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 2, 253–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICPSR. 2009. ‘Summer program in quantitative methods of social research’, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Google Scholar
Knott, Jack H., Miller, Gary J., and Verkuilen, Jay. 2003. ‘Adaptive incrementalism and complexity: experiments with two-person cooperative signaling games’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 3, 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsbergen, David, Coursey, David H., Loveless, Stephen, and Shangraw, R. F., Jr. 1997. ‘Decision quality, confidence, and commitment with expert systems: an experimental study’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 1, 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, Laurence E., Heinrich, Carolyn, and Hill, Carolyn. 2000. ‘Studying governance and ­public management: challenges and prospects’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 2, 233–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, Laurence E., Heinrich, Carolyn, and Hill, Carolyn. 2001. Improving Governance: a New Logic for Empirical Research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
May, Peter J., Workman, Samuel, and Jones, Bryan D.. 2008. ‘Organizing attention: responses of the bureaucracy to agenda disruption’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 4, 517–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Michael. 2006. ‘Collaborative public management: assessing what we know and how we know it’, Public Administration Review. Special Issue (December), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., and O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr. 2003. ‘Public management and educational performance: the impact of managerial networking’, Public Administration Review, 63, 6, 689–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milward, H. Brinton, and Provan, Keith G.. 1998. ‘Principles for controlling agents: the political economy of network structure’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 2, 203–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, M. Jae, and Bretschneider, Stuart. 2002. ‘Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 2, 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Donald P. 2009. ‘The network governance of crisis response: case studies of incident command systems’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 4, 895–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Donald P., and Ingraham, Patricia W.. 2003. ‘Look for the silver lining: when performance-based accountability systems work.’Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 4, 469–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutt, Paul C. 2006. ‘Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 2, 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Leary, Rosemary, and Bingham, Lisa Blomgren. 2009. The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Bryk, Anthony S.. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Application and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Scott, Patrick G. 1997. ‘Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: an experiment in street-level decision making’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 1, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, Colin. 2005. ‘Performance management’, in Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn, Laurence E. and Pollitt, Christopher (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Vicky M. 2007. ‘Exploring the causal story: gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 1, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×