JPAE - Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and ... · • Encouraging curriculum...

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517

202-628-8965 fax 202-626-4978 www.naspaa.org

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). Founded in 1970, NASPAA serves as a national and international resource for the promotion of excellence in education for the public service. Its institutional membership includes more than 250 university programs in the United States in public administration, policy, and management. It accomplishes its purposes through direct services to its member institutions and by

• Developing and administering appropriate standards for educational programs in public affairs through its Executive Council and its Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation;

• Representing to governments and other institutions the objectives and needs of education for public affairs and administration;

• Encouraging curriculum development and innovation and providing a forum for publication and discussion of education scholarship, practices, and issues;

• Undertaking surveys that provide members and the public with information on key educational issues; • Meeting with employers to promote internship and employment opportunities for students and graduates; • Undertaking joint educational projects with practitioner professional organizations; and • Collaborating with institutes and schools of public administration in other countries through conferences,

consortia, and joint projects.

NASPAA provides opportunities for international engagement for NASPAA members, placing a global emphasis on educational quality and quality assurance through a series of networked international initiatives, in particular the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee), the Inter-American Network of Public Administration Education (INPAE), and the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA). It is also involved locally; for instance, directing the Small Communities Outreach Project for Environmental Issues, which networks public affairs schools and local governments around environmental regulation policy issues, with support from the Environmental Protection Agency.

NASPAA’s twofold mission is to ensure excellence in education and training for public service and to promote the ideal of public service. Consistent with NASPAA’s mission, JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs, defined to include the fields of policy analysis, public administration, public management, and public policy. Published quarterly by NASPAA, the journal features commentaries, announcements, symposia, book reviews, and peer-reviewed scholarly articles on pedagogical, curricular, and accreditation issues pertaining to public affairs education.

JPAE was founded in 1995 by a consortium from the University of Kansas and the University of Akron and was originally published as the Journal of Public Administration Education. H. George Frederickson was the journal’s founding editor. In addition to serving as NASPAA’s journal of record, JPAE is affiliated with the Section on Public Administration Education of the American Society for Public Administration.

Spring 2010 Volume 16, No. 2

Journal of Public Affairs E

ducationVol. 16, N

o. 2 Spring 2010

Flagship Journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration

JPAEJOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION

JPAE’s 15th Anniversary: Reflections on the Journal of Public Affairs Education at 15James L. Perry

Sharon H. Mastracci, Meredith A. Newman & Mary E. GuyEmotional Labor: Why and How to Teach It

Stan Barrett, Nadia Rubaii-Barrett & John PelowskiPreparing for and Responding to Student Incivilities: Starting the Dialogue in Public Affairs Education

Sheila Suess Kennedy & Deanna MalatestaSafeguarding the Public Trust: Can Administrative Ethics Be Taught?

Jeffrey L. Brudney & J. Michael MartinezTeaching Administrative Ethics in Nonprofit Management: Recommendations to Improve Degrees, Certificates, and Concentration Programs

Kathryn E. Newcomer & Heather AllenPublic Service Education: Adding Value in the Public Interest

Bruno BrouckerKnowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management: Transfer-Inhibiting and Transfer-Enhancing Factors in the Belgian Public Sector

Göktuğ Morçöl & Nadezda P. IvanovaMethods Taught In Public Policy Programs: Are Quantitative Methods Still Prevalent?

Rita Ormsby & Daniel W. WilliamsInformation Literacy in Public Affairs Curriculum

Sarah E. RyanConversation Starter

Andrea E. MayoBook Review

Information for ContributorsThe Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs broadly defined, which includes the fields of policy analysis, public administration, public management, public policy, nonprofit administration, and their subfields. Advancing teaching and learning includes not only the improvement of specific courses and teaching methods, but also the improvement of public affairs program design and management. The goal of JPAE is to publish articles that are useful to those participating in the public affairs education enterprise, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. In service to this goal, articles should be clear, accessible to those in the public affairs fields and subfields, and generalizable. The new editorial team is particularly interested in articles that (1) use rigorous methods to analyze the relative effectiveness of different teaching methods, and (2) have international and/or comparative components, or consider the effect of country setting. Articles submitted for publication in JPAE should not already be published or in submission elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at conferences are welcome.

Submissions should conform to American Psychological Association (APA) style and generally meet the submission recommendations described in Appendix A of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.).

Specifically, manuscripts should:• Be typed in a standard 12-point serif font (such as Times New Roman), double- or 1-1/2-

spaced, with margins of no less than one inch on all sides,• Include one document with no author names but including a title and an abstract of around 150

words, and• Use APA-style in-text citations and references.

Authors will need to register and submit their manuscripts at http://criticalmath.com/chronos/index.php/jpae and also email a copy to [email protected]. The online submission site, CriticalMath does not currently support the Safari® web browser. We recommend using Firefox®. Articles will not be considered until authors submit a manuscript that reasonably meets APA style, particularly in regard to citations and references.

Please include “JPAE” in the subject line of all emails. Authors should expect to receive acknowledgment of receipt. If acknowledgement is not received within two weeks, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] (the email address of editorial assistant Jeffrey Callen). Articles will be given initial review by the editorial team. Articles must meet basic criteria including writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and interest to JPAE’s readers before they are submitted for external, double-blind review. If accepted for publication, manuscripts cannot be published until all authors have provided copyright transfer authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about five lines).

Because of its mission, educators may reproduce any JPAE material for classroom use and authors may reproduce their own articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce any part of JPAE in all other instances.

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA)

Jeffrey Raffel, PresidentFrances S. Berry, Vice President

Marvin Mandell, Immediate Past PresidentLaurel McFarland, Executive Director

JPAE Oversight Committee: Kathleen Beatty, Melvin Dubnick & Charles Menifield

Heather E. Campbell Editor-in-Chief Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs

Iris Geva-May, Associate Editor for International and Comparative Education Simon Fraser University Public Policy Program

Michael O’Hare, Associate Editor for the Assessment and Practice of TeachingUniversity of California, Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy

Editorial Assistant: Jeffrey C. Callen Copyeditor: Wendy Paulson Layout: Mark Kruger

BOARD OF EDITORSGuy Adams, University of Missouri, ColumbiaFrances Stokes Berry, Florida State UniversityStuart Bretschneider, Syracuse UniversityJohn Bohte, University of Wisconsin, MilwaukeeJohn M. Bryson, University of MinnesotaBeverly Bunch, University of Illinois, SpringfieldN. Joseph Cayer, Arizona State UniversityCal Clark, Auburn UniversityBarbara Crosby, University of MinnesotaRobert B. Cunningham, University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleDwight Denison, University of KentuckyAnand Desai, Ohio State UniversityJames W. Douglas, University of North Carolina at

CharlotteJo Ann G. Ewalt, Eastern Kentucky UniversityLee Friedman, University of California, BerkeleyCynthia Fukami, University of DenverNicholas Giannatasio, University of North Carolina,

PembrokeCynthia Jackson-Elmoore, Michigan State University

Meagan Jordan, University of Arkansas at Little RockEdward Kellough, University of Georgia

Kristina Lambright, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Laura Langbein, American UniversityScott Lazenby, City of Sandy, Oregon

Steven R. Maxwell, Florida Gulf Coast UniversityKristen Norman-Major, Hamline University

Michael Popejoy, Strayer UniversityDorothy Olshfski, Rutgers University, Newark

Stephen P. Osborne, University of EdinburghDavid Reingold, Indiana University

Michelle Saint-Germain, California State University,Long Beach

Patricia M. Shields, Texas State UniversityJames Svara, Arizona State University

Howard Whitton, Griffith UniversityBlue Wooldridge, Virginia Commonwealth University

Giovanni Valotti, Università BocconiDavid Van Slyke, Syracuse University

Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. Claims for missing numbers should be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publishers expect to supply missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit. Subscription Rates: Institution, $125; Individual, $50; Student, $40; Non-U.S., add $20 to applicable rate. Electronic JPAE articles can be accessed at www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. Change of Address: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old and new addresses. Please allow four weeks for the change. Postmaster: Send address changes to JPAE, National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, 1029 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517. Educators and Copy Centers: Copyright 2010 National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. All rights reserved. Educators may reproduce any material for classroom use only and authors may reproduce their articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce JPAE in all other instances. Please contact Jacqueline Lewis, NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517, phone: 202-628-8965, fax: 202-626-4978, email: [email protected]. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. JPAE is abstracted or indexed in EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Education Full Text Index. ISSN 1523-6803 (formerly 1087-7789).

CORRESPONDENTSKhalid Al-Yahya, Dubai School of GovernmentEdgar Ramirez Delacruz, Center for Research and Teaching

in Economics (CIDE), Mexico

Charlene M. L. Roach, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus

EDITOR’S COUNCILH. George Frederickson, Founding Editor, University of Kansas,

Danny L. Balfour, Grand Valley State UniversityMarc Holzer, Rutgers University

Edward T. Jennings, University of KentuckyJames L. Perry, Indiana University, Bloomington

Mario A. Rivera, University of New Mexico

From the EditorHeather E. Campbell ......................................................................................... ii

Reflections on the Journal of Public Affairs Education at 15: Changing NASPAA and the FieldJames L. Perry ...............................................................................................119

Emotional Labor: Why and How to Teach ItSharon H. Mastracci, Meredith A. Newman & Mary E. Guy ...........................123

Preparing for and Responding to Student Incivilities: Starting the Dialogue in Public Affairs EducationStan Barrett, Nadia Rubaii-Barrett & John Pelowski .......................................143

Safeguarding the Public Trust: Can Administrative Ethics Be Taught?Sheila Suess Kennedy & Deanna Malatesta .....................................................161

Teaching Administrative Ethics in Nonprofit Management: Recommendations to Improve Degrees, Certificates, and Concentration ProgramsJeffrey L. Brudney & J. Michael Martinez .......................................................181

Public Service Education: Adding Value in the Public InterestKathryn E. Newcomer & Heather Allen ..........................................................207

Knowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management:Transfer-Inhibiting and Transfer-Enhancing Factors in the Belgian Public SectorBruno Broucker .............................................................................................231

Methods Taught In Public Policy Programs: Are Quantitative Methods Still Prevalent?Göktug Morçöl & Nadezda P. Ivanova ...........................................................255

Information Literacy in Public Affairs CurriculumRita Ormsby & Daniel W. Williams ...............................................................279

Let’s Get Them Out of the Country! Reflecting On the Value of International Immersion Experiences for MPA StudentsSarah E. Ryan ...............................................................................................307

Review of The Application of Statistics to Policy Analysis and Management: An IntroductionAndrea E. Mayo ............................................................................................313

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Call for Papers ....................................319

The Innovation Journal Call for Papers ..........................................................320

Information for Contributors. ................................................. Inside back cover

Cover design by Jeffrey C. Callen, with Heather E. Campbell.

Cover design property of NASPAA.

Cover photo: Moorhead, C. (n.d.). School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Photo public domain. Retrieved April 15th, 2010 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SPEA.jpg.

Journal of Public Affairs Education


ii JournalofPublicAffairsEducation

From the Editor — Special 15th Anniversary Volume, Issue 2

This volume, Volume 16, of the Journal of Public Affairs Education celebrates 15 years of JPAE. As part of that celebration, each issue leads off with a reflection from one of its past Editors.

This second issue presents reflections by James Perry, JPAE’s second Editor-in-Chief. He discusses the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration’s (NASPAA’s) history with the Journal, JPAE’s role in helping to legitimate the scholarship of teaching, and — in response to Danny Balfour’s (2010, p. 1) remembrance of initial concern about whether there would be “enough submissions of acceptable quality to sustain” the Journal — he salutes JPAE’s substance. This issue’s cover photo is of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) at Indiana University, in recognition of JPAE’s history there with Professor Perry.

Following Professor Perry’s recollections, the first four articles in this issue fit together so well that they could be a symposium, even though they were developed and submitted separately. The articles by Mastracci, Newman and Guy; Barrett, Rubaii-Barrett and Pelowski; Kennedy and Malatesta; and Brudney and Martinez are on the related topics of teaching emotional labor, teaching civility, and teaching ethics. The second of these, by Barrett, Rubaii-Barrett, and Pelowski, is likely to be the most controversial because it argues for “swift response to even minor incivilities … and a more cautious approach to admitting and embracing new students” (2010, p. 144). Whatever one’s reaction to the advice in these four articles, certainly they all address issues of importance to the many students who will become public and nonprofit administrators. As a group, we should reflect on these topics and how they might fit into our programmatic responsibilities and realities.

The next two articles also dovetail amazingly well. Both the Broucker and the Newcomer and Allen articles are well-grounded in literature on the assessment of program learning outcomes, as defined by knowledge transfer. Newcomer and Allen develop a logic-model-based theoretical framework for assessing programs, and Broucker both develops a model and uses interviews based in a validated instrument to assess two different public affairs master’s programs — one traditional and one executive. Both articles come to the conclusion that it is the interaction of three different elements — the student, the educational program, and the workplace organization — that determines the extent to which students transfer learning to the workplace. This consensus has important implications for our programs, for it means that even high-quality programs that admit unprepared students or whose students work in inappropriately structured organizations will not succeed at knowledge transfer.

The article by Morçöl and Ivanova stands alone, but is no less interesting for that. Using content analysis, it assesses the extent to which master’s and Ph.D. programs in public policy favor teaching either quantitative methods or

JournalofPublicAffairsEducation iii

From the Editor — Special 15th Anniversary Volume, Issue 2

qualitative methods. Thus, it provides a revealing snapshot of the current state of methods education in public policy programs.

Two more articles present an interesting contrast that illuminates some of the nature of the editorial task. Credit for the editorial decision to publish the article by Ormsby and Williams, which uses an ethics course to analyze how information literacy skills may be integrated into existing classes, belongs to former editors Mario Rivera and Nicholas Giannatasio, who accepted the article before JPAE transitioned to Arizona State University. The old and new shake hands here because this article abuts the first piece of a new section I am introducing to the Journal, called “Conversation Starters.” Ryan’s short piece on international immersion programs launches this intermittent section with a bang, and argues passionately for something that we as a field should think — and talk — about.

Last, Mayo’s book review addresses a perennial topic in Public Affairs education: How do we improve the teaching of statistics? The review of Rohrbaugh’s unconventional-textbook response to this question should prove useful to all of us who tackle this area.

As I write this at the end of March, southern Arizona’s temperatures are already in the 80s. By the time this issue comes out, spring should be well on its way in most of the places where JPAE readers gather. May you enjoy the new season and this new issue!

— HeatherE.Campbell,Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief Arizona State University

ReferenceBalfour, D. (2010). Reflections on founding JPAE: Fifteen years after. Journal of Public Affairs

Education, 16(1), 1-3.

JournalofPublicAffairsEducation 119

Reflections on the JournalofPublicAffairsEducationat 15:

Changing NASPAA and the Field

James L. PerryIndianaUniversity,Bloomington

YonseiUniversity,SouthKorea

Looking back fifteen years at this stage of life is long enough to tax my memory (but I am comforted in knowing that I am probably not alone). I had the good fortune of saving past issues of the JournalofPublicAffairsEducation(JPAE),and the double good fortune of remembering where I put them, because now I need them as a memory aid.

This reflection recounts developments in the second phase ofJPAE’sevolution — immediately following its founding. It also shares observations about the substantive impacts of the journal on the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), and the field.

Historical ContextI succeeded founding editor H. George Frederickson as Editor-in-Chief and

started with Volume 4, Issue 1 in January, 1998. My term as Editor-in-Chief spanned three years, and ended with Volume 6, Issue 4 in October, 2000. Just as Dan Balfour (2010) characterized the first three years of the journal as exciting, my term as Editor also was eventful.

The events that shaped my term as Editor began in 1996, almost two years before I got the position. I was a member of the original Board of Editors for the earlier JPAE incarnation, the JournalofPublicAdministrationEducation (abbreviated JoPAEhere to differentiate it from JPAE),and also contributed to Volume 1 (Perry, 1995), so I was familiar with the journal. In 1996-’97, I chaired the NASPAA Research Committee. One of our most time-consuming topics was NASPAA’s sponsorship of a journal. NASPAA Executive Director Michael Brintnall and the NASPAA Executive Committee expressed strong support for a journal. The responsibility for assessing the feasibility and form of such an enterprise fell to the NASPAA Research Committee.

JPAE16(2):119–122

120 JournalofPublicAffairsEducation

The NASPAA Research Committee subsequently recommended JPAE as the association’s flagship journal. By fall of 1997, George Frederickson graciously agreed to transfer to NASPAA the journal he founded. In the later stages of negotiation, I competed for the Editor-in-Chief position and was selected to serve a three-year term, starting in September, 1997.

As part of its assessment, the NASPAA Research Committee proposed, and the Executive Committee endorsed, several changes to JPAE. These included the following:

• Renaming it as the JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, which reflected the breadth of NASPAA’s mission and increased the journal’s appeal to groups such as the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM);

• Publishing quarterly rather than three times a year, which increased the journal’s attractiveness to libraries and expanded publication opportunities; and

• Using an “8 ½ x 11” format and adding historic photos to the cover, from Charles Goodsell’s extensive collection.

One aspect of the journal that remained constant during the transition to NASPAA ownership was Dan Balfour, who I recruited to continue as the Managing Editor. I was fortunate to draw upon his experience and support for three years in a close-knit, working partnership.

JPAE Makes a Difference for NASPAA and the FieldAlthough I cannot step forward with rigorous research to make my case, and

must instead rely on impressions formed during the past 15 years, I believe JPAE had two primary effects on NASPAA and much of the faculty who identified with public affairs. One effect was how NASPAA was perceived by rank-and-file faculty (who, per the parlance of our field would — in other contexts — be called street-level bureaucrats). The other effect involves legitimizing the scholarship of teaching.

I attended my first NASPAA annual conference in 1977 in Colorado Springs, CO, when the self-study process was first approved. I became quite familiar with the self-study process and, later, with peer review and accreditation, and also with NASPAA as an organization. I had become quite aware of the wide gap that many of my colleagues around the country perceived between their needs and interests, and the activities of NASPAA. Regardless of its reality, NASPAA was perceived by many faculty as a distant, “deans’ club.”

NASPAA’s acquisition of JPAE made a big difference in how it was perceived by faculty. Although NASPAA’s members are schools, rather than individuals, faculty at these schools now can see NASPAA’s tangible connection to what they do, whether they administer a program, or teach as an adjunct faculty member. JPAE helps support and inform the activities of many faculty who otherwise would have no connection whatsoever to NASPAA’s activities. In this respect,

ReflectionsOntheJournalofPublicAffaisrsEducationat15


it is an important bridge to faculty — the key stakeholders in our education institutions. Thus, JPAE is yielding important dividends for NASPAA.

The second difference involving JPAE was helping to legitimate the scholarship of teaching. As a refereed journal, JPAE provides an outlet for thoughtful faculty to make a public case about their pedagogies, experiences, and insights. The journal has helped elevate the status of scholarship about teaching and other facets of public affairs education. More importantly, JPAE makes the scholarship of teaching more public, more transparent, and more accessible to all in the profession. In my view, this is an extraordinary change for our field, and a notable step forward.

Concluding ReflectionsI want to conclude my reflections with an observation about JPAE’s substance.

Having been involved with the journal since its founding, I would categorize this observation as a “pleasant surprise.” The pleasant surprise is how diverse the editorial content of JPAE has become, while, simultaneously, there has been a growing volume of manuscripts. In Dan Balfour’s reflection from the Winter 2010 issue of JPAE, he recounted the significant uncertainty that surrounded us, while we wondered whether there would be enough manuscripts to sustain the journal over time. As he noted, only three peer-reviewed articles appeared in the first issue. Much of Volume 1 contained invited contributions that appeared in the Special Issues feature section. This uncertainty about the supply of quality content did not dissipate, even by the time I concluded my term as editor. I regularly editorialized about the content I wanted to see and we regularly signaled our editorial interests in particular submissions, by using calls for papers on specific symposia topics and other editorial devices, as a way of sustaining our supply of manuscripts. The expansion of the journal to four issues annually also created a need for more manuscripts.

As I look at the nine volumes of JPAE that were published following my term as editor, I marvel at how diverse the content has become. Volume 15 contained a total of 30 articles — more than three times the content of Volume 1. Even more impressive is the diversity of its subject matter. I never envisioned some of the topics that now appear in the pages of JPAE. In my view, this more diverse content does not reflect a turn toward more esoteric topics, but rather it shows the willingness of scholars to step forward and address a wide range of issues that are important to faculty, administrators, students, and other stakeholders in public affairs education.

Neither the increase in JPAE’s quality content, nor its diversification, were foregone conclusions when the journal was founded. The expansion and heterogeneity of JPAE’s content testifies to the power of need and opportunity. As a former JPAE editor, I am grateful that so many of my colleagues from around the world responded to George Frederickson’s vision for advancing substantive dialogue about public affairs education.



ReferencesBalfour, D. (2010). Reflections on founding JPAE: Fifteen years after. JournalofPublicAffairs

Education, 16(1), 1-3.

Frederickson, H.G. (1998). From the founding editor. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, 4(1), iii-v.

Perry, J.L. (1995). Ranking public administration programs. JournalofPublicAdministrationEducation, 1(2), 132-135.

James L. Perry is a Distinguished Professor and a Chancellor’s Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington. He also is a World Class University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Public Administration at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea. He is the co-editor of MotivationinPublicManagement:TheCallofPublicService(Oxford University Press, 2008), and editor of the Jossey-BassReaderonNonprofitandPublicLeadership (2010). His current research interests include public service motivation, collaboration, and shared leadership. Perry is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. His mailing address is James L. Perry, Distinguished Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington; Room 410E, 1315 E. Tenth St., Bloomington, IN, 47405-1701. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]



Emotional Labor: Why and How to Teach It

Sharon H. MastracciUniversityofIllinoisatChicago

Meredith A. NewmanFloridaInternationalUniversity

Mary E. GuyUniversityofColoradoDenver

Abstract Feedback from graduates often indicates that their training failed to adequately prepare them for the human processes involved in the administration and delivery of public services. Although provided with training in cognitive skills, they are left on their own to acquire an appreciation for, and to develop skill in, nuanced emotive skills. This is especially the case for graduates who work in service-delivery programs that are emotionally intense, such as disaster services, child protective services, domestic violence, emergency medical services, corrections, and law enforcement. To a lesser degree, it is the case for all programs that provide person-to-person services. This paper discusses why these skills are important, how they are referred to in the proposed National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration Standards 2009, and explains how they can be incorporated into a curriculum.

EmotionalLabor:WhyandHowtoTeachItThere have been many changes since the National Association of Schools

of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) introduced its first set of standards for academic programs. E-government, for example, has made significant advancements in facilitating citizens’ access to technical information, forms, notices, and policies. It provides information on office locations, hours, and services, and makes it faster for citizens to access government agencies. To accommodate this advancement, professional standards now require proficiency in information technology, just as they require proficiency in fiscal matters, analytic methods, and organizational strategies. But this is not enough. During deliberations on the 2009 revision to NASPAA’s standards, Piskulich and

JPAE16(2):123–141


Mandell (2007) put it this way:

It is clear that employers are looking for more than individuals who know their way around a budget process or human resources; they are looking for people who know these things and how to work in a team, lead, manage change and diversity, think globally, speak and write clearly and act ethically (p.1).

Enhancing public engagement, promoting justice and equity, working effectively as a member of a team, and leading in a dynamic and unpredictable environment require skills that are very different from those associated with person-to-object transactions. Person-to-person interactions between citizens and the state apply both technical (cognitive) knowledge and higher-order emotion skills.

Service exchanges between workers and citizens require workers to sense the proper tone and medium for expressing a thought or feeling, and to determine whether, when, and how to act on that instantaneous analysis. To ignore this combination of analysis, affect, judgment, and communication is to ignore the “social lube” that enables rapport, elicits desired responses, and ensures that interpersonal exchanges are constructive. Cognitive skills also are required in these jobs, but cannot be exercised effectively until they are paired with emotion skills (Guy & Newman, 2004). Among these affective skills, of primary importance is the ability to sense the emotional state of the other person, to adjust one’s own response accordingly, and to react empathically. Failure to acknowledge the duality of emotive and cognitive skills has caused managers, scholars, and students to ignore an essential component of person-to-person interaction. Criticism of the proverbial Master’s of Business Administration (MBA) “bean-counter” is emblematic of what is lacking in MBA preparation. Lest preparation in Master’s of Public Administration (MPA) and Master’s of Public Policy (MPP) degrees incur the same criticism, we should strengthen what currently is a weakness in our programs.

Few professions demand more emotion work from their employees than public service. Worker-client and state-agent-citizen interactions are the center of public service work, and emotional labor is the way that much of this work is performed. Emotional labor is relational work that requires human service workers to manage their own emotions, and to elicit behaviors and feelings from clients and citizens. Although emotions and feelings often are dismissed as unprofessional and interfering, they are required if human services are to be delivered effectively (Guy, Newman & Mastracci, 2008).

NASPAA defines the MPA degree as “the professional degree for people who want a public service career in management … [that] develop[s] the skills and techniques used by leaders and managers to implement policies, projects, and programs that resolve important societal problems, while addressing

EmotionalLabor:WhyandHowtoTeachIt


organizational, human resource, and budgetary challenges” (NASPAA, 2008a, para.4). Graduates of MPA and MPP programs serve in the private, nonprofit, and public sectors; in federal, state, and local government; and in capacities ranging from front-line service delivery, to elected offices and executive-level positions. Are they equipped to deal with the emotional labor demands of public service work? This is the question that concerns us, and it is to this end that we suggest how a curriculum can better prepare graduates for this facet of their future careers.

Traditional training subordinates relational skills in favor of cognitive, measurable tasks. This is a disservice to students, and it exposes the gap between the discipline of public administration and the actual practice of service to the public. We examine these issues in light of accrediting standards and recommend ways that the affective component of public service can be integrated into a curriculum.

AService-OrientedProfessionEmotion work —or emotional labor— is the “effort within” that an

individual must apply to get the job done. Its performance requires workers to suppress their private feelings, in order to show “desirable” work-related emotion. From the employer’s vantage, this is about an emotional performance that is bought and sold as a commodity — it is “part of the job.” Suppressing or managing one’s own feelings requires higher levels of emotional intelligence, which is the capacity to exert emotional labor. Emotional labor is the process of managing one’s own emotions, sensing the emotions of others, and using that knowledge to govern actions on the job (Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Kiel, Bezboruah, & Oyun, 2009). Emotional labor is the expression of one’s capacity to manage personal emotions, sense others’ emotions, and to respond appropriately, based on one’s job.

Emotional intelligence applies to emotional labor in the same way that physical fitness applies to physical labor. Physical fitness is an individual’s capacity to engage in physical labor, which is observable and measurable, and the effects of engaging in physical labor are easy to see on the faces of those who exert it. Therefore, if one is not physically fit, the outcome of physical labor will suffer. Similarly, emotional labor manifests itself as a desirable outcome when done well, or as an undesirable outcome when done poorly or not at all. In varying degrees, manufacturing industries generally require physical and cognitive labor, while service-providers require cognitive and emotional labor. At all levels —federal, state, and local— this is the case. For example, diplomats in the State Department finesse relationships with their international counterparts to represent American interests and convey politically charged policies. Federal Emergency Management Agency employees encounter citizens on the worst days of their lives, when their homes have been destroyed and their world is in tatters. At the state level, prison guards and law enforcement officers daily try



to “acquire voluntary compliance” (Thompson, 2006) from an uncooperative segment of the citizenry. Children and family service agencies investigate abuse and sometimes are forced to remove children from their parents. Nonprofit organizations and county human services agencies work even more closely with the public, and the nonprofit sector addresses some of the most sensitive issues in public service at this level, including substance abuse, mental health services, housing assistance, domestic violence, and suicide hotlines.

But most formal training in public administration fails to comprehend the totality of this labor. Instead it focuses on a “truncated remnant” — the part that only requires cognitive skills. The founding narratives of the field create an incomplete concept of work that endures today in job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluations (Mastracci, Newman, & Guy, 2006). The historical origins of the concept of work in public administration underscore its inappropriateness to contemporary styles of public service. By way of background, we next provide a description of how a manufacturing-oriented tradition led to this manufacturing-oriented pedagogy.

AManufacturing-OrientedTradition Frederick Taylor, the Gilbreths, Leonard White, and others of the early

20th century focused on problems of inefficiency by prescribing a remedy in the form of systematic management, and believed that performance was a science resting on well-defined laws and principles. If Frederick Taylor and Taylorism are accepted as part of the intellectual history of public administration and management, and if Max Weber and Weberian notions of bureaucracy are similarly accepted as part of our founding narrative, then so also is “Fordism.” The term Fordism was coined in 1916 to describe the cultural and economic influence of Henry Ford’s production methods in the auto industry. As it relates specifically to the concept of work, it is characterized by

• A highly specialized division of labor where workers are trained and assigned to one specific aspect of the production process;

• A standardization of products and how they are made; and• The arrangement of workers along assembly lines.

Fordism organizes workers according to how the end result is produced, and its approach to labor encompasses Tayloristic efficiency principles and their emphasis on measurable skills. Weber, Taylor, and Ford all were inspired by the efficiency and effectiveness of the pre-World War I, Prussian bureaucracy, and defined work according to what was measurable about a job.



WhyaManufacturing-OrientedTraditionDominatesaService-OrientedProfession

The inappropriateness of applying the manufacturing industry’s conception of work to public service is obvious, but its enduring effect on public administration theory and practice is sustained by four institutional forces (Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008). First, the structural elements of organizing — as articulated by Taylor and reinforced by top-down, command-and-control structures — taught us to treat workers as interchangeable parts whose contributions reside in the performance of clearly enumerated duties. The process of job construction — where tasks are lumped together to form clearly defined jobs — is designed to depersonalize work and separate the job from the person who performs it. By doing so, any employee with X skills can perform any job with X requirements. As such, workers are like cogs in a machine, one indistinguishable from the next, whose tasks are carried out in a dispassionate manner. Luther Gulick, for example, advanced the merits of a mechanistic, dehumanized, and emotionless model of administration, by asserting that public administrators “are supposed to be smooth running machines … transmission belts” (as cited in Kramer, 2003, p.14). The 1922 Weberian model of “man as machine” and the “dominance of a spirit of formalistic impersonality, ‘sineiraetstudio,’ without hatred or passion, and hence without affection or enthusiasm” (as cited in Kramer, 2003, p.13), requires that public administrators become “souls on ice” and conduct relationships “without sympathy or enthusiasm” (as cited in Kramer, 2003, p.13). Humane-ness, therefore, is sacrificed for efficiency. It follows that recipients of government services become cases, students in universities become numbers, and workers become like robots (Ritzer, 2004). A rational division of labor, hierarchical control, performance standards, and scientific selection and advancement — all based on technical competence — are ingrained in the way we think about job classification. Relational work is absent from the list of knowledge, skills, and abilities, except in the obligatory requirement to establish and maintain good working relationships (Ritzer, 2004).

Second, civil service systems are built on a foundation of formal descriptions that specify the tangible elements of each job. Though reforms have been introduced over the years, a basic understanding of what does, and does not, constitute “skill” remains mired in tradition. The nature of bureaucracy itself shapes the character of its work. According to Max Weber (1970/1946, pp.215-216), “Bureaucracy develops the more perfectly, the more it is ‘dehumanized’.” In his scathing critique of bureaucracy, Ralph Hummel decries the orthodoxy:

The psychological experience of bureaucracy is this: Bureaucrats are asked to become people without conscience. Those who submit become people without heart. Bureaucrats are asked to leave their emotions at home. Yet all that human beings do —



in relating themselves to other people, the objects of their work, the working itself — carries with it feelings. We feel for those who are our clients — compassion or disdain…, and so on…As a result, unconscious feelings silently accompany all our relations with people and things at work — at times distorting, at times supporting our ability to get work done (p.124).

As the emerging body of work on emotional labor attests, the expression and management of emotions remain for the most part invisible. The conflict between the universalism of bureaucracies and the particularism of care-giving (Abel & Nelson, 1990) is difficult to reconcile.

Third, due to the rise of urbanization and industrialization, a dichotomy emerged between home and work, with each domain evoking different behaviors. Home became a refuge from the dehumanization of the workplace. The practice of nurturing and sustaining while simultaneously performing manual labor — as had occurred on the family farm — disappeared from the definition of work. Relational work was defined in a way that was not germane to the task at hand. Instead, work and accompanying job descriptions focused on the tangible production of marketable goods and services. Efforts resulting in positive relationships, a sense of community, and resolution of conflict did not fit easily into quantifiable elements, so they were treated as extraneous, despite the suasion of Mary Parker Follett (Newman & Guy, 1998). Separating the roles of men and women, with men playing the role of primary workers in the public world, and women playing the same role in the private domain of the household, spilled over into the recognition and valuation of skills in the labor market (Baines, Evans, & Neysmith, 1998). Underlying work-ethic norms reflect an economic structure that privileges work if it is done in the marketplace, and renders it invisible if done by women in the home:

Having entered the private realm of the home, caregiving becomes invisible. It runs on a different clock than the world of employment. Both these characteristics make it difficult to see it as work when the definition of work is so firmly market-related. It is, after all, work that isn’t seen and isn’t valued except when it isn’t done! (Baines, Evans, & Neysmith, 1998, p.239).

A corollary to this is that only observable tasks matter. This approach assures an impersonal, objective, evaluative process that protects against favoritism due to race, age, gender, or any other characteristic that differentiates one worker from another. It also assures that invisibility will continue for all labors that are relational in nature.

The fourth institutional force is that of so-called “market value.” This is



shorthand for cultural understandings of worth, the calculus of which is from the three institutional forces previously described. Market value blinds us to the influence of culturally based assumptions, and renders only quantifiable, objective tasks as those that matter.

CollateralDamagetoaService-OrientedProfessionThe confluence of these four factors cements general notions of what is

or is not considered as real work. Trapped in the canon of Fordist production principles and scientific management standards, the widely accepted ideas of organizational effectiveness fail to account for the centrality of emotion work in public service, nor do they recognize that jobs “require workers to have emotions as well as muscle and brain” (Himmelweit, 1999, p.34). The emphasis on tangible, testable skills eclipses behavior that is inconsistent with industrial-era standards, even when that behavior is directly related to the organization’s goals. Because our curricula have been developed in this mode, our students are inadequately prepared for the work they will be performing.

Traditional administrative language — span of control, hierarchy, authority, and division of labor — is incomplete. A conception of administrative practice that is relational, rather than controlling, has a very different vocabulary. Administration is more than rule-governed procedure, it also is an inter-subjective process. But the latter idea appears only fleetingly in our theories and in our curricula. The result: Our truncated construct of work favors cognitive and measurable skills, while it excludes from the pedagogy an orientation toward service and the value of caring. Until recently, our accreditation process has reflected this mode. NASPAA’s 2009 revisions, however, move toward a fuller appreciation of the public service landscape.

NewConception,NewPedagogy

The proposed third generation of NASPAA accreditation standards offers a promising departure from the original standards, which were focused on program inputs such as sufficient faculty, budgets, and courses offered. The second iteration of standards in the 1990s added a layer of mission-based requirements to the inputs (Raffel, Maser, & McFarland, 2007). The proposed 2009 standards focus on a values-driven approach, which is articulated as follows: “The core of our approach is values-driven, mission-based accreditation but we are proposing a process that incorporates outcome measures, such as student competencies for public service, within it” (Raffel, Maser, & McFarland, 2007, p.2). As such, the original standards of the 1970s, current standards established in the 1990s, and the proposed 2009 standards may best be viewed as a continuum — from inputs, to inputs + mission; to values + mission + outcomes. The clarion call for public service-focused accreditation in the proposed standards is a reflection of the perceived need to brand our programs,



and to demonstrate the distinctiveness and value-added nature of public affairs programs (Raffel, Maser, & McFarland, 2007).

Will a focus on public service values translate into a curriculum that aligns with the actual work of those who serve the public? What would student competencies for public service look like? As noted, public and nonprofit agencies rely heavily on the effective exercise of emotion work. Public service requires workers who are skilled in relationship-building. Does our pedagogy prepare graduates to be proficient in these emotive skills? Or do our curricula adhere to the norms carried over from the industrial era, despite the fact that public service is, by definition and practice, a “people-service?” As an applied field, how can we teach our students to apply — in a practical sense — their acquired skills in the person-to-person transactions that occur at the street level? In sum, do the standards (both current and proposed) privilege cognitive, measurable skills over relational skills — a manufacturing-orientation over a service-orientation? We now turn to this overarching question.

ManufacturingOurStandardsThe “NASPAA General Information and Standards for Professional Masters

Degree Programs” (available online at www.naspaa.org) apply to master’s degree programs designed to provide professional education for leadership in public affairs, public policy, and public administration. The purpose of the curriculum is to prepare students for professional leadership in public service (Standard 4.1). Common curriculum components are intended to enhance the students’ values, knowledge, and skills for acting ethically and effectively in the management of public service organizations; in the application of quantitative and qualitative techniques of analysis; and with an understanding of the public policy and organizational environment (Standard 4.21). Components of “management” include human resources, budgeting and financial processes, information management, technology applications, and policy. Components of “techniques of analysis” include policy and program formulation, implementation and evaluation, decision making, and problem solving. Attention to the context (“environment”) includes political, legal, economic, and social institutions/processes, as well as the concepts and behavior of organization and management.

We have no quarrel with our graduates becoming proficient in management, analytical skills, and policy. These are essential cognitive abilities. Our argument is that these skills are necessary, but they also are insufficient for preparing our students to be effective public servants. Missing from this skills inventory is attention to the “public” and “service” aspects of public service. Stivers (2003) illuminates this in her examination of administration and management: Administration(from the Latin administrare, to minister) connotes a “ministerial act, the performance of public duty, the execution of stewardship on behalf of another or service to another” (p.214). By contrast, managementimplies “the



conduct (manipulation, control) of business affairs” (p.214). She characterizes the difference as “a contest between on the one hand, service, publicness, ministering, justice, duty, and practicality and on the other, control, results, efficiency, objectivity, and science” (p.220). Moreover, the idea of “service” connotes proficiency in (a) communicating across geographic, cultural, societal and jurisdictional boundaries; (b) developing rapport, relationship-building and connectedness; and (c) exercising emotional intelligence and emotional labor in order to practice caring and responsiveness. Emotional labor skills imbue each of these components.

The proposed “NASPAA Standards 2009” reflect the need for a “correction.” These standards “should be focused on programs improving community governance, public service and public welfare,” according to Raffel, Maser, and McFarland (2007, p.1). Their assertion is motivated by the recognition that, “as the needs of the public sector change, NASPAA must undertake an earnest discussion of how to best educate and develop public affairs leaders, ensuring that graduates of accredited programs obtain the relevant and competitive skills and competencies they need to excel in public service professions” (NASPAA, 2008b, para.5). As the public sector changes, the needs of students preparing for public service also change.

Piskulich and Mandell (2007) pose the following question:

To the extent that the MPA and MPP degrees serve to indicate preparation to work in public sector organizations or to work on problems confronting public sector organizations, shouldn’t there be some “drop dead” competencies that all students achieve in our programs[?] (p.4).

Our answer is a resounding “yes” — competencies that support the inherent skills of person-to-person transactions are the essence of public service. In the “Draft of the NASPAA 2009 Standards & Self-Study Report Instructions,” proposed “2009 Universal Required Competencies” (Standard 6.1) are not dissimilar from the current “Common Curriculum Components” (Standard 4.21), namely,

• To lead and manage in public governance;• To participate in and contribute to the policy process;• To analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make

decisions;• To incorporate into decisions considerations of ethics, fiscal and

environmental sustainability, and social equity; and• To communicate and interact productively with diverse and changing

workforce and citizenry (Piskulich & Mandell, 2008, p.5).



Part of the differences is found in the fine print. In an (exciting) departure from the current standards, the following proposed cross-cutting skills from Piskulich & Mandell (2008) “are relevant for all the above mentioned competencies”:

• Demonstrate self-knowledge: Awareness of one’s own stylistic preferences for relating to others, communicating with others, making decisions, managing yourself in groups, and the impact that this has on relationships and your ability to influence others…

• Evidences sensitivity and responsiveness to beliefs and behaviors associated with differences among people because of their ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, physical characteristics, religion, age, etc.

• Demonstrate flexibility: Adapts behavior and work methods to differences (whether they are differences in thought, communication style, perspective, age, interests, fairness or some other variable)…

• Negotiate: Discerns the interests and values of others; surfaces assumptions; secures agreement on ground rules and tolerable outcomes; gains cooperation of others to accomplish goals…

• Facilitate: …[B]uilds actionable consensus…• Relates to all kinds of people and develops appropriate rapport that leads

to constructive and effective relationships…• Work productively in teams: Interacts effectively in a team,

demonstrating composure, professionalism and effective working relationships (Piskulich & Mandell, 2008, p.18).

This is the language of emotional labor and emotive skills.As we prepare our students to become practitioners in the professions of 21st-

century public service, attention to people skills and service-orientation is key. Emotional labor skills are at the heart of service delivery, and are integral to public sector reform. The leap of faith, which assumes that all types of public service work have all the same essentials, has enabled us to ignore a simple truth: Person-to-person interactions require skills that are not used in person-to-object interactions. A shift from “engineering of things to the engineering of people” requires attention to “the human element” (Noble, as cited in Stivers, 2003, p.217). To ground ourselves in “pure” rationality is to run the risk of ignoring “essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans” (Havel, as cited in Stivers, 1993, p.257).

As we move away from the “brick and mortar bureaucracy” of government (Giuliani, 2002, p.104), person-to-person transactions in the citizen-state encounter become more pronounced. Relationship, rapport, interaction, compassion, service, connectedness, and soulworkcomprise the vocabulary of this relational administrative perspective. The insight, anticipation, and tenor of the communication between persons prior to, during, and after the exchange require energy, focus, and sensing.



If a job requires its holders to project a particular feeling (e.g., politeness or toughness) or to elicit a feeling in someone else (e.g., trust or fear), then emotion work can do the job. The service person must deliberately involve his or her feelings in the situation. He or she may not particularly feel like being cordial and becoming a “one-minute” friend to the next customer or client who approaches, but that is indeed what frontline work entails (Wharton, 1993, p.208).

Connectivity and relationship-building are key leadership traits. So, too, are the skills of developing rapport and emotional engagement. The best administrators are people who are trustworthy, empathic, and connected — those who make us feel appreciated, inspired, and energized. Feeling connected refers to the concrete emotional links between leader, worker, and citizen. One powerful method for fostering such links is to build the attuned relationship between them.

A study of “what middle managers in local government actually do” (Morgan, Bacon, Bunch, Cameron, & Deis, 1996) reinforces this point and illustrates the centrality of emotional labor skills on the job. Their findings emphasize this observation by Stivers (2003):

Communication links between top executives and line personnel, interpreting and synthesizing the views of disparate constituencies, developing consensus, facilitating organizational and jurisdictional collaboration, stimulating intraorganizational cooperation, and in general creating a sense of community (p. 225).

Public servants who manage these relationship structures, and who are sensitive and skilled at the relational side of face-to-face public service, help to humanize government. If we are to emphasize and honor the peoplein public service — service providers and recipients alike — we must pay attention to how public servants work “feelingly” in the citizen-state encounter. Preparing our graduates to excel as a skilled partner in these exchanges is crucial.

While the words “emotive skills” and “emotional labor” are not found in the “NASPAA 2009 Standards & Self-Study Report Instructions” draft, the vocabulary of this language is clearly evident in the cross-cutting skills used as examples in the proposed set of “Universal Required Competencies.” The importance of relationship (and negotiation) skills was identified by a 2009 Standards discussion group as one of eight competencies that should be common across all programs. And the value of creating a quality learning environment implies the recognition of human processes. According to the “Provisional Guiding Principles” of the proposed 2009 standards, “the quality of education is determined in part by the way that students are educated and treated within the context of their program...includ[ing] quality advising, [and] the quality of



teaching,” as well as what is learned (Raffel, Maser, & McFarland, 2007, p.1). Similarly, a focus on “interpersonal skills, and cultural competencies” (p.3) are aligned with the importance of emotive skills. “Making a difference” and “changing the world” (p.2) are heady goals, and will require our graduates to be fluent in the artas well as the science of public administration. Now we move to where the devil resides — in the details. How can this new subject matter fit into the curriculum without having to add a course to the core?

HowtoTeachContentandStyleBy now you should be asking: How do you teach and measure enthusiasm,

empathy, non-verbal skills, caring, responsiveness, and so forth? Where does it fit into the curriculum? Emotion work fits comfortably into courses that focus on interpersonal relations, as well as overview courses that describe the nature of public service work. These include introductory courses such as “The Profession of Public Service,” “Introduction to Public Administration,” “Leadership in Public Service,” and similar subjects. Courses that focus on organizational dynamics include “Organization Development,” “Administrative Theory,” “Human Resource Management,” “Managing People,” “Public Management,” and so forth.

TalkingtheTalkIn terms of content, lectures should delineate the nature of emotion work as

contrasted with cognitive work; the relationship of and the difference between emotional intelligence and emotional labor; the skill requirements of emotion work as compared to knowledge work; the antecedents to and consequences of its performance — including the feeling of making a difference through one’s work, and affecting another person’s life, as well as the risk of burnout. Suggested readings and resource material are listed in the Appendix. Following is a sketch of how four main points can be covered.

Point 1: Explain emotional labor — including the relationship of and the contrast between emotional intelligence and the performance of emotion work.

While emotionalintelligence refers to a person’s innate ability to be aware of personal emotions and to sense the emotive state of another person, emotionallabor involves managing the emotional state of the self, as well as that of the other person. Artfulaffect is a useful term to explain the performance of emotional labor. This term captures the artful sensing of another’s emotional state, while crafting one’s own affective expressions so as to elicit a desired response. Practicing artful affect is both proactive and reactive. Proactive means the worker is required to anticipate the emotional state of the other person, and act to mitigate it. Reactive means the worker is required to respond to whatever emotional state the other person is in at the start of the interaction.



Point 2: Explain how and why emotional labor is exercised in public service jobs.For this, a list of jobs that require person-to-person exchanges can be

generated, and the nature of their transactions can be explored. In most classes, there will be students who have experience in a variety of jobs, and their involvement in class discussion will enrich a greater understanding of the dynamics. This discussion can be used as a platform for delineating required skills, such as sensing the emotive state of the citizen, determining the best affective response to achieve the goal of the transaction, controlling one’s own emotional state while responding, and resolving the uncomfortable feelings one may have after an exchange.

Point 3: Although the outcome is usually positive, there can be a negative result.Until recently, focus on the outcomes of emotional labor targeted only

the negative of employee burnout (e.g., Golembiewski & Munzenrider, 1988; Golembiewski, Munzenrider, & Stevenson, 1986). Current research confirms that burnout can result from the performance of emotion work, but it occurs less often than one might think. More importantly, the successful performance of emotion work results in extraordinarily high levels of job satisfaction, and provides workers with a sense that their work (a) has made a difference in someone’s life, (b) has meaning beyond bringing home a paycheck, (c) enhances job satisfaction, and (d) sustains their commitment to public service (Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008). Most recently, performance data indicate that those who receive public services give higher satisfaction ratings to workers who are skilled in emotion work (Hsieh & Guy, 2009).

Point 4: Relate the service component of the state-citizen exchange to the customer-service component of retail sales.

This will drive home the point that an emphasis on service is expected in many settings, and that while cognitive skills are important, affective skills, in essence, “seal the deal.” A citizen who is satisfied with services received is a citizen who is more likely to appreciate and support the work of the state. Workers who gain personal satisfaction from the job, and feel as if they are improving the lives of those served, are more likely to stay with the organization and to provide superior performance.

WalkingtheWalkDrama workshop: Engaging in emotional labor is akin to method acting

(Hochschild, 1983), so experiential learning in this area is an entirely appropriate way to develop students’ skills. McGill University management professor Henry Mintzberg (2009) incorporates drama workshops into the first module of his “International Masters Program in Practicing Management” (accessible online at www.impm.org). Developing a relationship with a faculty member from your



university’s theater department in order to facilitate at least one session with students goes a long way toward internalizing the principles of emotional labor in public service. Moreover, a drama workshop can spur enlightening discussions on the tension between the need to engage in deep acting, and the ethics of doing so.

Self-assessment: A range of assessment tools exists to help students discover their own communication styles. None of us communicate or exert emotional labor in the same way. Similar patterns exist, but discovering one’s personal style of communication helps students to better understand how they “do” emotional labor.

Available assessment methods can be as simple as self-administered paper and Web-based quizzes, or as complex as off-site, multi-day retreats facilitated by professionals. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is perhaps the most well-known, oft-used, and oft-imitated assessment instrument for a range of career- and psychological-based applications, and it includes styles of communication and interpersonal relations (Myers & Myers, 2009). HowtoBecomeaBetterNegotiator, by Luecke and Patterson (2008), is published by AMACOM, a division of the American Management Association. It includes a communication assessment tool that has been used by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the U.S. Army Military Intelligence School, among other institutions. What’sMyCommunicationStyle?(Teambuilders Plus, 2009) is a multi-media training and assessment program intended for use in a facilitated group context. The Forte Institute for Interpersonal Communication offers a series of interactive team-building seminars, executive communication preparation for meetings, coaching to improve communication performance for individuals and groups, and customized off-site retreats facilitated by certified professionals.

Class assignment: In conjunction with lectures on emotional labor, an assignment that helps students comprehend how it is exercised and experienced on the job reinforces the subject and aids learning. This can be achieved by asking students to interview a public service worker who regularly has person-to-person contact with citizens. This could include those who staff phone lines or who meet face-to-face with the public, but would exclude e-mail-only interactions, because they do not require emotional spontaneity. Eligible employees include public school teachers, social service workers, crisis line call-takers, police officers, firefighters, intake workers, probation counselors, courtroom staff, university admissions staff, employment training staff, and city hall receptionists, among many others.

Interview questions could include the following: (a) Tell me about your work, (b) Tell me about a case/interaction that sticks in your mind where the citizen/client was emotional, (c) How did you handle the situation?, (d) How did you feel about what happened after it was over?, (e) Does this sort of exchange happen often?, (f ) What does it take for you to put something like this behind you and face the next case/incident? In most cases, these questions will trigger sufficient discussion for the interviewer to probe more deeply and, in the process,



gain an understanding of the job and how one performs its required emotion work. Students also gain an understanding of how cognitive and emotive skills combine to produce what we call public service.

SummaryIn order to amplify students’ preparation for the human processes involved in

public service leadership and service delivery, we have argued the importance of incorporating the “invisible” aspect of public service work into the canon. In terms of producing positive exchanges between citizen and state, emotional labor skills are as important — if not more important — than cognitive skills. These skills require workers to manage their own emotions, as well as those of the citizen. The better we equip our MPA and MPP graduates to do this, the better public service they can provide. Think of emotion work as the art of public service, while the exercise of cognitive skills represents the science of public service. To put art and science together is to advance the practice of public service.

ReferencesAbel, E.K., & Nelson, M.K. (Eds.). (1990). Circles ofcare:Workandidentityinwomen’slives. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Baines, C., Evans, P., & Neysmith, S. (Eds.). (1998). Women’scaring:Feministperspectivesonsocialwelfare(2nd ed). Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.

Cherniss, G., & Goleman, D. (Eds.). (2001). Theemotionallyintelligentworkplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Forte Institute for Interpersonal Communications. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from www.theforteinstitute.com

Giuliani, R.W. (2002). From in line to on-line: The e-government revolution in New York City. In P.J. Andrisani, S. Hakim, & E.S. Savas (Eds.),Thenewpublicmanagement:Lessonsfrominnovatinggovernorsandmayors (pp. 99-106). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Golembiewski, R.T., & Munzenrider, R.F. (1988). Phasesofburnout:Developmentsinconceptsandapplications. New York: Praeger.

Golembiewski, R.T., Munzenrider, R.F., & Stevenson, J.G. (1986). Stressinorganizations:Towarda

phasemodelofburnout. New York: Praeger.

Guy, M.E., & Newman, M.A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. PublicAdministrationReview, 64(3), 289-98.

Guy, M.E., Newman, M.A., & Mastracci, S.H. (2008). Emotionallabor:Puttingtheserviceinpublicservice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Guy, M.E., Newman, M.A., & Mastracci, S.H. (2008, September). Arewethereyet?FromTaylor’striangletoFollett’sweb;Fromknowledgeworktoemotionwork. Paper presented at the Minnowbrook III conference, Lake Placid, NY.



Himmelweit, S. (1999, January). Caring labor. Annals,AAPSS, 561(1), 27-38.

Hochschild, A.R. (1983). Themanagedheart:Commercializationofhumanfeeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hsieh, C., & Guy, M.E. (2009). Performance outcomes: The relationship between managing the “heart” and managing client satisfaction. ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration,29(1), 41-57.

Hummel, R.P. (1987). Thebureaucraticexperience(3rd ed).New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Kiel, L.D., Bezboruah, K., & Oyun, G. (2009). Developing leaders in public affairs and administration: Incorporating emotional intelligence training into the core doctoral leadership course. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, 15(1), 87-105.

Kramer, R. (2003). Beyond Max Weber: Leading with emotional intelligence in post-communist governments. Proceedingsofthe10thAnnualConferenceofNetworkofInstitutesandSchoolsofPublicAdministrationinCentralandEasternEurope,Cracow, Poland.

Luecke, R.A., & Patterson, J.G. (2008). Howtobecomeabetternegotiator. New York, NY: AMACOM Publications.

Mastracci, S.H., Newman, M.A., & Guy, M.E. (2006). Appraising emotion work: Determining whether emotional labor is valued in government jobs. AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration, 36(2), 123-38.

Mintzberg, H. (2009). IMPM: The international masters program in practicing management. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from www.impm.org

Morgan, D., Bacon, K.G., Bunch, R., Cameron, C.D., & Deis, R. (1996). What middle managers do in local government: Stewardship of the public trust and the limits of reinventing government. PublicAdministrationReview, 56(3), 359-365.

Myers, P.B., & Myers, K.D. (2009) Myers-Briggs type indicator. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from www.mbti.com

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2008a). FAQ. Retrieved September 13, 2008, from http://www.naspaa.org/students/faq/faq.asp#question_1

NASPAA. (2008b). NASPAAstandards2009:Definingqualityinpublicaffairseducation. Retrieved

September 18, 2008, from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/standard2009/main.asp

Newman, M.A., & Guy, M.E. (1998) Taylor’s triangle, Follett’s web. AdministrativeTheory&Praxis, 20(3): 287-297.

Piskulich, M., & Mandell, M. (2008, March). NASPAA Standards 2009 (working draft). Curricularcompetencies:NASPAAwhitepaper. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/document/WhitePaperCompetencies.pdf

Raffel, J., Maser, S., & McFarland, L. (2007, September). NASPAAstandards2009:Publicservicevalues,mission-basedaccreditation(working draft).Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/standard2009/docs/NS2009Standards03.26.08.pdf



Ritzer, G. (2004). TheMcDonaldizationofsociety. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stivers, C. (2003). Administration versus management: A reading from beyond the boundaries. Administration&Society, 35(2), 210-230.

Stivers, C. (1993). Rationality and romanticism in constitutional argument. PublicAdministrationReview, 53(3), 254-257.

Teambuilders Plus. (1997-2009). What’smycommunicationstyle? (3rd ed.). Retrieved June 17, 2009, from www.teambuildinginc.com

Thompson, G. J. (2006). Verbaljudo:Thegentleartofpersuasion. NY: Harper Collins Reprints. Retrieved September 13, 2008, from www.verbaljudo.com

Weber, M. (1970/1946). MaxWeber:Essaysinsociology. Translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wharton, A.S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job. WorkandOccupations,20(2), 205-32.

Sharon Mastracci is an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She studies public personnel policies, the changing labor force, policies affecting low-wage workers, and gender and diversity dynamics in the workplace. She is the 2010 recipient of the Rita Mae Kelley award for outstanding research in gender-related issues. E-mail: [email protected]

Meredith A. Newman is Professor and Chair of the Department of Public Administration at Florida International University. Prior to her career in academia, Newman served with the Australian Foreign Service, the U.S. Department of State, and the World Bank. She is widely published in the areas of public management, human resources and gender, and the emotive aspects of work. Newman is an Associate Editor of Review forPublicPersonnelAdministration; past Chair of the Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation of NASPAA; incoming President of the American Society for Public Administration; and a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. E-mail: [email protected]

Mary E. Guy is Professor and MPA Director in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her work focuses on the changing workforce, the difference that “differentness” makes, and the role of emotional labor in the delivery of public services. She is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and past-president of the American Society for Public Administration. E-mail: [email protected]



AppendixSuggestedLiterature

Here are two lists of readings that will help faculty to understand the topic and prepare lectures. The first set of readings pertains to emotional labor in public service settings. The second set of readings pertains to scholarship on the subject in the literature of other disciplines.

ReadingsinpublicadministrationscholarshipBurnier, D. (2003). Other voices/other rooms: Towards a care-centered public administration.

AdministrativeTheory&Praxis, 25(4), 529-44.

Guy, M.E., Newman, M.A., & Mastracci, S.H. (2008). Emotionallabor:Puttingtheserviceinpublicservice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Guy, M.E., & Newman, M.A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor.

PublicAdministrationReview, 64(3), 289-98.

Hsieh, C. & Guy, M.E. (2009). Performance outcomes: The relationship between managing the “heart” and managing client satisfaction. Manuscript submitted for publication inReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration.

Mastracci, S.H., Newman, M.A., & Guy, M.E. (2006). Appraising emotion work: Determining whether emotional labor is valued in government jobs. AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration, 36(2), 123-38.

Meier, K.J., Mastracci, S.H., & Wilson, K. (2006). Gender and emotional labor in public organization: An empirical examination of the link to performance. PublicAdministrationReview, 66(6), 899-909.

Stivers, C. (2005). A place like home: Care and action in public administration. AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration, 35(1), 26-41.

ReadingsfromotherdisciplinesAdelmann, P.K. (1995). Emotional labor as a potential source of job stress. In S.L. Sauter & L.R.

Murphy (Eds.), Organizationalriskfactorsforjobstress(pp. 371-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ashkanasy, N.M., Härtel, C.E.J., & Zerbe, W.J. (Eds.). (2000). Emotionsintheworkplace:Research,theory,andpractice. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Barger, P.B., & Grandey, A.A. (2006). Service with a smile and encounter satisfaction: Emotional contagion and appraisal mechanisms. AcademyofManagementJournal, 49(6), 1229-1238.

Brotheridge, C.M., & Grandey, A.A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of people work. JournalofVocationalBehavior, 61, 17-39.

Diefendorff, J.M., & Gosserand, R.H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor process: A control theory perspective. JournalofOrganizationalBehavior, 24, 945-959.



Domagalski, T.A. (1999). Emotion in organizations: Main currents. HumanRelations, 52(6), 833-852.

Erickson, R.J. (1997). Putting emotions to work. In D.D. Franks, R.J. Erickson & B. Cuthbertson-Johnson (Eds.), Socialperspectivesonemotion(pp. 3-18). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Fineman, S. (Ed.). (1993). Emotionsinorganizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Grandey, A.A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. JournalofOccupationalHealthPsychology, 5(1), 95-110.

Härtel, C.E.J., Zerbe, W.J., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (Eds.). (2005). Emotionsinorganizationalbehavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heuven, E., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., & Huisman, N. (2006). The role of self-efficacy in performing emotional work. JournalofVocationalBehavior, 69, 222-235.

Hochschild, A.R. (1983). Themanagedheart:Commercializationofhumanfeeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hochschild, A.R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. AmericanJournalofSociology, 85(3), 551-75.

Liu, Y., Perrewé, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., & Kacmar, C.J. (2004). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of emotional labor at work. JournalofLeadership&OrganizationalStudies, 10(4), 12-25.

Lord, R.G., Klimoski, R.J., & Kanfer, R. (Eds.). (2002). Emotionsintheworkplace:Understandingthestructureandroleofemotionsinorganizationalbehavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pugh, S.D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter. AcademyofManagementJournal, 44(5), 1018-1027.

Zerbe, W.J. (2000). Emotional dissonance and employee well-being. In N.M. Ashkanasy et al. (Eds.), Emotionsintheworkplace:Research,theory,andpractice (pp.189-214). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.



Preparing for and Responding to Student Incivilities:

Starting the Dialogue in Public Affairs Education

Stan BarrettStateUniversityofNewYork,Cortland

Nadia Rubaii-BarrettBinghamtonUniversity,StateUniversityofNewYork

John PelowskiBinghamtonUniversity,StateUniversityofNewYork

AbstractAlmost all faculty, even those in graduate public affairs programs, will at some time encounter incivility in the classroom. How we respond sends an important message about how we as individuals, programs, and a profession value civility. Master’s of Public Administration and Master’s of Public Policy programs have a particular responsibility to graduate individuals who not only have substantive expertise but also meet the highest standards of civility. In this essay, we present a series of recommendations for how individuals, programs, and institutions might respond to incivility. While not all of these recommendations will be appropriate for all programs, and some may be perceived as more troubling than the problem they are intended to address, we hope that they will to serve as the starting point in stimulating discussion of this issue within programs and across the profession.

IntroductionEvidence of increasing incidents of incivilities and in some cases outright

violence are well-documented in educational settings ranging from K-12 (Hansen, 1991; Kaufman & Burbach, 1998; Stewart, 1998; Thernstrom, 1999) through undergraduate levels (Benton, 2007; Boice, 1996; Clayton, 2000; Gonzalez & Lopez, 2001; Hernández & Fister, 2001), and including

JPAE16(2):143–159


the professional public sector workplace (Chenier, 1998; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Vickers, 2006). Within graduate programs it is unclear whether incivility is a problem that is trickling up from the K-16 ranks to be encountered with increasing regularity, or whether it will continue to be limited to isolated incidents. In either case, it seems relatively certain that, with enough time in the classroom, all faculty — even those teaching in professional Master’s of Public Administration (MPA) and Master’s of Public Policy (MPP) programs — are likely to encounter incivility. In this essay we suggest that it is time for public affairs programs to examine the extent to which they are prepared for incivilities and to consider and discuss appropriate ways to respond.

The instructional role of faculty in higher education is to assign students relevant and challenging tasks, guide them in their learning of new knowledge and skills, evaluate the quality of their performance, and assign grades in a manner that reflects appropriate evaluation criteria (Benton, 2007). In professional graduate degree programs, faculty have the added responsibility of inculcating students with professional values, and ensuring that they are prepared for positions of responsibility in their selected fields (Curry & Wergin, 1993). While preparing students for positions of public service leadership, graduate programs in public affairs have a heightened responsibility to demonstrate awareness of and effective response to incivility, and to ensure that our degrees attest, not only to substantive expertise and knowledge, but also to standards of conduct. Leadership of public service organizations necessarily entails the process of engaging in civil discourse that addresses complex and often controversial policy issues, and places collective interests above individual interests for the good of the organization and community.

In this essay we make the case for a proactive response to incivility on the part of MPA and MPP programs. We present a framework for institutional- and programmatic-level action that includes clear policies, training for all parties, swift response to even minor incivilities, a support network for the targets of incivilities, and serious consequences for those who do not improve their conduct. We also suggest a more cautious approach to admitting and embracing new students. Beyond that, we introduce the concept of civility efficiency and suggest it as a long-term strategy for promoting greater civility within our programs and public service professions. While not all of these recommendations will be appropriate for all programs, and some may even be perceived as antithetical to other public service values or cultural norms of a program, we are hopeful that this essay will generate dialogue about the challenge of student incivilities and foster more deliberation about what individual faculty and any given public affairs program might consider as appropriate actions. Before presenting our recommendations, a brief review of the concept of student incivilities is in order.

PreparingforandRespondingtoStudentIncivilities


ExamplesofStudentIncivilitiesStudent incivilities can be grouped in four categories, according to the level

of severity: (a) simple annoyances, (b) intimidation, (c) “classroom terrorism,” and (d) threats of violence (Feldmann, 2001).1 Simple annoyances are seemingly harmless activities such as chatting with other students during class, repeatedly arriving late, or being demonstrably unprepared for or uninterested in discussion. Intimidation may involve placing pressure on the instructor by threatening to take unresolved complaints to a department chair, dean or other administrator. “Classroom terrorism” (in Feldmann’s taxonomy) occurs when a student is overtly intolerant of the opinions of classmates or the instructor, uses foul or other inappropriate language to express dissatisfaction with the grade on an assignment, or insists upon deadline extensions when they are not offered or negotiated. The most serious category of incivility is when one student threatens a classmate, the instructor, the program, or the institution with some form of harm or violence (Feldmann, 2001).

Technology creates new avenues for expressing incivility (Nworie & Haughton, 2008; Kolanko, Clark, Heinrich, Olive, Serembus, & Sifford, 2006). Students accustomed to using e-mail, instant messaging, and social network sites for casual communication with friends may bring a level of informality to their electronic communications with faculty along with an expectation of immediate responses from faculty at any hour of the day, on any day of the week. Text-messaging, checking e-mail, watching DVDs, or playing computer games are modern technological annoyances that affect the classroom setting. Misuse of sites such as RateMyProfessors.com are a technological means of intimidation, and cyberbullies in general are a 21st-century form of terrorism (Dickerson, 2005).

Student incivility has been attributed to a number of factors, including psychological pathologies (Feldmann, 2001), racist and misogynistic beliefs (Alexander-Snow, 2004; Hendrix, 2007), and the lack of consequences for misconduct (Bray & Del Favero, 2004). To the extent that racism or sexism are contributing factors, women and minority faculty may be disproportionately targeted (Alexander-Snow, 2004). Adjunct, non-tenured faculty, and others who are perceived as vulnerable or as lacking institutional support to take substantial action against a student also are likely to be targets of incivilities (Hernández & Fister, 2001; Feldmann, 2001; Williams, 2007).

Some scholars have attributed the growing problem of student incivility to a concept broadly labeled as the “entitlement society.” As applied to education, the entitlement society refers to a cohort of students who have the attitude that, because they have paid tuition to enroll in their courses, they are automatically entitled to good grades and college degrees (Hansen, 1991; Hernández & Fister, 2001; Kilmer, 1998; Stewart, 1998). These students think they should not have to engage in rigorous work, attend class or turn in assignments when required, nor should they be required to behave appropriately in class (Hansen, 1991). To



the extent that incivilities arise from the entitlement mentality, the atmosphere of many graduate programs may exacerbate the problem. Formalities, such as the use of titles, may be foregone in an effort to promote an environment of bi-directional and collaborative learning. The invitation to interact with professors on a collaborative basis may be interpreted by those with an entitlement mindset as faculty docility, weakness and vulnerability.

We do not endeavor to assess whether incivilities are attributable to a sense of entitlement. Rather, we assert that, regardless of the underlying reason for student incivilities, the fact that such behavior “interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere in the classroom” (Feldmann, 2001, p. 137) is sufficient to warrant our attention.

PreventingandRespondingtoIncidentsofIncivilityIn considering how to address the challenge of classroom incivilities,

we examine existing literature and also draw upon our diverse individual experiences. The three of us were motivated to write about this topic because we had each experienced incivilities, albeit in different contexts and in different ways, based on our individual circumstances. Nadia Rubaii-Barrett is a tenured public administration faculty member with experience as a program director, a director of graduate studies, and a department chair. As both a faculty member and an administrator, she has documented an increasing frequency and severity of incidents of incivility among graduate students over the past 20 years, and has been frustrated by the lack of adequate programmatic and institutional mechanisms to respond. Stan Barrett also has a combination of administrative and teaching experience, although his teaching positions have been on an adjunct basis and thus inherently are more tenuous. His experience supports what literature suggests about the vulnerability of adjunct faculty in the face of student intimidation, and in the absence of clear policies and administrative support. As a graduate student in two professional master’s degree programs, John Pelowski has observed students intimidating instructors with impunity, and also felt threatened by other students. Our collective experiences clearly inform our perceptions of this problem, as well as the ideas we propose.

We begin by identifying some general recommendations that are grounded in higher-education literature and that we consider to be necessary, but not sufficient, for public affairs programs. Following this, we provide some additional recommendations that are specific to graduate MPA and MPP programs. At this later stage we endeavor to push the reader beyond the general comfort level, as a means of encouraging dialogue and discourse. General Recommendations

A number of sources provide detailed plans for preventing, attempting to remedy, or for imposing punishments for classroom incivility (Hendrix,



2007; Hernández & Fister, 2001; Hirschy & Braxton, 2004; Kilmer, 1998). The shared characteristics of these plans are (a) clearly stated and consistently applied policies and practices, (b) education and training for all students, faculty, staff and administrators involved with the policies, (c) swift response to minor incivilities, (d) a support network for faculty who experience student incivilities, and (e) serious consequences for students who do not improve their conduct in response to early interventions. [See Table 1]

Table 1. MeetingtheChallengeofStudentIncivilities:GeneralRecommendationsforInstitutions

1. Clearly state and consistently enforce policies regarding incivilities.2. Deliver comprehensive education and training to all students, faculty,

staff, and administrators involved in the policies. 3. Ensure that all instructors swiftly respond to minor incivilities. 4. Provide a support network for faculty who experience student incivilities. 5. Impose serious consequences for students who do not improve their

conduct in response to early interventions.

Step1:AdoptClear,Institution-WidePoliciesInstitutions must have clear policies that are universally understood

and consistently enforced. Specifically, the institution needs (a) policies that define categories of uncivil actions and behaviors, (b) processes that delineate appropriate actions on the part of instructors and/or administrators, and (c) programs designed to educate and support university employees and students (Hernández & Fister, 2001). An important first step in standardizing the institutional response to incivility is a faculty and staff handbook that details behavioral policies and disciplinary procedures for a wide array of student conduct, and that identifies campus resources (Hernández & Fister, 2001). The comprehensive system can be based around a university’s counseling center, and must combine (a) logistical and emotional support for faculty members who have experienced classroom incivility and (b) systemic policies to deal with incivilities in a consistent and predictable manner — no matter where or under whose watch they are committed (Hernández & Fister, 2001).

Step2:EducateandTrainAllStudents,Faculty,StaffandAdministratorsPolicies are only as good as their implementation. Faculty, staff, and



administrators need to receive regular training in the evolving psychology of the modern college student, the various categories of incivility and the different degrees of danger that they present, and the methods that can be used to de-escalate classroom situations (Hernández & Fister, 2001). This training needs to be part of faculty orientation for adjunct instructors and new tenure-track faculty, and part of a professional development process for long-term, tenured professors.

It is equally important to educate students about these policies so that they understand the expectations for civil conduct and the consequences of incivility. This information can be conveyed in student handbooks and syllabi, and discussed during student orientations and initial class sessions (Gonzalez & Lopez, 2001; Hirschy & Braxton, 2004; Kilmer, 1998). Students may not recognize their behaviors as falling under the definitions of incivility or misconduct. Fully 90 percent of Americans say that incivility is a problem, but 99 percent claim that their own behavior is civil (as cited in Kauffman & Burbach, 1998). Instructors therefore must provide students with concrete examples of proper and improper conduct. This discussion will (a) ensure that students have a better understanding of class policies and procedures, (b) reduce the likelihood of incivilities, and (c) diminish grounds for student grievances later in the semester if interventions or sanctions are necessary. Step3:SwiftlyRespondtoMinorIncivilities

Once all parties have been educated on both the nature of the problem and the institution’s policies, it is essential that every instructor commit to the recognition of and the response to minor incivilities before they escalate. While most people recognize that threats or acts of physical violence against other students, colleagues, or the program/institution must be dealt with swiftly and severely (Gonzalez & Lopez, 2001), there often is less agreement on the need to respond to seemingly minor incivilities.

Some instructors are in the habit of ignoring minor acts of incivility, in hopes that they will dissipate in time. This failure to address the behaviors and actions of rude and disrespectful students has the effect of condoning them (Feldmann, 2001). When taken in combination, annoying behaviors such as talking during the presentation of material or habitual lateness can have an impact on the class that is comparable to less frequent, but more serious, incivilities. The cumulative effect of minor incivilities takes valuable time away from the instructor that could have been spent on the needs of other students or on completing the intended lessons.

Other faculty may hesitate to address incivilities when the perpetrators are students with strong academic records. As faculty, we tend to be better equipped to assess academic performance than we are to evaluate student conduct. Yet it is arguably no more appropriate for faculty to measure academic performance



solely on intellect and knowledge, without regard for the incivilities displayed by a student, than it would be for a supervisor to base evaluations on job performance, without regard for an employee’s conduct violations.

Responding to minor incivilities in the classroom is analogous to James Q. Wilson’s “broken windows” theory (Thernstrom, 1999). Just as unrepaired or vacant property invites more serious crime into a neighborhood, annoyances that are not remedied also contribute to a classroom structure where more serious incivilities can become commonplace. Students who are emboldened by being allowed to act inappropriately in one classroom may be empowered to act out in other classes, thereby potentially harming the teaching and learning environment for colleagues and all other students in a program. If every professor were to take immediate action when mild misbehavior occurred, we believe it would not only help prevent the escalation to violence but also would reinforce the value of civility. Although some faculty may not find minor conduct violations to be offensive, they have a responsibility to their colleagues, the other students, and the institution to participate in sending a consistent and strong message. Living with good policy requires each person to give up some autonomy, but this sacrifice is offset by the desirability of the resulting collective benefit.

Some minor incivilities can be used as “teaching moments” within the classroom setting. When a student expresses dissatisfaction about a policy, the instructor can facilitate a discussion among students about interpersonal behaviors and styles of communication as an example of a management problem they may encounter in the workplace. In the process of problem-solving, a discussion of group norms can emerge to guide the behavior of all students. Similarly, an instructor can use an incident as an opportunity to redirect students’ behaviors to more constructive uses. For example, a student who is observed to surf the Web during class can be enlisted to search for class-related sites to be shared with the group. In these instances, all students have the opportunity to benefit from what otherwise could have been a disruptive situation. An added benefit of these “teaching moments” is that they provide the opportunity to differentiate between behaviors that, while different from the norm, may simply be cultural in how respect is demonstrated, as opposed to truly uncivil behaviors that reflect a lack of respect.

In addition to using initial incidents of incivilities as opportunities for classroom learning, a meeting between the faculty member and the involved student or students is usually sufficient (Hendrix, 2007; Hernández & Fister, 2001; Tiberius & Flak, 1999). The goal of such a meeting is to increase understanding and to work collaboratively on identifying solutions. In our experience, most students will recognize this type of meeting as an indication that the professor is trying to help them improve. Students who accept responsibility for their own conduct and work with the professor to develop solutions should be allowed to continue in the class without consequences if



they mend their ways. Similarly, if the meeting reveals that the incivilities were a reaction to what the student perceived as disrespect, rudeness or condescension from the instructor, the two parties can reach agreement on how to address that concern as well (Boice, 1996).

Of course, not all students will respond positively to an initial intervention meeting. Confronting a student about disruptive behavior can trigger a disproportionately hostile response. An individual student who has been asked to amend personal actions may lash out with accusations of being discriminated against unfairly or deprived of an opportunity to participate or be heard. Continuation of problem behavior or post-meeting hostility undermines the efficacy of an instructor’s teaching process, and is personally demoralizing. More extreme misbehavior may covertly or overtly intimidate other students into silence, which in turn can impede their ability to learn.

Step4:ProvideaSupportNetworkforFacultyWhen an instructor’s initial attempts to curtail incivilities through classroom

dialogue or private meetings do not lead to improved student conduct, it is particularly important to have a support network. After experiencing an incivility, faculty often are confused about how to respond. They may question their handling of the situation, wonder how serious a threat the offending student poses, and feel anger or sadness about the disrespect shown by the student. Department chairs and deans, many of whom rise from the ranks of faculty without any advanced training on this issue, are often just as unprepared for responding to student incivilities as the individual faculty member. As such, universities must identify qualified staff and make them available to assist or take the lead as necessary at any point in the timeline.

Communication with a special liaison from the university’s counseling center can help faculty regain their equilibrium, better assess the student’s behavior, and help them prepare for any necessary disciplinary proceedings (Hernández & Fister, 2001). Links to trained counseling personnel are important not only because a fraction of the offending students may have psychological conditions that warrant treatment, but also because of potential psychological harm to the targeted faculty member. Counseling center employees can facilitate group meetings of instructors, including regular faculty, adjuncts, and teaching assistants, where they share their experiences about uncivil students (Clayton, 2000; Hernández & Fister, 2001). This is particularly important if only one instructor in a department or program is experiencing or recognizing the student misconduct. These types of meetings open campus channels of communication and help mitigate the sense of isolation, embarrassment, anger, sadness or guilt that professors may feel when they are the targets of incivilities. These gatherings also may help the faculty develop more advanced and effective strategies for dealing with problematic student behavior, and minimizing its impact on the learning setting as a whole.



Step5:ImposeSeriousConsequencesforContinuedIncivilitiesIf students are unwilling to acknowledge their improper conduct, they may

become defensive, shift blame to the professor, and escalate problem behavior. In these cases, documentation of classroom incivility becomes crucial (Feldmann, 2001; Hendrix, 2007; Hernández & Fister, 2001). As with a misconduct issue in an employment context, the instructor should carefully note the time, date, location, and nature of any incident, as well as any meetings with students or administrators, and agreements reached. Such documentation can become essential if a student escalates the level of incivility to a point where the removal from a class or program is warranted.

Removing students who do not conform to standards of civility is clearly a last resort, but it is essential that institutions and programs do not inadvertently convey that nothing can or will be done unless and until a student makes overt threats of violence. Removal should not be limited to those who actually commit or explicitly threaten violence; this is a threshold that should never have to be crossed. Programs and institutions need to balance the safety, security, and learning environment for the other students and the faculty member, and not focus exclusively on the rights of the student engaging in incivility. Additional Recommendations for Public Affairs Programs

The recommendations discussed so far generally are applicable for programs at all levels and in any discipline. Given the positions of public trust that MPA and MPP programs prepare students for, it is particularly important that they promote civility. As such, we consider the prior recommendations as a necessary but insufficient response on the part of graduate programs in public affairs. Our programs must certify not only technical and substantive expertise, but also professional norms, values and conduct. Vickers (2006) acknowledges that the literary canon of public administration is replete with articles on the theory and practice of leadership, teamwork, management, efficiency, and effectiveness. The concern shared by Vickers (2006) and a growing group of theorists and practitioners is hardly about a lack of skill or knowledge in the profession at large, but rather is about the lack of humanity and decency in practical application. A failure to address incivilities would only exacerbate the problem.

To the extent that we encounter incivilities among students in our programs, we cannot simply pass along the problems to the profession. Intolerant and condescending interactions in the classroom are likely to be mirrored in the workplace if the perpetrators become convinced that such behaviors are both effective at producing desired results, and tolerated by those in senior authority positions (Kauffman & Burbach, 1998). Students who challenge their professors without consequence will be inclined to disrespect their supervisors at work. Similarly, students who bully and intimidate their classmates may end up thinking they can exert such pressures on coworkers. In a workplace that is



increasingly dependent on the use of diverse teams to accomplish complex tasks in the public interest, and with the need to facilitate public participation on issues that are often emotionally charged, civility on the part of public administrators is a prerequisite and not a luxury.

Public affairs faculty may find disconcerting the notion of needing to address incivilities within a professional graduate program that is devoted to public service, but it should come as no surprise. As James Madison noted in Federalist51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Even in programs devoted to public service, some students will need policies, controls, and sanctions to ensure that they do not engage in abusive expressions of self interest. Preempting incivilities may well require actions that many professors consider antithetical to the reasons they chose to teach at the graduate level. The recommendations presented earlier represent the first step. Additional steps to consider include the following: (a) more thorough screening in the admissions process, (b) clear articulation of competencies regarding civility, (c) requiring students to sign civility contracts, (d) requiring students to earn rights of full inclusion, and (e) commitment to the concept of civility efficiency. [See Table 2]

Table 2.MeetingtheChallengeofStudentIncivilities:SupplementalRecommendationsforPublicAffairsPrograms

1. Engage in more thorough screening during the admissions process. 2. Clearly articulate competencies regarding civility. 3. Have students sign civility contracts. 4. Require students to earn inclusion. 5. Actively promote civility efficiency.

As stated earlier in this essay, the recommendations presented here are intended to generate discussion about options and implications, rather than to serve as a universal blueprint for how programs should respond. These ideas are largely drawn from methods used within professional work contexts. We present them here as techniques worthy of consideration, albeit largely unproven. Step1:ConductThoroughAdmissionsScreening

If prevention of disruptive incivilities is a desired goal, one option is to



more carefully screen applicants in order to identify and deny admission to those with the propensity for incivility. Drawing upon the lessons from the field of employment selection, there are several options available to gather more information during the admissions review process. One approach might be to check social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn. Human resources management officials in both public and private sectors use these sites to gather background information on prospective employees. Applicants’ online public profiles are examined to see whether they portray an individual who has a fondness for jokes that might create a hostile work environment, engages in risky or illegal behavior, regularly uses foul language, posts revealing pictures, or complains extensively about supervisors, coworkers, or instructors (Lane, 2008).

Alternatively, programs could use professional background checks to gather more consistent information about each applicant. Some programs in the fields of nursing, law and social work have entered into contracts with private firms for professional background checks to be conducted on applicants. This may seem like an extreme action, but arguably it may be necessary to protect programs from allegations that they contributed to harm. The concept of negligent hiring is well-established in employment settings as a factor that contributes to workplace violence and employer liabilities (Kondrasuk, Moore & Wang, 2001). A similar concept of negligent admissions could apply in education settings if programs limit their admissions decisions to academic measures and, subsequently, students or faculty are harmed by the foreseeable actions of a person who was admitted to the program. Step2:DefineCivilityasaCoreCompetency

A challenge for public affairs programs seeking to delineate measurable competencies is that a lack of civility does not always translate into a lack of academic ability. Some very intelligent students openly demonstrate incivilities, while other students are unwilling to invest their efforts in completing assignments, but will work diligently to beguile their peers and educators into thinking that they are earnest. As we prepare students to meet the accountability challenges they will face in public service professions, we also must practice what we preach. A public administration program that is unable to successfully define its boundaries with policies that are carefully crafted and consistently implemented ceases to be a credible source of policy knowledge and training. Graduates who secure positions of responsibility and then demonstrate a lack of civility have the potential to discredit not only an individual program, but also the branding of an MPA/MPP degree.

Competence in civility can be assessed at the level of individual classes, as well as at the broader programmatic level. Within courses, civility should be a universal theme and a skill that is regularly evaluated. At a program level, a code of conduct can articulate expectations and consequences. Examples



abound in other professional degree programs that have adopted professional codes of conduct. Drawing from the fields of social work, nursing, counseling, and medicine — as well as from the professional codes of ethics used by the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), and other associations — public affairs programs can craft codes for their students that address conduct within and outside the classroom, and hold students to standards of honesty, integrity, and civility. Step3:HaveStudentsSignCivilityContracts

One way to convey the importance of civility to students is to require that they sign a civility contract, where they acknowledge their responsibilities to contribute to a respectful learning environment, and the consequences of failing to do so. In pursuit of the worthy goal of protecting students’ individual rights, many institutions and programs have lost sight of, or only give lip service to, student responsibilities. A civility contract could help restore some balance to the relationship. To determine provisions of the contract and to monitor student compliance, programs would decide where, when, by whom, and under what circumstances misconduct data could be gathered. Would monitoring be conducted only during class sessions or activities on school property, or would it extend to actions off school property if they are linked to the program? This proposal may be inadequate for identifying those who quietly agitate the ranks of the program, but never directly act out in the presence of faculty. It would serve as a supplement to institution-wide policies and would reinforce the message to students about the high value placed on respectful conduct — both in school and in their future professions. Civility contracts are particularly important if course grades continue to be based on academic performance, without regard for conduct. This would provide an administrative means for removing disruptive students who otherwise have acceptable academic records. Step4:HaveStudentsEarnFullAdmission

Most public sector positions include a period of probationary status. Hirees are accorded regular employment status only after a period of six months or a year, where the employee demonstrates the knowledge, skills, and abilities related to job tasks, and compliance with the norms of the organization. Similar notions of earned inclusion could be applied to the graduate student context. This would require rethinking the way that new students are welcomed into graduate programs. Many programs grant full admission status based purely on academic criteria. Only those who have questionable academic records are admitted conditionally or on a probationary basis. We are not advocating a lowered level of priority for academic standards, but we do suggest an additional consideration for demonstrated competence in civility.

Students will be granted regular admission status, and full privileges of informality and inclusion in departmental decision-making only after they



demonstrate their intellectual and attitudinal dedication to the program, This is not an argument for curtailing the access that new students have to faculty and peer support. It instead is a call for professors to more warily monitor the conduct and scholarship of first-semester students in particular, and to treat the first semester as a probationary period, even for those students whose academic records warrant regular admission status.

In an undergraduate context, it is widely accepted that the foundation of a civil or uncivil classroom is established within the first four days of class (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). For graduate seminars that often meet only once per week, this means that a few unexpected incivilities could catch a professor off guard on the first day of class, and set the tone for the entire semester. By extension, the overall civility of a cohort group in a two-year graduate program might be well-established in the first half of the students’ first semester. Even in the absence of a cohort model, impressions formed during a student’s first semester can have a lingering effect. The responses that various behaviors receive during this time will determine how hard the most audacious students are willing to push faculty and fellow students. Although some behavioral probing may occur when new teachers are encountered in future semesters, this can be minimized if students are made aware that the faculty stand as a united front against student incivility. This can be demonstrated by addressing all student incivilities that occur in the initial half-semester time frame — however minor — in a firm, direct, and consistent manner that leaves no question about how serious these actions are. Step5:ActivelyPromote“CivilityEfficiency”

Given our personal experiences with incivilities, along with the documented rise of classroom incivility experienced at the K-12 and undergraduate levels, we are concerned that this may well be one of the defining challenges in future graduate education. Successfully addressing this problem will require institutions and programs to develop creative new methods of promoting civility. Screening for potential problems, monitoring student conduct, and responding swiftly and decisively to even minor incivilities are important components of a systematic response. We would be remiss if we did not also offer some ideas on how to promote civility. For that purpose, we propose the concept of “civility efficiency,” and suggest that public affairs programs engage in a concerted effort to promote it. As we envision it, civility efficiency is much like energy efficiency. Like conservation of energy, we need to make civility more appealing and easier to achieve, and make incivility more costly and less desirable for students who might otherwise be tempted to engage in this behavior.

Granted, the process of promoting civility and responding effectively to incivilities requires effort; so too does conservation of energy. Like energy efficiency, which once was considered a quaint and novel idea that was pursued only by the most ardent environmentalists, the academy initially may be



skeptical of the need for a concerted effort to promote civility efficiency. To continue the parallel, when the true costs of energy become apparent in the form of higher prices for gasoline, home heating oil, and electricity, people are more willing to alter their behaviors to use less energy. And once people begin to make changes — whether they are driving less frequently, setting their thermostats a bit lower, or installing compact fluorescent light bulbs — these practices become the new norm. Similarly, we assert that the initial transition to a proactive and comprehensive approach to student incivilities will be difficult, but once enough people make a commitment to civility efficiency, it can be self-sustaining, and also generate rewards at both the individual and community levels.

From a global climate perspective, energy conservation would have been more effective much earlier if it had widespread support (backed by changes in consumer behavior). Similarly, we contend that our programs and the professions we serve will realize the greatest benefits if we take steps now to make incivility a more costly undertaking for today’s students, rather than waiting for more widespread evidence of incivilities.

Public affairs programs are ideally suited to take the lead in promoting civility efficiency as a means to foster greater civility throughout the public service professions. Investing the energies of our educational institutions in the process of creating civility-based partnerships for learning remains a worthy cause, and one that public affairs programs have a clear stake in.

Conclusion “Higher-education institutions are simply microcosms of the world

around them” (Silverman, 2008, p. A51). To the extent that the world includes incivilities, it should come as no surprise that we will encounter incivilities in the classroom as well. Given the unique responsibilities of MPA and MPP programs for preparing the next generation of public service professionals, it behooves us to begin a dialogue about conduct expectations in our programs, and how we can and should respond to incivilities within individual classrooms, within programs, and across the discipline. We hope that the ideas presented in this paper serve as a starting point for those conversations.



ReferencesAlexander-Snow, M. (2004). Dynamics of gender, ethnicity, and race in understanding classroom

incivility. NewDirectionsforTeachingandLearning,99, 21-31. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Benton, T.H. (2007, December). Fearing our students. TheChronicleofHigherEducation, December 14, Section C, pp. 2, 4.

Boice, B. (1996). Classroom incivilities. ResearchinHigherEducation, 37(4), 453-485.

Bray, N.J., & Del Favero, M.D. (2004). Sociological explanations for faculty and student classroom incivilities. NewDirectionsforTeachingandLearning,99, 9-19.

Chenier, E. (1998). The workplace: A battleground for violence. PublicPersonnelManagement, 27, 557-568.

Clayton, M. (2000). Professors struggle to rout out rudeness. ChristianScienceMonitor,92(82), 16.

Curry, L., Wergin, J.F., & Associates. (1993). Educatingprofessionals:Respondingtonewexpectationsforcompetenceandaccountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dickerson, D. (2005). Cyberbullies on campus. TheUniversityofToledoLawReview, 37(1). Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www.utlaw.edu/students/lawreview/volumes/v37n1/Dickerson.htm

Feldmann, L.J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities. CollegeTeaching,

49(4), 137-140.

Gonzalez, V., & Lopez, E. (2001, April). The age of incivility: Countering disruptive behavior in the classroom, AAHEBulletin, 55(3), 3-6

Hansen, B. (1991). Is “no” an outdated word?…Some people think so. ChildrenToday,20(1), 22-24.Retrieved August 19, 2008, from FirstSearch Educational Index database.

Hendrix, K.G. (2007). “She must be trippin’”: The secret of disrespect from students of color toward faculty of color. NewDirectionsforTeachingandLearning,110, 85-96. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Hernández, T.J., & Fister, D.L. (2001). Dealing with disruptive and emotional college students: A systems model. JournalofCollegeCounseling,4(1), 49-62. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Hirschy, A.S., & Braxton, J.M. (2004). Effects of student classroom incivilities on students. NewDirectionsforTeachingandLearning,99, 67-76. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Johnson, P.R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint.PublicPersonnelManagement, 30(4), 457-465.

Kauffman, J.M., & Burbach, H.J. (1998). Creating classroom civility: A mood of politeness and courtesy could mean a lot. EducationDigest,63(6), 12-17. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.



Kilmer, P.D. (1998). When a few disruptive students challenge an instructor’s plan. Journalism&MassCommunicationEducator,2, 81-84. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Kolanko, K.M., Clark, C., Heinrich, K.T., Olive, D., Serembus, J.F., & Sifford, K.S. (2006). Academic dishonesty, bullying, incivility, and violence. NursingEducationPerspectives, 27(1), 34-43.

Kondrasuk, J.N., Moore, H.L., & Wang, H. (2001). Negligent hiring: The emerging contributor to workplace violence in the public sector. PublicPersonnelManagement, 30(2), 185-195.

Lane, F. (2008, September). The risks and rewards of social networking sites. HRNewsMagazine, 6-12.

Nworie, J., & Haughton, N. (2008, September/October). The unintended consequences of the application of technology in teaching and learning environments. TechTrends, 52(5), 52-58.

Silverman, M.M. (2008). Campus security begins with caring. TheChronicleofHigherEducation, 54(32), p. A51.

Stewart, D.W. (1998). Self-deception and entitlement in post-secondary students with false learning disabilities. Guidance&Counseling,13(4), 25-27. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Thernstrom, A. (1999). Courting disorder in the schools. ThePublicInterest,136, 18-34. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Tiberius, R.G., & Flak, E. (1999). Incivility in dyadic teaching and learning. NewDirectionsforTeachingandLearning,77, 3-12. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Vickers, M.H. (2006). Writing what’s relevant: Workplace incivility in public administration — A wolf in sheep’s clothing. AdministrativeTheory&Praxis,28(1), 69-88.

Williams, N.F. (2007). The rules of engagement: Socializing college students for the new century. NationalTeachingandLearningForumNewsletter, 17(1), 1-4.

Footnote1 Editor’s Note: The cited paper in which Feldman uses the term “classroom

terrorism” was published in Fall of 2001, and therefore he chose it before Americans became sensitized to the realities of true terrorism.



Stan Barrett has a Ph.D. in Educational Administration and has previously worked in community college administration. He has taught on an adjunct basis at several colleges and universities in the areas of public administration, public policy, political science, and education. He currently teaches in the Department of Political Science at SUNY Cortland. His research focuses on learning styles and pedagogy in higher education.

Nadia Rubaii-Barrett is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Public Administration in the College of Community and Public Affairs at Binghamton University. Her research focuses on issues of diversity in public affairs teaching, human resource management, and local government service delivery. Her current focus is on the integration of immigrants in local communities.

John Pelowski graduated with a Master’s of Public Administration degree in May 2009, and is completing a Master’s of Science degree in Student Affairs Administration as part of a dual program at Binghamton University.



SafeguardingthePublicTrust:CanAdministrativeEthicsBeTaught?

SheilaSuessKennedyIndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis

DeannaMalatestaIndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis

AbstractThechangingnatureofthepublicsectorbringsnewchallengestogovernanceandethicaldecisionmaking.AmainobjectiveoftheMaster’sofPublicAdministration(MPA)programistobringcurrentthepedagogyofethics,inordertoreflecttheevolvingnatureofthesector.ThisarticlereportsononesucheffortthatwasemployedinanintroductoryMPAcourse,usingtheapproachoutlinedbyWalton,Stearns,andCrespyin1997.Italsoprovidesdetailsonthestudents’evaluationsofthecourseworkrelatedtotheethicsmodule.Theethicsassignmentgiventostudentswasdesignedtoillustratethecomplexityofmoralreasoningthatisrequiredtomaintainadherencetoethicalprinciples,whenprocessesleadtoconflictsbetweendeeplyheldvaluesystems.StudentsareprovidedwithanupdatedadministrativeframeworkthatbuildsuponourConstitutionalvalues,andemphasizestheimplicationsofdecisionmakingforapopulationthatisbroaderandmorediversethanthoseinthepast.

IntroductionTrustingovernment—orthelackthereof—hasbecomeasubjectof

considerableacademicconcern(Nye,Zelikow,&King,1997;Catlaw,2007).AsAmericahasgrownlargerandmorecomplicated,andasgovernmentsatalllevelshaveassumedadditionalresponsibilities,theneedforpublicadministratorstofunctionasethicalandtrustworthymanagersofourpublicregulatoryagenciesalsohasgrown.Whatevertheirpoliticalideologies,mostAmericanswantgovernmenttodischargeitsdutiescompetentlyandinamannerconsistentwithourConstitutionalvalues.Furthermore,eventhemostardentcontemporaryadvocateoflimitedgovernmentislikelytoconcedetheutilityandproprietyof

JPAE16(2):161–180


Food&DrugAdministration(FDA)regulationsonfoodquality,forexample,inanerawhenfewofusgrowourownvegetablesorslaughterourownanimals.Americanstodaymustrelyongovernmentagenciestoensurethatourwaterisdrinkable,ouraircraftflyable,ourroadspassable,andmuchmore.

Itwouldbedifficulttooverstatetheimportanceofbeingabletotrustourgovernmentagenciestodischargetheseandother,similar,functionsinacompetentandethicalmanner.WhenAmericagoesthroughatimewheregovernmentseemsineptorcorrupt,asweperiodicallydo,thatconfidenceisshaken,andourskepticismanddistrustaffectmorethanjustthepoliticalsystem.Thisisbecausetrustinourgoverninginstitutionsinevitablysetsthetoneforourconfidenceinallinstitutions.Whenweperceivethatourgovernmentisnottrustworthy,thatperceptioninfectstheentiresociety(Menzel,1997,2006;Bowman,1990).

Itiseasytoassertthatschoolsofpublicadministrationshouldteachaspiringpublicservantstobeethicalandshouldencouragetheintegrationofethicsintothecurriculum,andintoallaspectsofprogramoperation(NASPAA,2009).1Operationalizingthatinstruction,however,hasproventobemorecomplicated.ArecentarticleintheJournalofPublicAffairsEducation(JPAE)outlinedapraxis-based,ethicaldecision-makingprocessthatconceptualizesthepublicadministratorasanagentwhoispronetoopportunism(Shareef,2009).Fromthisperspective,ethicsisthecounter-forcetoadministrativeefficiency,andakeyreasonforhavingethicalstandardsistopreventmoralhazard.Administrativemoralhazardsarisewhenmanagerstakeinefficientactions,oftenbecausetheirindividualinterestsdonotalignwiththepublicinterest—aformofcostless,unethicalbehaviorfortheadministratorthathasasignificantcosttotaxpayers(Milgrom&Roberts,1992).Inshort,accordingtothisanalysis,theethicalgoalofadministratorsistopreventinefficiencies.ShareefincorporatestheRawlsian(1971)notionofbasicrightsandasocialcontractbetweencitizenandgovernment.Theideathatpublicservantsareobligatedtoprovideanddefend“corepublicvalues”alsohasbeendevelopedinrecentliterature(Bozeman,2002).

Thesescholarsallprovideusefulapproachestothesubjectmatterofethics,butcollectivelytheyunderscoreabasicchallengetopublicadministration.Thatis,forthepast30ormoreyears,thedisciplinehasstrugglednotonlywiththequestionofhowtoteachethics,butalsowiththemorebasic,thresholdquestion:Whatarepublicadministrationethics?Thereisreasonablybroadagreementaboutwhatadministrativeethicsarenot.Theyarenotvague,“feel-good”exhortationsaboutanundefinedpublicinterest,andtheyarenotsimplythegeneralethicalprinciplesthattypicallyguidepersonal,moralchoices(Goss,1996).Justasthelegalandmedicalprofessionshavecodesofethicstailoredtotheirprofessions,publicadministratorshaveadoptedethicalprinciplesforpublicstewardship.

Webelievetheapproachtoethicsoutlinedinthisarticleaddstotheliteraturebyfocusingonnewchallengesthatarerelatedtotheevolvingnatureofgovernance.AmainpremiseisthattheAmericanSocietyforPublic



Administration(ASPA)CodeofEthicsimplicitlycommitspublicadministratorstoadjusttheirframeworksfordecisionmakinginawaythatreflectsthechangingnatureofthepublic,and—byextension—thepublicinterest.Indeed,thisCoderequirespublicadministrators“toexercisediscretionaryauthoritytopromotethepublicinterest”(ASPACodeofEthics,2009,SectionI,p.1),andfurtherrecognizesthattheCodeofEthicsis“alivingdocument”(SectionIV,p.7).

Thepublicadministratoralsomustconsiderimplicationsforapopulationthatisbroaderandmorediversethanthoseinthepast.Forexample,today’s“governance”featuresnewentitiesandnewrelationshipsthatmaybesubjecttonewconflictsofinterest—onesthatpreviouslyhadnotexisted(e.g.,Kennedy&Malatesta,2010).Asaresult,studentsshouldbefamiliarwiththeASPACode,buttheutilityofethicscodescanonlyberealizedafterstudentslearnhowtorecognizecircumstances(oldandnew)thatposeethicaldilemmas,andacquireabroaderunderstandingoftheapproachestoethicaldecisionmaking.Onewayforstudentstograspandpreparefortheevolvingchallengesistodiscussevents,preferablylocalones,thatposeethicaldilemmas.Italsoisimportantforstudentstodevelopa“system”forconsideringethicaldilemmas.Thus,theethicsassignmentthatisdiscussedinthisarticlerequiresstudentstoreflectonthebroaderimplicationsthatareinherenttoanydecisionbroughtonbythechangingnatureofgovernance.

Inthenextsection,wediscussthebroadertopicofadministrativeethics.Intheremainderofthisarticle,wereportonoureffortstoteachadministrativeethics,whichbuildontheapproachoutlinedbyWalton,Stearns,andCrespyin1997,andthenweprovidedetailsonstudents’evaluationsofthecoursework,asrelatedtotheethicsmodule.

The Development of Administrative Ethics

Inanimportant1988articleinPublicAdministrationReview,AprilHejka-Ekinssummarizedwhatshereferredtoasthehistoryof“vacillation”inthefield.AccordingtoHejka-Ekins,thepolitical/administrativeframework—onethatadministratorswereviewedwithinduringmuchofpre-WorldWarIIAmericanhistory—wasbaseduponaconceptionofadministratorsasbeinglittlemorethanfunctionarieswhocarriedoutthepoliciesassignedtothembypoliticalactors.Publicadministrationwasthusdeemedtobeapurelyministerialand“valueneutral”field.Theimportanceofethicsforpublicmanagersbecamecleareroncethisparticularparadigmweakened,andtheprofessionrecognizedtheimportanceofassuringtheethicalexerciseofbureaucraticdiscretion(Hejka-Ekins,1988).Asthearticlenotes,however,evenafterrecognizingtheimportanceofethicalpublicmanagement,thereremainedaconsiderabledistancebetweenastatedcommitmenttoethicsinstruction,andactualeducationalpractices.ThecadreofapproachesintheHandbookofAdministrativeEthics(Cooper,2004)andother,morerecent,writingsaretestamenttothe



continuedlackofaunifiedapproach(Maesschalck,2004;West&Berman,2004).Hejka-Ekinsraisedanumberofquestionsthatwouldcharacterizemuchof

thesubsequentliteratureonthesubject:Whatgoalsareappropriateforethicsinstruction?Whatstandardsareappropriateforethicsinstruction?Howcanthoseofuswhoteachadministrativeethicshelpourstudentscultivatesoundmoraljudgments?

Severalscholarshavearguedthatprofessionalethicsshouldbeviewedthroughanormativelens(Bayles,1989),ratherthanthroughthebureaucratic-democraticframeworkthathascharacterizedmuchoftheliterature.TerryCoopersummarizedfivenormativetheoriesadvancedbytheliterature:

1. Regimevalues,whicharemostcloselyassociatedwithJohnRohr(1976,1989);

2. Social equity, which draws primarily from John Rawls’ (1971)immenselyinfluentialTheoryofJustice ;

3. Virtue,whichisconnectedtocharacterdevelopment;24. Citizenshiptheory,whichiscloselyalliedtoregimevalues;and5. Public interest,withitsabsolutelyenormous literatureselection

thatincludesFrederickson(1990),andGoodsell(1990),andthathasbeencriticizedasbeingsobroaditlacksconcreteapplication(Cooper,2004).

In1984,ASPAadoptedaCodeofEthicsthatdrewfromallofthesenormative

perspectives.Dividedintosections,theCodereflectsConstitutionalvaluesof

A. Equal protection (opposing discrimination, promoting fairnessandequality);

B. Dueprocess(mentionedinseveralsections);C. Free speech(protectionofdissent,obligationsof transparency);

andD. Emphasizinggovernmentalaccountabilityandtheruleoflaw.

‘ThecurrentASPACodeofEthicsalsocommitsmembersto:

E. Servethepublicinterest;F. RespecttheConstitutionandlaws;G. Demonstratepersonalintegrity;H. Promoteethicalorganizations;andI. Striveforprofessionalexcellence.

The Walton, Sterns, Crespy Framework for Teaching EthicsTheW-S-Cframeworkforteachingethicstakesasastartingpointthe



resultsfroma1986surveyof64ethicsinstructorsfromNASPAA-accreditedschools.Thesepublicadministrationeducatorsexplicitlydefinedthethreemostimportantgoalsofethicseducationasthefollowing:

1. Developinganawarenessofethicalissuesandproblemsinthefield;2. Buildinganalyticalskillsthatcanaddressthoseproblemswhen

theyarise;and3. Cultivatinganattitudeofmoralobligationandpersonal

responsibilityaspartofpublicservice(Walton,Sterns&Crespy,1997,p.471,referencingHejka-Ekins,1988,p.887).

Basedontheirownexperiencesinteaching,W-S-Cemphasizedthreeadditionallearningoutcomes:

1. “Developinganunderstandingofthediverseperspectivesofmoralphilosophers(Hejka-Ekins’s‘awarenessofethicalissues’);”

2. “Understandinghowtoframetheethicaldilemmainamodelthatallowsdiscussionfromdiverseperspectives(Hejka-Ekins’s‘buildanalyticalskillsindecisionmaking’);”and

3. “Developingskillsnecessaryforplayingouttheconflictsthatarise,sothatstudentscanmeasuretheextenttowhichtheyhavefulfilledthemanifoldandconflictingmoralobligationstheyhaveidentified”(Walton,Sterns&Crespy,1997,p.471).

Intheparagraphsthatfollow,wereportonanefforttobringthepedagogyofethicscurrentwiththechangingnatureofpublicadministrationandmanagement.OurapproachintegratestheW-S-Cframework,whileadheringtoRohr’sregimevalues,which—aswewillexplain—areconsistentwiththeASPACode(2009).Moreover,wealsorecognizethatethicsshouldnotbetreatedasaone-time-onlycourse.Ethicsshouldbeintegratedintothecurriculumandallaspectsofprogramoperation(ASPACodeofConduct,2009).Accordingly,weexplainhowethicstrainingalsoiscoveredinaseparate,butrequired,MPAcorecourseatIndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis,titled“LawandPublicPolicy.”Weexplainhowitisaddressedwithpreliminaryreadingsin“GoverningandLeadinginaGlobalSociety,”anothercoreMPAcourse,and,finally,howitissupplementedwithapracticalexerciseasacomponentof“GoverningandLeadinginaGlobalSociety.”

PreliminariesEthicsinvolvescultivationofanattitudeofmoralobligationandpersonal

responsibility,aspartofpublicservice(W-S-C#3).FollowingtheU.S.Constitutionisanormativevalueandmoralobligationthatweallshouldagreeupon.Indeed,



thecurrentASPACode(2009)holdsitsmemberstoa“…healthyrespectfortheConstitutionandlaw.”ThisalsoisconsistentwithJohnRohr’sregimevalues.TheregimeframeworkthatJohnRohrreferstoiscoveredaspartoftheMPAcorecurriculum.AllstudentsinourMPAprogramsarerequiredtotakeaclassin“LawandPublicPolicy.”TheclassexplorespublicadministrationandpolicyinthecontextoftheU.S.Constitution,governmentinstitutions,laws,andregulations.ItemphasizesthatthelegitimacyofpublicservicerestsontheConstitutionalprinciplesofequality,fairness,representativeness,responsiveness,anddueprocess.

Together,#1and#5oftheW-S-Cframeworkfocusonanappreciationforethicalissues,withinthecontextofachangingprofessionalenvironmentthatincludesnewandsometimesdauntingchallenges.Specifically,today’spublicadministrationinstructorsmustintroducestudentstotheethicsofaprofessionthatisjustbeginningtograspthecomplexitiesofadministrationinanever-morediversepolity,wheretheincreasingpopulationpluribuschallengestheabilitytoforgeAmericanunum.Wemustaddtooursubject-mattertheethicalissuesthatariseinthecontextofemergingglobalization.Evenmorechallengingisthatwemustteachanethicofpubliclifeatatimewhentheverydefinitionof“publiclife”isundergoingradicalredefinition,becausethelinesseparatingpublicfromprivateandnonprofithavebecomeincreasinglyblurredbyoutsourcing,privatization,public-privatepartnerships,andavarietyofothermechanismsthathavecollectivelygivenustheterm“governance”inplaceoftheformer,morerecognizable,“government.”

Weaddress#1and#5oftheW-S-Cframeworkin“GoverningandLeadinginaGlobalSociety.”Inthefirstfiveweeksofthecourse,studentsareintroducedtothedifferencesbetweenmanagingintheprivate,nonprofit,andpublicsectors;thechanginggovernancelandscape;andthechallengesofprivatizationandoutsourcing.Inthefirstfiveweeksofthesemester,studentsreadaseriesofacademicarticlesonleadership,governance,andglobalization,aswellasselectedchaptersfromLeadership:SucceedinginthePrivate,PublicandNonprofitSectors,aneditedvolumebySims&Quatro(2005);andThomasFriedman’sTheLexusandtheOliveTree(2000).

Ethics Component of CourseThesecondfiveweeksof“GoverningandLeadinginaGlobalSociety”

includesasetoflecturesongeneralethics—definitions,concepts,andreferencestokeywritingsonthesubject.Studentsareshownhowtorecognizeanethicaldilemma(W-S-C#5),andintroducedtothedifferencesbetweenendsapproaches(Utilitarian),meansapproaches(Deontological),andpragmaticapproaches(compromisesandpoliticalrealities)(W-S-C#4).3Importantly,classworkalsoinvolvesthepresentationofshortcasesthataddressethicaldilemmas(W-S-C#6).Threeobjectivesintheclassdiscussionareto

1. Givestudentspracticeinidentifyingrelevantfactsofthecaseandinsettingasidethefactsunnecessarytotheanalysis;



2. Get students to think systematically before making a decision,forexample,byaskingthemselvesseveralquestionspertinenttoanydecision(Whomwillthisdecisionaffect?Whatarethewiderimplications?WhathappensifIdonothing?);and

3. Bringout the limitationsof eachethical approach.Forexample,Utilitarianismrequiresustojudgeactsinlightoftheirconsequences,yetwedonotalwaysknowwhatconsequenceswillensue.Likewise,Deontology assumes that we have a clear sense of our duties ofobligation,yetmostagreethatthereoftenisagrayarea.

Finally,thereisadiscussionofhowmoralreasoningiscomplicatedby

globalizationandincreasedculturalandreligiousdiversity,aswellasbysectoralblurring(W-S-C#1and#5).Forexample,aspartofaclassdiscussion,studentsareaskedtoconsiderhowindividualsfromdifferentreligiousbackgrounds(Christian,Jewish,andMuslim)mightviewissuesofsexualdiscrimination,whistle-blowing,andstealing.Thepointisnottoopineaboutthevaluesofthesefaiths,buttomakestudentsawarethatperspectivesandlevelsofsensitivityontheseissuescanvary.Withrespecttosectoralblurring,wereadanddiscussalocalordinancethatprohibitspanhandling.Theordinanceisconsidered,alongwithamissionstatementofalocalnonprofitorganizationthatprovidesfoodandfundsforhomelesspeople.Studentsareaskedtoconsiderhowtheymighthandletheseconflictingobjectives(asopposedtohowtheywouldhandlethem).Situationswheretheobjectivesofnonprofitgroupsareinconsistentwithlocalordinancesappearmoreoften,asnonprofitsproliferateinourcommunities.Akeyobjectiveattheendoftheclasssectionistodevelopinstudentsanappreciationfortheevolvingcomplexityofpublicsectordecisionmaking.

The Assignment Followingtheintroductionofthesekeyconcepts,studentsaregivenatwo-

partassignment:PartOnerequiresthatthestudentfindandpresentanethicaldilemmaincaseformat(W-S-C#1,#2and#6).Thecasemustbeanactualethicaldilemmathatrecentlyhasoccurred,orispresentlyoccurring,withinastateorlocalgovernment,orinanonprofit.Thisapproachhastheaddedbenefitofkeepingstudentsintouchwithlocalevents(W-S-C#1).Thenarrativeshould(a)belimitedtoonepage,(b)includeonlytherelevantfacts,and(c)poseadilemmaattheend.ThegradingrubricforthenarrativeispresentedinTable1.

PartTworequiredstudentstorelatethefactsofthecasetoethicaltheory(W-S-C#4).Studentschoosefromawidevarietyofethicalchallenges,includingworkplacediscrimination,thecontroversialconscienceexemptionsthatallowpharmaciststorefusetofillprescriptionsbasedonmoralorreligiousgrounds,privatization,truthfulnessingrant-writing,andsame-sexmarriage(W-S-C#5).Theprescribedformatofthestudentessayssaidtheyweretoidentify(a)the



relevantfactsofthecase,(b)theapplicablelawsorregulations,(c)theethicalissuesinvolved,(d)theprimarystakeholders,and(e)theavailablealternatives.

Theythenhadtoidentifythemostrelevantperspective—Utilitarian,Deontologicaland/orPragmatic—andtheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeach.Atfirstthisapproachseemedawkward,buttherewasalogictohavingstudentsposequestions.Specifically,theylearnedtothinkofissuesmoreobjectively,ratherthanfromtheirownperspectives.Next,theyweretoconsiderwhetherandhowcultureandreligionhadplayedaroleincreatingandresolvingthedilemmas.Finally,theyidentifiedthepracticalconstraintsinvolved,andtowhatextentthechangingnatureofgovernancemightaffectthesituation(W-S-C#1).Studentswererequiredtoavoidgivingtheiropinionsoranyindicatorsofrightandwrong(W-S-C#5).ThefullsetofquestionsthatstudentswererequiredtoanswerappearsinTable2andtherelatedgradingrubricappearsinTable3.

Table1.GradingRubricforEthicalDilemmaNarrative

Narrativeisreasonablytitledandsubtopicidentified,ifapplicable

Allfactsnecessarytonarrativeareincluded

Facts/Backgroundarelimitedtowhatisnecessarytothestoryline

Alternativecoursesofaction/moraldilemmaposedatendofnarrative

Mainactorsareidentified,butlimitedtothoseinstoryline

Narrativeflowslogically,positionsdonotseemdisconnected

Narrativeconformstoone-pagelimit

Writingisconciseandtothepoint

Sourceisidentified

Writingiswithoutgrammaticalerrors

Total Points for Part 1



Table2.StudentHandout

Questions for Part 2 of Ethics Assignment. Answers should be based on the moral dilemma you posed in your narrative (Part 1).

Whataretherelevantfactsofthecase?

Whatlawsarerelevant?

Whataretheethicalissues?

Whoaretheprimarystakeholders?

Whatarethepossiblealternatives?

Whataretherelevantquestionsfromautilitarian(teleological)perspective?

Whataretherelevantquestionsfromadeontological(Kantian)perspective?

Whataretherelevantquestionsfromaprudentpragmatismperspective?

Whatroledocultureandreligionhaveinthisdilemma?

Howdoesglobalizationaffectyourapproachtothisdecision?(ThereareseveralapproachestothisanswerbutIamlookingforyoutodrawonreadingsandlectures).

Whatdothethreemajorreligions[asdefinedinclass]havetosayaboutthisissue?

Whataresomepracticalconstraints?

Whateffectdoesthechangingnatureofgovernancehaveontheissueathand?



Table3. Decision-MakingSubstance(Part2ofEthicsAssignment)

Considerstherangeofpositiveandnegativeconsequences

Acknowledgesthatconsequencesextendtoarangeofpersons/groups

Acknowledgesthatconsequencescanbeshortterm/longterm

Acknowledgesadvantages/disadvantagesofconsequentialityapproach

Pointsforoverallknowledgeofutilitarianapproach

Acknowledgesactionscanmeasureuptonumerousprinciples(equity,respect,etc.)

Acknowledgesadvantages/disadvantagesofaction-basedapproach

Demonstratesunderstandingofpracticalobstaclestodecision

Acknowledgesdecisionisimprovedbyconsideringrangeoffactsandexperiences

Acknowledgesthatcircumstancesmaychangenatureofdecision

Relevantfactsareidentified

Ethicalquestions/issuesareidentified

Alternativecoursesofactionareidentified

Acknowledgescodes(professionalandorganization-based)implicatedindecision

Acknowledgeslaws(international,national,state,andlocal)implicatedindecision

Demonstratesanunderstandingofhowglobalizationaffectsnatureofdecision

Demonstratesanunderstandingofhowgovernanceaffectsnatureofdecision

Demonstratesanunderstandingofhowculturemightaffectthenatureofdecision

Demonstratesanunderstandingofhowreligionmightaffectthenatureofdecision

Conformsto3-pagelimit

IncludesAPA-stylebibliography

Total Points for Part 2 of Ethics Assignment



The EvaluationFollowingthefirstclasstoincorporatethisapproachandassignment,a

colleagueevaluatedtheexperience,inordertodeterminewhetheritmetitsobjectives.Asnotedpreviously,thethreeoverarchinggoalsofethicseducationhavebeenidentifiedbyPAscholarsasthefollowing:(1)developinganawarenessofethicalissuesandproblemsinthefield;(2)buildinganalyticalskillstoaddressthoseproblemswhentheyarise;and(3)cultivatinganattitudeofmoralobligationandpersonalresponsibilityaspartofpublicservice.Accordingly,theevaluationinstrumentwasdevelopedtotestthedegreetowhichthesegoalsweresatisfied.

Studentsintheclasswereaskedtocompleteaquestionnaire.Thesurveyinstrumentbeganwithagrid,asshowninTable4.

Table4.SurveyQuestionnaire:PrincipledDecision-MakingAssignment

How much did the principled decision-making assignment that you just completed emphasize the following mental activities?

Very Much

Quite a Bit

Some Very Little

a. Memorizingfacts,ideas,ormethodsfromyourreadingssoyoucanrepeattheminprettymuchthesameform.

b. Analyzingthebasicelementsofanidea,experience,ortheory,suchasexaminingaparticularcaseorsituationin-depth,andconsideringitscomponents.

c. Synthesizingandorganizingideas,information,orexperiencesintonew,morecomplexinterpretationsandrelationships.

d. Making judgments aboutthevalueofinformation,arguments,ormethods,suchasexamininghowothersgatheredandinterpreteddataandassessingthesoundnessoftheirconclusions.

e. Applying theoriesorconceptstopracticalproblemsorinnewsituations.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mem

orizi

ng

Analyz

ing

Synt

hesiz

ing Id

eas

Mak

ing Ju

dgem

ents

Applyi

ng T

heor

ies

11%

71%

57%

36%

7%

50% 50%

25%28%

18%21%

4% 4%

28%

54%

36%

Very Much

Quite a bit

Some

Very Little

Completionofthisgridwasintendedtoidentifythestudents’ownperspectivesonthementalactivitiesinvolvedintheassignment,includingtherolesofmemorization,analysis,synthesis,judgment,andapplication.

TheLikert-typeresponsecategorieswere:“verymuch,”“quiteabit,”“some,”or“verylittle.”Someoftheresultswereparticularlyencouraging:

• 100percentofthestudentsreportedthattheexerciseinvolved“quiteabit”or“verymuch”analyzingofthebasicelementsofanidea,experience,ortheory,suchasexaminingaparticularcaseorsituationin-depthandconsideringitscomponents;

• 93percentofthestudentsreportedthattheexerciseinvolved“quiteabit”or“verymuch”synthesizingandorganizingofideas,information,orexperiencesintonew,morecomplexinterpretationsandrelationships;and

• 78percentofthestudentsreportedthattheexerciseinvolved“quiteabit”or“verymuch”applyingoftheoriesorconceptstopracticalproblemsorinnewsituations.

Lowerpercentagescoreswerereportedonthetwomentalactivitiesofmemorizationandjudgmentmaking.Giventheemphasisplacedonhigher-levelskillsandobjectivity,wedidnotinterpretthisasnegative.

Asummaryofresponsesrelatedtothementalactivitiesinvolvedintheassignmentarecollatedinabarchart,asseeninFigure1.

Figure1.MentalActivitiesRelatedtoAssignmentAccordingto28Students:BarChartofStudents’Responses



Thegridwasfollowedbytwelvequestionsthatfurthertestedthestudents’judgmentabouttheextenttowhichdesiredlearningoutcomeswereachieved:Didtheytrulylearnthebasicconceptsbeingpresented?Didstudentslearntoapplythoseconceptsto“factsontheground”?Didtheyincreasetheirawarenessofhowothersapproachedtheseissuesandtasks,anddidtheylearnhowtoevaluatethoseapproaches?Didtheyfeelconfidentthattheycouldapplytheprinciplesinvolvedtonewsituations?Foreachstatement,thestudentwasaskedwhetherheorshe“stronglyagreed,”“agreed,”felt“neutral,”“disagreed,”or“stronglydisagreed.”ThelearningoutcomequestionsareshowninTable5.

Table5.StudentQuestionnaire:JudgmentsonAchievingDesiredLearningOutcomes

Please comment on the extent to which you believe that you mastered each of the following learning outcomes for this assignment. Circle the answer that most closely represents your beliefs.

1. Icanidentifyasetofcircumstancesthatpresentleadershipandethicalchallengesfordecidingcontemporarypublicpolicyissues.

StronglyAgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStronglyDisagree

2. Icandistilltheethicaldilemma(s)presentedbyacontemporarypublicpolicyissueinaclear,concise,andneutralwrittennarrative,accordingtotheguidelinespresentedinthisassignment.


3. Icanapplytheteleological(utilitarian),deontological(Kantian),andprudentpragmatismapproaches,asdescribedintheclassicalandtraditionalliterature,todecisionmakingforcontemporarypublicpolicyissues.


4.Icanidentifyandacknowledgearangeofshort-termandlong-term,positiveandnegativeconsequencesofateleologicaldecision-makingframeworktoarangeofpersonsorgroupsaffectedbyacontemporarypublicpolicyissue.




Table5.Continued

5.Icanidentifyandacknowledgetheprinciples(justice,equity,fairness,respect,dignity,etc.)embodiedinthedeontologicalapproachtodecisionmakingforcontemporarypublicpolicyissues.


6.Icanidentifyandacknowledgethepracticalobstaclestodecisionmakingthatareembodiedintheprudentpragmatismapproachtodecisionmakingforcontemporarypublicpolicyissues.


7.Icanidentifyandacknowledgehowthequalityofdecisioncanbenefitbyconsideringarangeoffactsandexperiencesembodiedintheprudentpragmatismapproach,andthatcircumstancesmaychangethenatureofdecision.


8.Icanrecognizeanddiscusstheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheteleological,deontological,andprudentpragmatismapproachestodecisionmakingforacontemporarypublicpolicyissue.


9.Icanidentifyprofessionalandorganization-basedethicalcodesandlaws(inter-national,national,state,andlocal)thatarerelevanttodecisionmakingandapplytheseappropriatelyandinanunbiasedwaytocontemporarypublicpolicyissues.


10.Icanidentifyandconsidertherolesofglobalization,governance,culture,andreligionindecisionmakingforcontemporarypublicpolicyissues.


11.Icanrecognizemypersonalbiasesrelativetoglobalization,governance,culture,religion,etc.andsettheseasidewhenanalyzingandmakingadecisionrelativetocontemporarypublicpolicyissue.




Table5.Continued

12.Thisassignmenthascausedmetore-considermyapproachtodecisionmaking,andmyfuturedecisionswillincorporatetheprinciplesofneutralanalysisandanalysisfromdifferentdecisionmakingframeworks.


13.Thisassignmentcontributedtomyabilitytothinkcriticallyandanalytically.


Itisclearfromtheself-reportingthatamajorityofthe28studentssurveyed

believedtheygainedanappreciationofethicalanalysis.Afewsummationshighlighttheoveralleffectivenessoftheassignment:

• 92percentofthestudentsreportedthat,aftertheassignment,theycould identify a setof circumstances thatpresent leadership andethicalchallengesfordecidingcontemporarypublicpolicyissues;

• 97percentofthestudentsreportedthat,aftertheassignment,theycoulddistilltheethicaldilemma(s)presentedbyacontemporarypublicpolicyissueinaclear,concise,andneutralwrittennarrative,accordingtotheguidelinespresentedinthisassignment;

• 100 percent of the students reported that, when analyzing adecision, they could identify and consider implications forgovernanceanditsrelatedinstitutions,suchastransparencyandaccountability;and

• 96percentofthestudentsreportedthattheycouldrecognizetheirownpersonalbiasesrelativetoglobalization,governance,culture,religion,etc.,andcouldsettheseasidewhenanalyzingandmakingadecisionrelativetocontemporarypublicpolicyissues.

Self-reportedoutcomesareempiricallysuspect,andthissortofevaluationexercisesuffersfromthesamedrawbacksthatcharacterizestudentevaluationsofteachers’performance.Notwithstanding,webelievetheevaluationexerciseisusefulintwoveryimportantways.First,itrequiresaninstructortoclearlyidentifythedesiredlearningoutcomes.Toooften,thoseofuswhoteachthesecoursesdisproportionatelyfocusourpreparationonthesubjectmatterweintendtoconvey,andneglecttothinkstrategicallyabouttheconclusionswewant



studentstoreachandtheskillswewanttoimpart.Thecreationofanevaluationinstrumentforcesustopreparefortheclassroombyconsideringwhatoutcomesweareaimingfor,andbyidentifyingwhatinformationandskillswewantthestudentstoacquireduringthesemester.

Second,thefeedbackgainedfromstudentresponsespermitsusto“test”their(admittedlysubjective)perceptionsaboutthoseoutcomesagainstourintendedresults.Incaseslikethisone—wherethestudentresponsesappearedtoreinforcethevalueoftheassignmentintermsofproducingthedesiredoutcomes—theinstrumentcanassistinfine-tuningsubsequentcurricularchoices,classroomdiscussions,andassignments.Itallowstheinstructortoseeareasofrelativestrengthandweakness,andtorespondappropriately.

Inthiscase,students’responsessuggestedthatadditionaltimeshouldbespentreviewingspecificethicscodes,andonlearningthetenetsofdeontology.Specifically,

• 7percentofstudentsdidnotbelievetheycouldidentifyprofessionalandorganization-basedethicalcodesandlaws(international,national,state,andlocal)thatarerelevanttodecisionmaking,andapplytheseappropriatelyandinanunbiasedwaytocontemporarypublicpolicyissues;and

• 7percentofstudentsreportedthattheycouldnotidentifyandacknowledgetheprinciples(justice,equity,fairness,respect,dignity,etc.)embodiedinthedeontologicalapproachtodecisionmakingforcontemporarypublicpolicyissues.

ConclusionWhilethefieldstilllacksaconsensusontheappropriateapproachto

teachingethics,twothingsarecertain:First,thechangingnatureofthepublicsectorhasbroughtnewchallengestogovernanceandethicaldecisionmaking.Whileethicaltrainingwasdifficulttooperationalizeinthepast,itseemsevenmorechallengingnow.Wehavereportedhereonanapproachtobringcurrentthepedagogyofethics,inordertoreflecttheevolvingnatureofthesector.ItbuildsontheWalton,Stearns,&Crespy(1997)framework,acknowledgesandadherestoourConstitutionalfoundations,andisconsistentwithboththecurrentASPACodeofEthicsandtheNASPAACodeofConduct.

Furthermore,regardlessofourdiverseperspectives,thereisonenormativebasisweallmustagreeon:Weareobligedtoteachwitha“healthyrespectfortheConstitutionandlaw”(ASPA,2009).Thesuccessofthattaskultimatelymustrestuponthelevelofciviccompetencethatstudentsbringtotheethicsclassroom.ThisisbecauseadministrativeethicsultimatelyrestuponConstitutionalcompetence(Rosenbloom,1992).AsJohnRohrhaspersuasivelyargued,ethicsmustbeunderstoodwithinaregimeframework(1989).This



isbecauseethicaladministrativebehaviorislargelydefinedbyone’sfidelitytothevaluesofthegoverningphilosophy.IntheUnitedStates,thatgoverningphilosophyisexpressedinourconstituentdocuments:theDeclarationofIndependence,theConstitution,andtheBillofRights.Unfortunately,thereissubstantialreasontobediscouragedaboutthelevelofciviccompetencethatstudentsbringintoourclassrooms.

AreportissuedbytheIntercollegiateStudiesInstituteinNovember,2008,onceagainconfirmedthedeficitsincivicliteracythathadbeenhighlightedinpreviousyears.In“OurFadingHeritage:AmericansFailaBasicTestonTheirHistoryandInstitutions,”theInstituteissuedatrulysobering“reportcard”thatdetailedthealarminglevelofpublicignoranceaboutourmostbasiclegalstructures.Thisignorancespannedawideswathofdemographics.Poorscoresplaguedgraduatesofpoorand/ormediocreinstitutions,aswellasgraduatesofso-called“prestige”colleges.(Harvardgraduateshadthenation’shighestaveragescoreof69.56%—acollectiveD-plus).

Addressingthisextremelytroublingdeficitofcivicliteracyiswellbeyondthescopeofthisarticle,butwewouldberemissifwedidnotidentifythischallengetoourabilitytoteachadministrativeethics.Untilthisnation’shighschoolsandcollegesgetseriousabouttransmittingAmericanConstitutionalhistoryandnorms,anyefforttoteachadministrativeethicswillnecessarilybeginwiththeremedialtaskofintroducing—orperhapsreintroducing—ourstudentstotheethical,philosophical,andConstitutionalpremisesofAmericangovernment.

ReferencesAmericanSocietyforPublicAdministration.(2009).ASPA’scodeofethics.Retrievedfromhttp://www.

aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index_codeofethics.cfm

Bayles,M.D.(1989).Professionalethics.Atlanta:Wadsworth.

Boss,J.(2003).Perspectivesonethics(2nded.).Boston:McGrawHill.

Bowman,J.S.(1990).Ethicsingovernment:Anationalsurveyofpublicadministrators.PublicAdministrationReview,50(3),345-353.

Bozeman,B.(2002).Public-valuefailure:Whenefficientmarketsmaynotdo.PublicAdministrationReview,62(2),145-161.

Catlaw,T.(2007).Fabricatingthepeople:Politicsandadministrationinthebiopoliticalstate.Tuscaloosa,AL:UniversityofAlabamaPress.

Cooper,T.L.(2004).Bigquestionsinadministrativeethics:Aneedforfocused,collaborativeeffort.

PublicAdministrationReview,64(4),395-407.



Cooper,T.L.,&Wright,D.(1992).Reflectingonexemplarsofvirtue.InT.L.Cooper&N.D.Wright(Eds.),Exemplarypublicadministrators:Characterandleadershipingovernment(pp.324–40).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Frederickson,H.G.(1990).Publicadministrationandsocialequity.PublicAdministrationReview,50(2),228-237.

Friedman,T.(2000).TheLexusandtheolivetree.London:HarperCollins.

Geuras,D.,&Garofalo,C.(2005).Practicalethicsinpublicadministration(2nded.).ManagementConcepts:JonesandBartlett.

Goodsell,C.T.(1990).Publicadministrationandthepublicinterest.InG.L.Wamsley,R.N.Bacher,C.T.Goodsell,P.S.Kronenberg,J.A.Rohr,C.M.Stivers,O.F.White&J.F.Wolfe,Refoundingpublicadministration(pp.96-113).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Goss,R.P.(1996).Adistinctpublicadministrationethics?JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,6(4),573-97.

Hejka-Ekins,A.(1988).Teachingethicsinpublicadministration.PublicAdministrationReview,48(5),885-891.

IntercollegiateStudiesInstitute.(2008).Americancivicliteracyprogram.Areportoncivicliteracy.Retrievedfromhttp://www.americancivicliteracy.org/

Kennedy,S.S.,&Malatesta,D.(2010).Averytangledweb:Publicandprivateredux.Administration&Society,42(1),101-118.

Malatesta,D.(2008).Governingandleadinginaglobalsociety.SyllabusforV598.IndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndiana.

Menzel,D.C.(1997).Teachingethicsandvalues:Asurveyofgraduatepublicaffairsand

administrationprogramsintheU.S.PoliticalScienceandPolitics,30(3),518-524.

Menzel,D.C.(2006).Ethicsmanagementforpublicadministrators:Buildingorganizationsofintegrity.NewYork:MESharpe.

Maesschalck,J.(2004).Approachestoethicsmanagementinthepublicsector:Aproposedextensionofthecompliance-integritycontinuum.PublicIntegrity,7,20-41.

Milgrom,P.,&Roberts,J.(1992).Economics,organization,andmanagement.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.

NationalAssociationofSchoolsofPublicAffairs&Administration.(2005,October).NASPAACoderetrievedfromhttp://www.naspaa.org/codeofgoodpractice/index.asp

Nye,J.S.,Zelikow,P,&King,D.C.(1997).Whypeopledon’ttrustgovernment.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Rawls,J.(1971).Atheoryofjustice.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Rohr,J.A.(1976).ThestudyofethicsinthePAcurriculum.PublicAdministrationReview,36(4),398-406.



Rohr,J.A(1989).Ethicsforbureaucrats:Anessayonlawandvalues.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

Rosenbloom,D.H.(1992).TheConstitutionasabasisforpublicadministrativeethics.InP.M.Madsen&J.MShafritz(Eds.),Essentialsofgovernmentethics(pp.48-64).NewYork:VikingPenguin.

Shareef,R.(2009).Teachingpublicsectorethicstograduatestudents:Thepublicvalues/publicfailuredecision-makingmodel.JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,14(3),385-395.

Sheeran,P.J.(1993).Ethicsinpublicadministration.Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe.

Sims,R.R.,&Quatro,S.A.(2005).Leadership:Succeedingintheprivate,public,andnot-for-profitsectors.NewYork:MESharpe.

Walton,J.R.,Stearns,J.M.&Crespy,C.T.(1997).Integratingethicsintothepublicadministrationcurriculum:Athree-stepprocess.JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement,16(3),470-483.

West,J.,&Berman,E.(2004).EthicstraininginU.S.cities:Content,pedagogy,andimpact.PublicIntegrity,6,189-206.

Footnotes1 ThecurrentCodeofGoodPracticeforNASPAA-accreditedschools

isavailableontheNASPAAWebsite,http://www.naspaa.org/codeofgoodpractice/index.asp

2 Virtue/characterisunderstoodas“thepredispositiontobehaveconsistentlywithone’sespousedvaluesandprinciples”(Cooper,2004,p.398).Italsoisunderstoodthatcharacterisdeveloped,builtovertime,andcultivated(Cooper&Wright,1992).

3 Thefive-weekperioddidnotallowsufficienttimetointroducemorethana

fewoftheapproachestoethicsreasoning.However,theapproacheschosenarewidelycoveredinethicstextbooks.Boss(2003)isagoodstartingpointforamorecomprehensivelistofapproaches.Asanotheroption,instructorscanrefertorecenttextbooksonpublicadministrationethics,includingGeurasandGarofalo(2005),andMenzel(2006).



SheilaSuessKennedyisProfessorofLawandPublicPolicyatIndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis.HermostrecentpublicationsincludeDistrust,AmericanStyle:DiversityandtheCrisisofPublicConfidence(PrometheusBooks2009);andGodandCountry:AmericainRedandBlue(BaylorUniversityPress2007).

DeannaMalatestaisanAssistantProfessorofPublicAdministrationandPolicyatIndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis.Herresearchaddressesthemanagementofpublicorganizations,governance,andtelecommunicationspolicy.Hermostrecentpublicationisanarticleaddressingtheboundariesofpublicandprivateorganizations,“AVeryTangledWeb:PublicandPrivateRedux,”coauthoredwithSheilaKennedyandappearinginAdministration&Society(March2010).MalatestaisalsoacoauthorofTheInstructor’sManual:UnderstandingandManagingPublicOrganizations(4thed)(coauthoredwithHalG.Rainey),SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass(2009).



Teaching Administrative Ethics in Nonprofit Management:

Recommendations to ImproveDegrees, Certificates, and Concentration

Programs

Jeffrey L. BrudneyClevelandStateUniversity

J. Michael MartinezKennesawStateUniversity

AbstractThe first protection against ethical lapses in the nonprofit sector presumably is to provide a sound foundation in ethical training at institutions of higher learning. To understand what we hypothesized as the fragmented state of ethics pedagogy in the nonprofit management field, we surveyed educational programs that offer graduate degrees, certificates or concentration programs in the management or study of nonprofit organizations. We found that two-thirds of the respondents offered an ethics course, but fewer than 40 percent required completion of an ethics course. Moreover, the nature and content of ethics courses varied widely in scope, methods, and emphases. To improve the overall state of ethics pedagogy, we recommend instruction programs that equip students with the tools to master three steps in administrative ethics: (a) identifying the scope of an ethical administrator’s work; (b) defining the content of the appropriate ethical standards; and (c) developing a deliberative process so that an administrator can appropriately assess ethical questions and chart a satisfactory course for resolving salient issues.

As nonprofit organizations become increasingly prominent, more is expected of them in regard to management, outcomes, and performance. All organizations, regardless of sector (e.g., public, for-profit, or nonprofit), are

JPAE16(2):181–206


under pressure to produce greater results with fewer resources — to operate, by using what management literature parlance calls “lean” tools, principles, and processes. With this emphasis on increased efficiency, the crush to deliver services that meet the bottom line presents a potential danger — that the ethical dimension responsible for launching nonprofit enterprise will be slighted or, worse yet, overlooked (Rhode & Packel, 2009, p. 31). Well-publicized scandals involving Goodwill Industries, the United Way of America, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) offer vivid reminders of the ever-present temptation to cut corners and compromise on seemingly inviolable principles. It also emphasizes ethics as a crucial concept for all organization, nonprofit included (Moxley & Bueche, 2002; O’Neill, 2001, pp. 623-628).

To encourage the practice of “better ethics,” education is the most effective way for personnel to learn what constitutes “right” conduct in the nonprofit field, although the mere knowledge of appropriate behavior does not necessarily mean that people will behave accordingly. Nonetheless, understanding ethics is an important step in encouraging proper conduct. Knowledge of the appropriate standards and expectations of behavior, along with an introduction to general ethics literature — particularly nonprofit ethics — in theory goes a long way toward encouraging ethical behavior.

Or does it? Does instruction in ethics truly matter? And if it does, what is the best way to teach it? Many theories, standards, and pedagogical approaches exist, but none stands out as a leading example. This article does not attempt to resolve these perennial problems (assuming it were possible or desirable to do so). It instead explores ethics coverage in the curricula of academic programs, based on a survey of educational institutions with master’s degrees, certificates or concentrations in nonprofit administration. Given its present popularity, we anticipated that ethics instruction in the field of nonprofit administration and management is highly fragmented, a finding borne out in our analysis of the survey responses. After elaborating on survey methodology and presenting the findings, we conclude by proposing a set of recommendations for developing a focused approach to ethics education in the nonprofit sector.

Ethics in the Nonprofit SectorResearch on ethics in the nonprofit sector generally has focused on the

relationship between service-providers and their clients. Because doctors, nurses, teachers, religious professionals, social workers, and counselors often work with vulnerable populations — where there is a higher potential for abuse or fraud — the need is especially pronounced for the non-profit sector to have a well-developed sense of ethics (Koziol, 1998). Health-care providers, religious leaders, and counselors may be guided by the ethical standards of their respective positions, but they must never view their duties through the prism of their

TeachingAdministrativeEthicsinNonprofitManagement


professions, rather than first seeing themselves as responsible to the populations they serve (Chisholm & Young, 1988; O’Neil, 2001, pp. 623-624).

Of the research that focused on ethics for nonprofit managers and members of nonprofit boards of directors, only a few studies attempted to explore the measures of proper conduct in the nonprofit field (Rhode & Packel, 2009). Nonprofit boards of directors bring a new level of analytical complexity to the table, because they depend on volunteers, which remains an almost-unheard-of practice among their for-profit counterparts in the business world. Moreover, nonprofit boards donate labor, and willingly undertake fiscal, legal, and social tasks that potentially could impact broader society. When carrying out board activities, board members are supposed to honor their ethical obligations to themselves as a body of directors — over and above any obligations to their firms — but identifying these duties might be anything but straightforward or clear (Agarwal & Malloy, 1999; Bell, Bell, & Elkins, 2005; Bouckaert & Vandenhove, 1998; Jurkiewicz & Massey, 1998; O’Neill, 2001, p. 623; Rosen, 2005; Van Wart, 1996).

Because they differ from for-profit organizations in several key respects, nonprofit organizations present a special dilemma for ethics. A for-profit business exists, first and foremost, to earn money for its owners or shareholders, while a nonprofit organization is created to provide services that might not otherwise exist (Richards, Gilbert & Harris, 2002). In the words of a noted commentator, “One generates the money in order to do the job. The other does the job in order to generate the money” (Mason, 1984, p. 88). The drastic difference in value (and mind) sets explains why the management tools that motivate or discipline employees of for-profit firms (e.g., adjusting compensation to reflect job performance) are either unavailable, in limited supply, or totally lack relevance to the nonprofit business model. Nonprofits often are value-driven, which means they were created to promote a service that was not coming from a government agency and that was either nonexistent or barely surviving in the for-profit marketplace (Rhode & Packel, 2009). “Every organization has some value dimension,” O’Neill (2001, p.625) observed, “but values are not the dominant purpose of business or government, whereas they are the dominant purpose of many nonprofit organizations, including religious entities, private schools and colleges, and advocacy groups.” Ethical issues undoubtedly are crucial to defining the purpose and role of a nonprofit organization (Berman & West, 1998; Koziol, 1998).

Notions of responsibility and accountability also distinguish nonprofit organizations from traditional businesses. The latter are accountable to shareholders, and their successes or failures reflect trends in the firm’s balance sheet (Oddo, 1997). By contrast, judging the performance of leaders in the nonprofit sector is more problematic, because it is difficult to measure performance and the effective use of administrative discretion. Nonprofits



may be driven by a commitment to certain values, but identifying those values and the appropriate means for advancing them is exceedingly challenging. Nonprofit organizations emphasize the importance of accomplishing their goals by engaging in “right conduct” that is consistent with the organization’s values (Malloy & Agarwal, 2003; Agarwal & Malloy, 1999; Bouckaert & Vandenhove, 1998; Koziol, 1998).

Challenges in Teaching Public-Sector EthicsRecognizing the difficulty of incorporating abstract ethical values into

a concrete field of endeavor, in 1991, the American Society for Public Administration’s (ASPA’s) Section on Public Administration Research and the Public Administration Ethics Network sponsored the National Conference on Government Ethics Research. The conference enabled scholars of philosophical ethics to meet and exchange ideas with scholars who were devoted to empirical research. Although attending scholars were divided on many issues, they concurred on the importance of ethics education (Frederickson & Walling, 2001, pp. 37-38).

A basic protection against ethical lapses is to provide a sound foundation in ethical training at institutions of higher learning, even though the nature and extent of that training differs from place to place. As William D. Richardson noted, “Historically, one usually finds considerable disagreement as to what a proper education should be for the people who would govern in any regime.” Most researchers have agreed that educational programs should “seek to hone rationality at the same time that they channel the passions and interests of the individual toward higher ends” (Richardson, 1997, p. 67). An appropriate course of study for educating public servants on “higher ends” must be sufficiently narrowed from its broad goal. In 1989, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) presented a revised curriculum standard, which indicated that the curriculum “shall enhance the student’s values, knowledge, and skills to act ethically and effectively” (quoted in Yoder & Denhardt, 2001, p. 61).

During the 1990s, programs in public administration and public affairs offered more required and elective administrative ethics courses. Some courses concentrated on what might be called “practical ethics,” which emphasizes case studies and “real world” exercises. Other courses introduced students to the “Great Thinkers” of the western intellect tradition — such as Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, the English Utilitarians, etc. — with little or no regard for practical applications. Still other courses provided a mix of various approaches and materials. Courses also differed on whether to highlight normative issues, empirical issues, or a combination of both (Cooper, 2004; Yoder & Denhardt, 2001).

This variety of approaches and course offerings relates to different goals of ethics education. Some programs focus on developing analytical skills, so



that students learn to recognize potential ethical problems and can chart an appropriate course of action. Other programs emphasize philosophical issues, “rather than operating as if ethics were a mere matter of technique” (Farmer, 1998, p. 34).

In the meantime, individual researchers have suggested various methods of seeking ethical guidance. Thus, John Rohr has argued that public administrators need to understand “regime values” by considering decisions that are promulgated by authoritative governmental entities, such as the courts (Rohr, 1989). Terry L. Cooper has emphasized the need to develop an “operational ethic” through effective decision-making (Cooper 1990, p. 5). In TheEthicsofPublicService, Kathryn G. Denhardt argued for “a better-developed theoretical framework ... more grounded in philosophy, and ... ultimately more practical in that it considers and accommodates the exigencies of the environment in which public administrators must practice — the modern public organization” (Denhardt, 1988, p. ix). Patrick J. Sheeran, in EthicsinPublicAdministration:APhilosophicalApproach, rejected “legalistic” approaches, and contended that a grounding in philosophy would ensure that public servants gain a sense of not only the values underlying decisions with public impact, but also, perhaps more importantly, the reasoning behind those values (Sheeran, 1993).

Regardless of which approach was adopted, we questioned whether ethics were taught as a stand-alone course, or as integrated into other courses. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses. Stand-alone courses enable students to examine ethical issues in-depth, while integrated courses place ethics into a broader framework that relates to substantive public administration issues.

Research by Donald C. Menzel in the mid-1990s found that 40 percent of the schools of public administration and public affairs integrated ethics across their curricula, and that 60 percent offered some type of ethics course. According to Menzel, the top-five teaching techniques used in these programs were small-group discussions, case studies, decision-making scenarios, research papers, and lectures. Other methods included role-playing, self-assessment, videos/movies, guest speakers, simulations, fiction, biographies, field studies, and computer-generated multimedia material (Menzel, 1997b). As a follow-up to Menzel’s work, in this study we apply his criteria for understanding formal ethics instruction in public administration to ethics education in nonprofit administration.

Surveying Nonprofit Ethics EducationResearch conducted since the 1970s has yielded much new information on

the state of ethics education in public administration. Much less is known about ethics education in the nonprofit field, however (Chisholm & Young, 1988; O’Neil, 2001, pp. 623-624). In order to examine the state of teaching ethics in nonprofit administration and management, we developed and administered



a survey for institutions of higher learning that offer graduate programs in nonprofit management education. We were interested in knowing to what extent these programs covered ethics, as well as the breadth and diversity of this coverage. To yield more in-depth information, we also requested syllabi from institutions with courses in ethics for the nonprofit sector.

The survey was designed to provide insight into a variety of course offerings and pedagogical approaches to teaching ethics in nonprofit academic programs. Although we were unable to probe for correlation between the form/content of ethics courses and proper conduct among the students taking them (such a research project was far beyond the scope of our efforts), we wanted to know how often students were exposed to ethics in the nonprofit curriculum, as well as in any applicable, predominant approaches.

We developed a survey instrument designed for academic institutions with degrees, certificates, or concentration programs in a nonprofit field (i.e., nonprofit management, leadership, administration, and/or studies). A copy of the survey is in the Appendix. Because the U.S. has relatively few nonprofit degrees, certificates, or concentration programs, we surveyed the population (rather than taking a sample) of institutions offering these programs. For this purpose we used a comprehensive listing of nonprofit management degrees, certificates, and concentration programs that was developed and periodically updated by Seton Hall University. The university hosts an authoritative Web site on nonprofit academic programs (http://tltc.shu.edu/npo/index.php).1

Our survey sought to determine how many nonprofit management degrees, certificates and concentration programs also offered ethics education, either as a stand-alone course or as a component of another course. We believed it was important to garner information on the characteristics of these degrees, certificates, or concentration programs. Accordingly, the survey began with basic questions about the number of hours required to graduate from the program, and the number and percentage of students who completed an ethics course. We also asked for information on ethics instructors, and the number of times per year an ethics course was offered in the program. This information would have enabled us to examine similarities and differences among and between the various degrees, certificates and concentration programs. Unfortunately, because few responded to these questions, the missing data precluded analyses.

The survey and results addressed three principal research questions:

1. What percentage of nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concen-tration programs offer ethics courses? Are they required or elective courses?

2. How are those courses taught (i.e., with what breadth and diversity)?3. What are the approaches/materials (e.g., case method, Great Thinkers, etc.)?

The first question was designed to elicit information on the extent of ethics



pedagogy. Some universities offered multiple nonprofit management degrees, certificates and concentration programs, but hardly any of them scheduled ethics courses or required their completion. The dearth of offerings suggests that ethics is not a priority in nonprofit education. Though, a cautionary note is in order: There were nonprofit management degrees, certificates, and concentration programs that offered ethics instruction, but the number of offerings cannot indicate the importance or quality of those courses, especially if they were not required for a degree or certificate. For example, some courses were listed in a university catalog or offered periodically, but they had uneven quality, or they may have been regarded by students as “fluff” courses that provided respite from other, more rigorous fare. Nonetheless, knowing the percentage of programs that offer ethics courses still is valuable as a rudimentary, albeit imperfect, indicator of how many institutions believe it is important to do so.

The second and third research questions, about the breadth, diversity, and approaches to ethics education, were harder to evaluate by only using a survey. For this reason we requested that respondents send us the syllabi from ethics courses, in order to provide detailed information on what specifically gets covered. Indeed, some respondents provided excessively vague or cryptic comments. Others thought they were being helpful by entirely omitting selected items and survey responses (described further below).

We might have gathered information on ethics courses by consulting college and university catalogs and/or visiting departmental Web sites. However, we also wanted more detailed information on the types of courses offered, approaches and resources used, and whether the ethics course was stand-alone or part of other substantive courses. It was instructive to see how participants framed their responses, especially in instances where their answers could be compared with syllabi and/or other written material supplied by the respondents.

The SurveyWe initiated our research in early 2006, when on January 27 we sent

via first class mail a cover letter, questionnaire, and self-addressed, stamped envelope to all institutions offering nonprofit management degrees, certificates or concentration programs. We mailed a follow-up cover letter, the survey, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope to non-respondents on March 6, 2006. A third and final follow-up was e-mailed via Survey Monkey on October 23, 2006.

In all, we received 80 responses, representing about one-third (33.5%) of the population of nonprofit programs listed on the Seton Hall Web site in 2006. In evaluating the responses, we were cognizant of potential non-response bias. Accordingly, we compared the characteristics of the 80 responding programs to those of the 238 institutions offering nonprofit management degrees, certificates, and concentration programs as of the survey. The sample distribution of responding U.S. institutions was 26 in the Northeast (32.5%), 26 in the



Midwest (32.5%), 16 in the South (20%), and 11 in the West (13.8%). By comparison, according to the Seton Hall site, approximately 34 percent of all nonprofit management degrees, certificates, and concentration programs are located in the Northeast, with 31 percent in the Midwest, 17 percent in the South, and 18 percent in the West. Thus, the distribution of responding institutions reasonably matched the population by region.

To further assess the representativeness of our sample, versus the larger population of academic institutions with degrees, certificates, and concentration programs in nonprofit sector studies, we relied on data available and widely used at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=790). The Carnegie Foundation classifies institutions of higher learning by size and setting (for example, large, four-year, primarily residential colleges; very large, two-year colleges; etc.) as well as by other auspices (public versus private).2 We coded each institution in the Seton Hall database as a program or concentration in nonprofit sector studies according to these variables. We also performed statistical analysis, which enabled us to evaluate whether the institutions responding to our survey differed from non-respondents.

The results showed that the sub-samples of responding and non-responding institutions did not differ statistically, and were highly similar for size and setting of the institution (chi-square p < 0.504). For the variables labeled “by average size” and “student enrollment,” the two groups were indistinguishable (ANOVA F-test p < 0.546). Finally, the two groups did not differ in public versus private auspices (chi square p < 0.134; Fisher’s exact test < 0.169). In sum, the responding and non-responding institutions were quite comparable with respect to basic background characteristics. We found no evidence of non-response bias and are confident in making generalizations from our sample findings.

FindingsAs shown in Table 1, one-third of the total population of institutions

responded to our survey. In 14 cases, however, the respondents indicated that either their institutions did not offer nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs, or they recently had discontinued nonprofit management coursework. Of those who responded to our questions on the type(s) of nonprofit education offered (i.e., master’s degrees, certificates, or concentration programs), 14 schools indicated that they carried a nonprofit master’s degree, 23 offered a nonprofit concentration, and 17 offered a nonprofit certificate/professional education degree. It proved more difficult than anticipated to compile this information, because some respondents did not identify the type(s) of nonprofit education they offered, apart from generally indicating that such a program or programs existed at the institution, and, in seven instances, respondents outlined how the status of their nonprofit program



had evolved over time. As one might expect, the number of hours, students enrolled, and faculty members at virtually all the institutions varied widely across the responding academic institutions. [See Table 1]

Table 1. SummaryStatisticsforaSurveyofU.S.AcademicProgramsThatOfferMaster’sDegrees,Certificates,orConcentrationsinNonprofitAdministration,Management,andLeadershipStudies

Number of Responding Institutions(Percent of Population)

Responding Institutions That Offer a NP Program(Sample)

Responding Institutions That Offer Either a Stand-Alone or a Component Ethics Course

Responding Institutions That Require Either a Stand-Alone or a Component Ethics Course

80(33.5%)

66(100%)

43(65.2%)

26(39.4%)

Among the 66 institutions in the sample that offered nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs, almost two-thirds (65.2%) offered at least one ethics course as part of the program (or, at the very least, they offered a course with ethics as part of the substantive readings and discussions). Despite this relatively high percentage of ethics course offerings, fewer than 40 percent of the responding institutions (39.4%) actually required them. Thus, many institutions in the sample with nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs (n=43) offered formal ethics instruction in their curricula, presumably because it was important; yet, 17 of the 43 did not require students to complete an ethics course. Although survey responses lacked the details needed to explain this fall-off from elective courses to requirements, literature on this subject suggests that many academic institutions with degrees, certificates, or concentration programs in nonprofit management already may have so many required core courses that adding new ones would be burdensome for students (Menzel 1997a, 1997b; Mirabella & Wish, 2001).

Survey results sometimes were difficult to interpret, because not all respondents answered all questions. In some instances, respondents failed to provide detailed answers, or their responses were ambiguous. For example, one respondent scribbled this cryptic comment on the margin of the survey



response form: “All our NP courses include an ethics component.” Several other respondents wrote similar notes. These comments did not enable us to know whether the respondent meant that formal ethics instruction was provided in each and every course offered — at best a dubious proposition — but they do suggest that the respondent believes a strong sense of ethics underlies every subject in the curriculum. Unfortunately, extraneous comments do not help us draw conclusions about the status of ethics education; after all, who but the most jaded respondent would contend that a program is not infused with ethics? Assuming that these respondents were telling the truth by saying “all of our courses and programs are by their very nature ethical,” we did not count these responses under Responding Institutions That Offer an Ethics Course in Table 1. We counted responses to survey items only if they clearly indicated that formal ethics instruction was provided.

Programs that offer ethics instruction — as either a stand-alone course, or a component of another course — share a goal of inculcating ethical values in their students, albeit the methods and strategies for achieving this goal vary substantially. All respondents indicated that their courses were devoted to nonprofit ethics, but the syllabi generally did not distinguish between administrative ethics generally, and nonprofit ethics specifically. Following is quoted information from syllabi (the quoted information does not include citation because we agreed to preserve the anonymity of the schools).

A syllabus at a Midwestern university, for example, stated that the purpose of a course titled “Ethics in Administration” was “to assist students as they seek to develop frameworks for making and evaluating ethical decisions. The course centered on the concept of integrity, what it meant to live an integrated life, and what that concept meant within the context of our daily lives, both personally and professionally.” At one university in the South, “Nonprofit Law, Governance, and Ethics” was designed as a course “on the board of trustees and their fiduciary responsibilities established by law and by the moral imperatives stemming from their actions on behalf of the public interest.” In New England, a course titled “Ethics & Social Responsibility” explores “the role and responsibilities of managers as ethical thought leaders as they attempt to guide contemporary organizations in a turbulent environment. An overview of ethical theories will be provided to inform socially responsible decision-making in a rapidly changing, diverse, global, and information-based world.”

Respondents indicated that instructors used multiple sources when teaching ethics, and added that even those at the same institutions took different approaches to the subject matter. Table 2 enumerates the approaches to teaching ethics and their frequency of occurrence among survey respondents. Although variation was substantial, the most common approaches were the following: case studies and professional codes of ethics, followed by guest speakers, “Great Thinkers,” secondary sources, and “other.” Respondents who specified “other”



referred to the use of real-world examples such as current newspaper articles, video documentaries about the Watergate scandal, the 1970s Abscam FBI operation, the 1980s Iran Contra imbroglio, and similar, well-known instances of public malfeasance. [See Table 2]

Table 2. ApproachestoTeachingEthicsandTheirFrequencyofOccurrenceinaSurveyofAcademicProgramsThatOfferMaster’sDegrees,Certificates,and/orConcentrationsinNonprofitAdministration,NonprofitManagement,and/orLeadershipStudies*

Approach Frequency

Case Studies 32

Professional Codes of Ethics 30

Guest Speakers 22

Great Thinkers 19

Well-Known Secondary Sources 17

“Other” 9

Note.*Multiple responses possible.

Based on the responses, no clear trend emerged in the approaches to teaching ethics — many different curricula and materials exist. Some schools emphasized practical exercises, case studies, and real-world applications from business, politics, and the media. Others highlighted the works of Great Thinkers in the Western intellectual tradition. In many cases, the courses provided a mixture of the practical and the philosophical. For example, a course titled “Ethics and Morality in Public Service” at a Southern university featured a variety of readings, and included journal articles; George Washington’s Farewell Address; excerpts from the works of Martin Luther King, Jr.; and major religious texts such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran.

The survey highlighted a tendency for disparity in ethics education, which spanned a wide variety of teaching styles across U.S. institutions that offer nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs. Based on our review of ethics instruction, we expected this result. Goals and objectives varied among respondents who taught ethics education; the approaches and



emphases they employed were widespread and diverse. As a result, there is no way to know whether one approach is preferable to another, at least not based on the outcome of our survey.

Determining the relative effectiveness of the various methods and sources used for teaching ethics in nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs was beyond the scope of this research, but clearly more work needs to be done. Are case studies more effective at communicating ethical precepts than is, for example, focusing on the works of Great Thinkers such as Plato and Immanuel Kant? More fundamentally, what should be the goals and objectives of formal ethics instruction in nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs? Determining the effectiveness of methods and sources will depend on the goals and objectives of nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs.

Ethics Education: Does It Matter?The institutions that responded to our survey indicated, either explicitly or

implicitly, that the paramount objective of ethics coursework was to emphasize the centrality of personal responsibility and instill in students a sense of the duties they will face when working in a nonprofit organization, so that they will know how to behave ethically and, presumably, act in accordance with their new-found knowledge. This is a noble aspiration, but emphasizing the centrality of personal responsibility is vague; it is not obvious how this goal will be achieved. Even if common goals and objectives are developed, and even if agreed-upon standards and measurement criteria are established, the crucial issue is whether ethics education matters. In light of the personal, private nature of ethics as a blueprint for acting in ways that ultimately rely on one’s conscience, it is difficult to know whether teaching courses on the subject — regardless of the method used — affects the behavior of students who complete them. In other words, the salient query is whether ethics can be taught and, if so, to what end. Do we expect students to modify their behavior after studying ethics, or is it enough that they merely possess the knowledge and tools to act ethically, even if they choose to do otherwise? If teaching ethics does not matter (either because the courses seldom alter students’ behavior, or because they have little pedagogical value), then it can be argued that ethics has no place in a nonprofit (or public administration) curriculum. If ethics education does matter, then the question arises as to whether it can be improved via superior teaching methods or approaches (Jurkiewicz & Nichols, 2002; Lampe, 1997; Penn, 1990; Shareef, 2008).

In 1997, Menzel raised a key question in “Teaching Ethics and Values in Public Administration: Are We Making a Difference?” (Menzel, 1997a). He concluded that ethics education was valuable in schools of public affairs and administration, but noted that instruction methods needed improvement. “Is ethics instruction finding a niche in PA/A schools?” he asked rhetorically.



“Unquestionably. Are we making a difference? Yes, so it appears. Are we making a large enough difference? Probably not” (p. 229). In Menzel’s view, the wide variation in techniques and the inconsistent approaches of ethics education made it difficult to assess its effect, or to compare one form of instruction to another. As Menzel concluded, “There is probably no one best way to acquire ethics. Still, there is much to learn about both the teaching and learning (or acquiring) of ethics and values in public administration” (Menzel 1997a, pp. 229-230).

A similar assessment can be applied to institutions that offer nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs. Virtually everyone agreed that, to the extent possible, “right conduct” should be encouraged. A large percentage of people who believed that right conduct is a crucial question also believed that ethics instruction in the context of degrees, certificates, or concentration programs is a reasonable means of encouraging such behavior. How these courses should be structured and taught, and whether they are sufficiently valuable, are questions that remain open to discussion and debate.

Formal training and instruction in a subject can, and often does, lead to an improved understanding, and sometimes it leads to an impressive intellectual mastery. Courses that introduce students to the central theories and Great Thinkers in ethics can enrich and enliven their academic experiences, assuming they are well-taught and that students engage the material. If the goal is to ensure an understanding of ethics, then multiple courses and multiple approaches can achieve the desired effect.

The goal of ethics education, however, extends beyond understanding, although mastery of basic ideas and concepts is a necessary first step. Presumably, the purpose of introducing students to administrative ethics is to ensure that they do more than merely understand ethics as an academic subject. Students are expected to act on their new-found knowledge by incorporating ethical precepts and practices into their academic and professional lives. This laudable goal can be traced back to the Greeks, for whom ethics was not merely a subject of academic inquiry; it was a time-tested way of life. The cornerstone of ethics was the notion of character — the qualities and attributes that comprise the personality of an individual. A person exhibited good character when he or she acted in ways that reflected virtue (excellence), that is, the individual tried to become a fully actualized human being by engaging in right conduct, in accordance with absolute, recognizable standards (Martinez & Richardson, 2008, pp. 18-22; Wallace, 1978, p. 10; Wilson, 1985).

Knowledge of ethical concepts could be imparted in many ways, but a multitude of approaches might raise as many questions as they would answer. As Cooper noted in a 2004 PublicAdministrationReview article, “Big Questions in Administrative Ethics: A Need for Focused, Collaborative Effort,” the “interesting but highly disparate” literature on administrative ethics lacks “anything like a focused effort by groups of scholars to study specific sets



of significant research questions in a sustained and systematic fashion.” He attributed the absence of a systematic approach to ethics as a consequence of the failure to build consensus on “specific theoretical perspectives, sets of related problems, or significant issues” (Cooper, 2004, p. 395). Cooper was correct in saying that a theoretical grounding must precede the development of any systematic approach to administrative ethics. To date, consensus regarding that grounding has been absent, although some scholars have attempted to provide a theoretical grounding (Goodsell, 1990; Schubert, 1957; Stewart, 1991). Despite these efforts, public sector ethics, including in the nonprofit field, do not have an agreed-upon, more-or-less-uncontested series of propositions or theories that are taught to members of the profession, in much the same way as analogous courses in engineering, law, and medicine are taught. Scholars argue that it is valuable to teach administrative ethics in schools of public administration, policy, and management, but consensus breaks down when there are attempts to go beyond a basic agreement on that broad conclusion (Hejka-Ekins, 1988; Katz, 1968; Lee & Paddock, 1992; Rohr, 1976).

Consider the legal profession, for example. Graduates of American Bar Association-accredited law schools must pass a state-administered bar examination in order to be admitted to the profession. Typically, a state supreme court or state bar association serves as a gatekeeper for bar admissions, in addition to disciplining errant lawyers who violate clearly stated rules of conduct. For lawyers, then, the notion of legal ethics is not a set of philosophical principles that lack specificity and enforceability. “Legal ethics” — as the concept is understood by practicing attorneys — refers to a set of more-or-less black-letter rules that must be obeyed if the practitioner hopes to avoid sanctions (Martinez, 1998).

Contrast this sense of ethics with public-sector ethics as they would apply outside of a recognized profession with a gate-keeping function. Public-sector ethics vary widely because the “public sector” is such a broad, amorphous term — one that carries different meanings depending on the part or aspect of the public sector being referenced. “Nonprofit” ethics confront the same issues, and are exacerbated by an even weaker understanding of what constitutes the “sector.”

As for nonprofit ethics instruction — based on the wide array of courses and approaches available in nonprofit curricula — ethics and the teaching of ethics represent many different things to many different people. If scholars so far have failed to establish a systematic approach to researching and teaching ethics, then it is little wonder that institutions with nonprofit master’s degrees, certificates, concentration programs, or professional education degrees have pursued multiple approaches and curricula with no clear consensus on a preferred path (Bahm, 1982).

Survey results suggested that treatment of case studies and examination of professional codes of ethics seemed to be popular teaching techniques, perhaps because they provide relatively straightforward, positivist approaches to an expansive, highly diverse subject. Broader philosophical works and well-known



secondary sources — although valuable additions to the literature on ethics — can be extremely challenging to work with, and may not yield the “real-world” insights that scholars and students find useful, in terms of practical applications.

If a workable model of administrative ethics existed, presumably the teaching of administrative ethics in the nonprofit sector — as well as in the broader field of public administration — would be improved. This type of model must confront problems that are generalized to an entire sector(s) (Adams, 2001, pp. 291-308; Hejka-Ekins, 1988; Katz, 1968; Martinez, 1998; Rosenbloom, 1989, p. 483). Until this ambitious goal is achieved, we offer a three-step approach to teaching ethical decision-making skills.

Conclusion: Three Steps for Effectively Teaching Ethics Our survey highlighted the diversity in coursework that focused on the

subject of nonprofit ethics. On the one hand, this diversity could be seen as a weakness because the quality and quantity of offerings varies greatly among institutions, which could undermine a common understanding of ethical behavior in the field of nonprofit management. On the other hand, the diversity of offerings may lead to richness in the literature and understanding of nonprofit ethics. Just as different universities display different strengths and weaknesses in certain academic fields, different management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs also display different approaches and strengths for teaching ethics.

As mentioned previously, the question of personal responsibility lies at the heart of all ethical questions, and the institutions that responded to our survey have endorsed this position through their coursework. If an administrator exercises little or no autonomy or administrative discretion, he or she might argue against the assumption of personal responsibility for work-place decisions. Given the central role of personal responsibility in decision making, it is important to understand its limits. Administrators, whether in the public or nonprofit sector, must understand their roles and how they can be shaped or influenced by ethics (Denhardt, 1988, pp. 99-107; Gortner, 1991, pp. 7-15; Wakefield, 1976). A common thread among the courses and curricula we surveyed was an emphasis on the individual’s role as an autonomous actor inside an organization. Different approaches emphasize different aspects of personal responsibility, but every approach concludes that the individual cannot escape his or her duty by deflecting his obligations to superiors.

Despite the difficulty of determining which pedagogical approach is superior to the others, we can recommend general features that are necessary to any course offering — regardless of its approach or content (Martinez, 2009). As suggested by the results shown in Table 2, there are multiple approaches to teaching ethics. Rather than engaging in fruitless debate over the advantages of one approach or another, we propose a decision-making model of the ethical



administrator that requires three steps. In our view, using these three steps —regardless of the chosen approach to instruction — should be communicated to students of administrative ethics.

The first step is to identify the scope of an ethical administrator’s work. To a large extent, administrators’ worlds are shaped by their places in various organizations. Obviously, formal procedural rules and statutory requirements play a major role in determining how the organization conducts its daily business. An equally important but less obvious point is that an organization’s culture affects virtually all aspects of its performance, including how groups interact within the organization (Balk, 1978; Emanuele & Higgins, 2000; Jennings, 2004, pp. 17-18; Malloy & Agarwal, 2003; Martinez & Richardson, 2008, pp. 111-136; Nielsen & Dufresne, 2005; Van Wart, 1996).

Understanding an administrator’s scope of duties also highlights the inherent difficulty of moving away from an individual notion of ethics, toward a broader emphasis on institutions. It is easy to understand how ethical precepts apply to private individuals when they are acting in a private capacity, because their accountability is straightforward. And unless adults are affected by extreme duress, mental illness, or a diminished mind capacity, they are held accountable for their actions. By contrast, an individual who is acting as an employee must consider a variety of factors — aside from personal preferences — when making choices. The potential conflict between one’s desires and one’s duties to the agency, the community, or the public can raise ethical problems, and the nature of such a conflict complicates administrative ethics (Denhardt, 1988, pp. 99-130; Gortner, 1991, pp. 24-33; Graham, 1974; Whitbeck, 1996).

Any course of study that stresses the importance of the administrator’s role in nonprofit organizations will do much to advance ethics education in nonprofit programs. Hence, courses emphasizing ethics as philosophy without a more practical application need to be modified to highlight the role of the nonprofit manager. Adjustments need not be major, but they will be crucial in order to ensure that broad, philosophical principles of ethics are translated explicitly to a nonprofit context.

In the second step, appropriate ethical standards must be defined. The content of these acceptable standards may derive from several sources. Individuals develop their own internal ethical “codes” based on families, social ties, education, experience, religious beliefs, etc. They must rely on a moral compass to make decisions and must determine — in certain instances — whether that moral compass is at odds with the requirements of the larger organization. To some extent, an administrator must separate personal feelings from professional responsibility, when and if a conflict occurs. Although an individual may not enjoy divorcing individual feelings from the role of a public servant, society benefits from this division of duties. Social institutions within a democratic regime are designed so that individuals who interact with



these institutions help promote social values. If an individual working in an institutional setting puts personal values above the institution’s values, then this action circumvents the democratic processes that created those social values (Bailey, 1965; Fletcher, 1958; Foster, 1981; Gortner, 1991, pp. 13-15; Richardson, 1997, pp. 109-120).

A particular organization may have its own code of ethics, in order to outline expectations for employee behavior and performance. Professional associations or societies such as the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) have ethical codes, and their materials should be made available to new (and experienced) administrators. Moreover, one or more organizations such as NASPAA, or some other nonprofit association, might productively offer sessions on ethics for nonprofit organizations. This provides a means of disseminating knowledge about ethical codes and behavior, as well as a means of encouraging formal curriculum development or research agendas for nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs.3

The third and final step is creating a deliberative process that enables an administrator to appropriately assess ethical questions and chart a satisfactory plan for resolving issues. Any course that highlights the steps of creating such a deliberative process would be valuable to nonprofit management students. The course(s) also must emphasize that an administrator faced with a decision should be able to look to past textbook examples and resolve matters the way they did in similar past scenarios. When past examples either don’t exist, or they conflict with the reality at hand, an administrator can seek guidance from more experienced employees and from the organization’s published codes, guidelines, and/or procedures. Although such processes should address the great majority of the cases confronted, instances still can arise where no existing code, guideline, or procedure provides a clear resolution (Bozeman, 2007, pp. 123-129; Martinez, 1998; Van Wart, 1996).

In this situation, the administrator must recognize that the case is not covered by pre-existing rules and standards. When faced with an unusual situation, the administrator must evaluate the situation and analogize it to cases that reflect the underlying values of the organization. In addition, after an administrator recognizes the issue and decides to act in accordance with the organization’s underlying values, he or she must have the fortitude to move forward — even in the face of opposition or indifference from others. Of the three steps in the model, evaluating the ethical requirements and acting on them is the most crucial, and the most difficult (Bozeman, 2007, pp. 175-186; Martinez, 1998; Moxley & Bueche, 2002; Nielsen & Dufresne, 2005). Any course that helps students grapple with these issues would be a welcome addition to nonprofit management curriculum.

Our survey suggested that more research is needed to establish the nature and extent of the link between ethics instruction and ethical behavior, although



several existing studies have concluded that teaching ethics courses can and frequently does make a difference in behavior (Jurkiewicz & Nichols, 2002; Richards, Gilbert & Harris, 2002; Shareef, 2008; Weber, 1990). Typically, a study involves a before-and-after scenario, where a group of students entering a class is introduced to a series of case studies and asked to assess the ethical implications. Several months later, after the students have learned about ethics and ethical decision-making, they are asked to examine the original case studies and reassess the ethical dilemmas. The students invariably comment that they are able to employ more decision-making tools and processes than they had before (O’Leary, 2009; Peppas & Diskin, 2001). Although such results are encouraging, students who recently completed a course that contained intellectual tools for assessing ethical dilemmas are likely to feel as if they are better prepared to assess hypothetical scenarios. The crucial change in behavior, however, will occur years later, when those students become practitioners. Literature addressing whether changes in behavior result in improved public sector management performances is unclear (Hoaglund, 1984; Menzel, 1997a). In the meantime, we assume arguendothat a linkage exists, yet is poorly understood. If a linkage did not exist, ethics instruction would add little practical value to the curriculum of nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs.

In the absence of an agreed-upon universal model(s) of nonprofit or public sector ethics, we recommend that schools offering ethics education consider instructing students in these three steps. Some schools will decide that stand-alone courses effectively introduce these steps; others will choose to incorporate ethics instruction into the content of coursework. Some schools will use case studies and examine codes of ethics, while still others will focus on Great Thinkers, well-known secondary sources, or other approaches to instruction. Perhaps, as Aristotle once intimated, it is the process of wrestling with ethical issues, not the actual content of ethical instruction, which leads to what he deemed “practical wisdom” (Aristotle, 1980, p. 157).

ReferencesAdams, G.B. (2001). Administrative ethics and the chimera of professionalism. In T.L. Cooper (Ed.),

Handbookofadministrativeethics, 2nd ed. (pp.291-308). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Agarwal, J., & Malloy, D.C. (1999). Ethical work climate dimensions in a not-for-profit organization: An empirical study. JournalofBusinessEthics, 20(1), 1-14.

Aristotle. (1980). TheNicomacheanethics. (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Bahm, A.J. (1982). Teaching ethics without ethics to teach. JournalofBusinessEthics, 1(1), 43-47.

Bailey, S.K. (1965). Ethics and the public service. In R.C. Martin (Ed.), Publicadministrationanddemocracy (pp.283-298). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.



Balk, W.L. (1978). Toward a government productivity ethic. PublicAdministrationReview, 38(1), 46-50.

Bell, J.R., Bell, R.R., & Elkins, S.A. (2005). Embedding ethical frameworks in the leadership of not-for-profits: The special case of volunteers. S.A.M.AdvancedManagementJournal, 70(4), 29-42.

Berman, E.M., & West, J.P. (1998). Productivity enhancement efforts in public nonprofit organizations. PublicProductivity&ManagementReview, 22(2), 207-219.

Bouckaert, L., & Vandenhove, J. (1998). Business ethics and the management of non-profit institutions. JournalofBusinessEthics, 17(9-10), 1073-1081.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Publicvaluesandpublicinterest:Counterbalancingeconomicindividualism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Chisholm, L.B., & Young, D.R. (1988). What is charity? Implications for law and policy: Introduction. CaseWesternReserveLawReview, 39(3), 653-661.

Cooper, T.L. (2004). Big questions in administrative ethics: A need for focused, collaborative effort. PublicAdministrationReview, 64(4), 395-407.

Cooper, T.L. (1990). Theresponsibleadministrator:Anapproachtoethicsfortheadministrativerole,3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Denhardt, K.G. (1988). Theethicsofpublicservice:Resolvingmoraldilemmasinpublicorganizations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Emanuele, R., & Higgins, S.H. (2000). Corporate culture in the nonprofit sector: A comparison of fringe benefits with the for-profit sector. JournalofBusinessEthics, 24(1), 87-93.

Farmer, D. J. (1998). Against myopia: Public administration and ethics. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, 4(1), 33-38.

Fletcher, T.W. (1958). The nature of administrative loyalty. PublicAdministrationReview, 18(1), 37-42.

Foster, G.D. (1981). Law, morality, and the public servant. PublicAdministrationReview, 41(1), 29-34.

Fredrickson, H.G., & Walling, J.D. (2001). Research and knowledge in administrative ethics. In T.L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbookofadministrativeethics, 2nd ed. (pp.37-58). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Goodsell, C.T. (1990). Public administration and the public interest. In G.L. Wamsley et al. (Eds.), Refoundingpublicadministration (pp.96-113). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Gortner, H.F. (1991). Ethicsforpublicmanagers. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Graham, G.A. (1974). Ethical guidelines for public administrators: Observations on rules of the game. PublicAdministrationReview, 34(1), 90-92.

Hoaglund, J.A. (1984). Ethical theory and practice: Is there a gap? JournalofBusinessEthics, 3(3), 201-205.

Hejka-Ekins, A. (1988). Teaching ethics in public administration. PublicAdministrationReview, 48(5), 885-891.



Jennings, M.M. (2004). Preventing organizational ethical collapse. TheJournalofGovernmentFinancialManagement, 53(1), 12-19.

Jurkiewicz, C.L., & Massey, T.K., Jr. (1998). The influence of ethical reasoning on leader effectiveness: An empirical study of nonprofit executives. NonprofitManagementandLeadership,9(2), 173-186.

Jurkiewicz, C.L., & Nichols, K.L. (2002). Ethics education in the MPA curriculum: What difference does it make? JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,8(2), 103-114.

Katz, S.M. (1968). A model for educating administrators. PublicAdministrationReview,28(6), 530-538.

Koziol, K.G. (Ed.). (1998). Ethicsinnonprofitmanagement:Acollectionofcases(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management. Retrieved from http://www.cps.usfca.edu/inom/INOM_Ethics.PDF

Lampe, M. (1997, July). Increasing effectiveness in teaching ethics to undergraduate business students. TeachingBusinessEthics, 1(1), 3-19.

Lee, D.S., & Paddock, S.C. (1992). Improving the effectiveness and teaching of public administration ethics. PublicProductivity&ManagementReview,15(4), 487-500.

Malloy, D.C., & Agarwal, J. (2003). Factors influencing ethical climate in a nonprofit organization: An empirical investigation. InternationalJournalofNonprofitandVoluntarySectorMarketing,8(3), 224-250.

Martinez, J.M. (1998). Law versus ethics: Reconciling two concepts of public service ethics. Administration&Society,29(6), 690-722.

Martinez, J.M. (2009). Publicadministrationethicsforthetwenty-firstcentury. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

Martinez, J.M., & Richardson, W.D. (2008). Administrativeethicsinthetwenty-firstcentury. New York: Peter Lang USA.

Mason, D.E. (1984). Voluntarynonprofitenterprisemanagement. New York: Plenum Publishing.

Menzel, D.C. (1997a). Teaching ethics and values in public administration: Are we making a difference? PublicAdministrationReview,57(3), 224-230.

Menzel, D.C. (1997b). Teaching ethics and values: A survey of graduate public affairs and administration programs in the U.S. PoliticalScience&Politics,30(3), 518-524.

Mirabella, R.M., & Wish, N.B. (2000). The “best place” debate: A comparison of graduate education programs for nonprofit managers. PublicAdministrationReview,60(3), 219-229.

Mirabella, R.M., & Wish, N.B. (2001). University-based educational programs in the management of nonprofit organizations: An updated census of U.S. programs. PublicPerformance&ManagementReview, 25(1), 30-41.

Moxley, D.P., & Bueche, L. (2002). Ethical issues in agency resource development: Implications for social administration. FamiliesinSociety:TheJournalofContemporaryHumanServices,83(3), 265-273.



Nielsen, R.P., &. Dufresne, R. (2005). Can ethical organizational character be stimulated and enabled?: “Upbuilding” dialog as crisis management method. JournalofBusinessEthics, 57(4), 311-326.

Oddo, A.R. (1997, February). A framework for teaching business ethics. JournalofBusinessEthics,16(3), 293-297.

O’Leary, C. (2009). Anempiricalanalysisofthepositiveimpactofethicsteachingonaccountingstudents. [Manuscript submitted for publication.]

O’Neill, M. (2001). Administrative ethics in nonprofit organizations. In T.L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbookofadministrativeethics, 2nd ed. (pp.623-628). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Penn, W.Y. (1990, May). Teaching ethics: A direct approach. JournalofMoralEducation, 19(2), 124-138.

Peppas, S.C., & Diskin, B.A. (2001). College courses in ethics: Do they really make a difference? InternationalJournalofEducationalManagement, 15(7), 347-353.

Rhode, D.L., & Packel, A.K. (2009). Ethics and nonprofits. StanfordSocialInnovationReview, 7(3), 28-35.

Richards, C.H., Gilbert, J., & Harris, J.R. (2002). Assessing ethics education needs in the MBA program. TeachingBusinessEthics, 6(4), 447-476.

Richardson, W.D. (1997). Democracy,bureaucracy,&character:Foundingthought. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Rohr, J.A. (1989). Ethicsforbureaucrats:Anessayonlawandvalues (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Rohr, J.A. (1976). The study of ethics in the P.A. curriculum. PublicAdministrationReview, 36(4), 398-406.

Rosen, M.J. (2005). Doing well by doing right: A fundraiser’s guide to ethical decision-making. InternationalJournalofNonprofitandVoluntarySectorMarketing, 10(3), 175-181.

Rosenbloom, D.H. (1989). Publicadministration:Understandingmanagement,politics,andlawinthepublicsector (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.

Schubert, G.A., Jr. (1957). “The public interest” in administrative decision-making: Theorem, theosophy, or theory. AmericanPoliticalScienceReview, 51(2), 346-368.

Shareef, R. (2008). Teaching public sector ethics to graduate students: The public values/public failure decision-making model. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, 14(3), 285-295.

Sheeran, P.J. (1993). Ethicsinpublicadministration:Aphilosophicalapproach. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Stewart, D.W. (1991). Theoretical foundations of ethics in public administration: Approaches to understanding moral action. Administration&Society,23(3), 357-373.



VanWart, M. (1996). The sources of ethical decision-making for individuals in the public sector. PublicAdministrationReview,56(6), 525-533.

Wakefield, S. (1976). Ethics and the public service: A case for individual responsibility. PublicAdministrationReview,36(6), 661-666.

Wallace, J.D. (1978). Virtues&vices. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Weber, J. (1990, March). Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future managers: A review, assessment, and recommendations. JournalofBusinessEthics,9(3), 183-190.

Whitbeck, C. (1996). Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral problems. HastingsCenterReport, 26(3), 9-16.

Wilson, J.Q. (1985). The rediscovery of character: Private virtue and public policy. ThePublicInterest, 81(1), 3-16.

Wilson, M.I., & Larson, R.S. (2002). Nonprofit management students: Who they are and why they enroll. NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,31(2), 259-270.

Yoder, D.E., & Denhardt, K.G. (2001). Ethics education in public administration and affairs: Preparing graduates for workplace moral dilemmas. In T.L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbookofadministrativeethics, 2nd ed. (pp.59-77). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Footnotes1 The Seton Hall University Web site is regularly maintained and updated

(Mirabella & Wish, 2000, 2001; Wilson & Larson, 2002). At the time we conducted our survey, 238 schools offered degrees, certificates, and concentration programs in nonprofit management, according to the Seton Hall Web site.

2 We rely on the Carnegie classification system, by virtue of its longstanding, authoritative stature. Since 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education has classified colleges and universities to assist in research and policy analysis. The classification originally was published in 1973, and updated in 1976, 1987, 1994, 2000, and 2005. The Carnegie Classification has become the leading framework for classifying institutions of higher education in the United States. It has been widely used to represent and control for institutional differences, and to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, and faculty. For more information, see the Carnegie Foundation website (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/).

3 Formalized codes of ethics such as the ASPA Code of Ethics and Guidelines, the International City Management Code of Ethics with Guidelines, the National Contract Management Association Code of Ethics, the United States Code of Ethics of 1980, or any of the state codes of ethics also are readily available (Gortner, 1991, pp. 135-138; Martinez, 1998, pp. 714-718; Van Wart, 1996).



Author NoteThe authors thank Justin D. Fleming, Kristin Tarajack, Danielle Wonkovich, and Vinola Vincent for their dedicated editorial assistance. The authors are solely responsible for the contents.

Jeffrey L. Brudney, Ph.D., is the Albert A. Levin Chair of Urban Studies and Public Service at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University. His major areas of research interest are volunteerism and nonprofit organizations, public administration and management, and research methods and statistics. He can be reached at: Jeffrey L. Brudney, Albert A. Levin Chair of Urban Studies and Public Service, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, 1717 Euclid Avenue, UR 238A, Cleveland, OH 44115-2214.

J. Michael Martinez, Ph.D., is a corporate attorney in Monroe, Georgia, and teaches political science as a faculty member at Kennesaw State University. He is the author of numerous articles and books on Southern history, American government, and public administration, including PublicAdministrationEthicsfortheTwenty-firstCentury (Praeger, 2009). He can be reached at: J. Michael Martinez, Instructor of Political Science; Kennesaw, Georgia c/o 2310 Hawthorne Trace; Monroe, Georgia 30655-4039.



AppendixSurvey

Your Name and Title: ____________________________________________Telephone: ____________________________________________________E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________

This information will be used in a study of ethics courses offered in nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs. Individual results will be kept confidential unless we obtain specific permission from you to identify your program.

1. Name of your educational institution (for example: Niagara Community College; the University of Georgia):

2. In the chart below, please provide information about each nonprofit management degree, certificate, or concentration program offered by your educational institution. If your institution does not offer a program listed in the chart, please write “N/A,” for “not applicable.”

Characteristics of Nonprofit Management Degrees, Certificates, or Concentration Programs at Your School

Characteristics of Nonprofit Management Degrees, Certificates, or Concentration Programs at Your School

Nonprofit Education Programs Offered at Your School

NP Master’s Degree

NP Concentration

NP Certificate/Professional Education Degree

Number of credit hours required to graduate from this program

Percentage of students completing an ethics course in the program

Number of students completing an ethics course in the program

Total number of tenure-track faculty members teaching ethics courses in this program

Total number of adjunct faculty members teaching ethics courses in this program

Number of times per year ethics course is offered in this program



3. Please list the title and course number of each ethics course offered in the nonprofit management degrees, certificates or concentration programs identified above.

Course Title Last Taught (Semester/Quarter & Year) Credit Hours

4. Are other courses containing an ethics component offered in your nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs, even if the course is not devoted to ethics?

No Yes Names of Courses:

5. What is the role of ethics courses in the nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs offered at your institution? Please check “yes” with an “X” to describe any ethics courses your school offers. Please check “yes” for all that apply.

Role of Ethics Courses in Each of Your Nonprofit Management Degrees, Certificates or Concentration Programs

Nonprofit Education Programs Offered at Your School

NP Master’s Degree

NP Concentration

NP Certificate/Professional Education Degree

Ethics course is required for this program

Ethics course is recommended for this program

Ethics course is an elective for this program

Ethics course is not offered for this program



6. If they are available, please provide copies of the syllabus/syllabi for all ethics courses in your nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs, including courses containing an ethics component, even if the course is not specifically devoted to ethics.

7. What books are used in teaching ethics courses in your nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs? Please indicate whether each book is required or recommended.

Author Book Title Required? Recommended?

8. What kinds of issues and approaches are covered in the ethics courses offered by your nonprofit management degrees, certificates, or concentration programs? Please check all that apply.

Great Thinkers (For example, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc.) Well-known secondary sources (For example, John Rohr, William Frankena, Alasdair MacIntyre, William Bennett, etc.) Professional Codes of Ethics (For example, codes of ethics for doctors, lawyers, and other professionals) Case studies Guest speakers with expertise in the area of the course Other (Please specify):

Thank you for participating!Please return the surveys in the enclosed envelope by

Wednesday, March 22, 2006



Public Service Education:Adding Value in the Public Interest

Kathryn E. NewcomerTheGeorgeWashingtonUniversity

Heather AllenTheGeorgeWashingtonUniversity

AbstractThe goal of public service education is to prepare students to serve in the public interest. Educational outcome measurement is an important method in determining whether public service programs actually are achieving their intended objectives. This paper provides a “Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education.” This model builds on what we already know about outcome assessment, and elaborates on how public service education adds value to individuals, organizations, and governance. Key to this Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education is what we term “enabling characteristics,” or factors that mediate the relationship between short-term, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes in public service education. This process enables practitioners to assess their public service education programs and determine to what extent they add value to students, organizations, and governance. Ultimately, this Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education can be used to improve public service education programs.

IntroductionWhat value does public administration and public policy education add to

students, employers, organizations, the public, and the strength of governance? By measuring educational outcomes, we can better assess how public service programs are working in the public interest. Outcome measurement is not a new idea. The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) now requires that accredited programs specify how student outcomes are measured, and how they assess the success of accomplishing their missions (Durant, 2002; NASPAA, 2008). The objective of this paper is to advance

JPAE16(2):207–229


the discussion on educational outcomes, by providing a revised framework for outcome measurement in public service education. This “Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education” elaborates the process of how public service programs can add value to individuals, organizations, and governance.

Evaluating educational outcomes enables us to evaluate and improve the performance of our public service education programs. Beyond NASPAA accreditation, outcome measurement has been used to highlight curriculum weaknesses, illuminate effective teaching, and evaluate how well public service programs satisfy the needs of public and private employers (Boyle & Whitaker, 2001; Champagne, 2006; Cleary, 1990; Mitchell, 1991; Newcomer, 2008; NASPAA, 2008). This paper (a) briefly discusses the public interest, (b) examines existing literature on outcome assessment in public service education and offers an accompanying model, (c) presents the key Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education, and (d) addresses the contributions of this model.

Public InterestThe presumed mission of public service education (i.e., public administra-

tion, public affairs, and public policy programs) is to prepare students to serve the public — in other words to work in the public interest. The definition of public interest is likely to be context-specific (e.g., see Downs, 1962; Goodsell, 1990; Schubert, 1960; Sorauf, 1957). Gary Wamsley suggests that

…the “public interest” refers to a combination of several habits of mind in making decisions and making policy: attempting to deal with the multiple ramifications of an issue rather than a select few; seeking to incorporate the long-range view into deliberations, to balance a natural tendency toward excessive concern with short-term results; considering competingdemands and requirements of affected individuals and groups, not one position…recognizing that to say that the “public interest” is problematic is not to say it is meaningless (Wamsley et al., 1990, p. 40).

What is not in the public interest is easily identified: Corruption, injustice, racism, authoritarianism, arbitrary actions, and unethical decision-making are never in the public interest, regardless of context. Though the public interest may be impossible to define precisely, it remains a useful concept. In sum, public service education should work toward a society’s common good and “add value” in the public interest (Office of Information Commissioner-Ireland, 2002).

Review of Outcome Assessment in Public Service EducationMany efforts have been made to measure public service education outcomes,

and a fairly comprehensive list of this literature is provided in Table 1. Table 1

PublicServiceEducation:AddingValueinthePublicInterest


begins with literature from the field of public service education, and identifies characteristics that help assess the landscape of this field. These characteristics include the mode of data-collection, the broad inquiry of the study (e.g., student learning outcomes or curriculum quality), the specific research focus, the target population, and an indication of whether data were provided (and if so, the sample size).

The shift toward outcome measurement continues in the field of outcome assessment. In part, this is due to the mandate for outcome evaluation in NASPAA’s accreditation standards (Durant, 2002; Fitzpatrick & Miller-Stevens, 2009). Additionally, the move toward government accountability has overflowed into graduate education, as the public demands that educational programs be receptive to societal concerns (Alexander, 2000). While the specific focus of this review is on public service education, it should be acknowledged that the academic identity of public service programs has blurred in the past decade. There are many joint, master’s-level programs that blend public service with health management or business. Certainly, educational outcome measurement in these related fields can be used to improve outcome measurement in public service education. Therefore, examples from other disciplines have been included in Table 1, in order to demonstrate potential fields of inquiry or focus for future educational outcome research. Some concepts from these articles (outside of public service education) later are incorporated into our Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education.1 [See Table 1]

In Table 1, after the section devoted to literature that specifically focuses on public service education, we list selected literature from a variety of other educational fields, including business and economics. The list identifies the same characteristics that were applied to public service education literature. Interestingly, other types of foci and inquiry are more frequent in literature from other fields; there is more attention to student outcomes in careers and more analysis of self-efficacy. Acknowledging and reviewing the literature outside of public service education is an important and useful step as we move forward in assessing educational outcomes of public service education.

As seen in Table 1, the most common mode of data collection for assessing educational outcomes (across all fields of education) is a survey (see Cleary, 1990; Champagne, 2006; Herbert & Reynolds, 1998; Mitchell, 1991). Less often, case studies have been used (see Aristigueta & Gomes, 2006; Boyle & Whitaker, 2001). Rarely, field experiments have been performed (see Schwoerer et al., 2005; Tracey et al., 2001). Other methods such as testing, assessment centers, rubrics, and teacher-centric evaluations have been employed, but not frequently (see Beaumont 2005; Jennings, 1989; Peat, 2006).



Table 1. AReviewofResearchonPublicServiceOutcomeAssessment

Source/Year Field

Mode of Data Collection Inquiry Focus

Target Population

Data Provided

PUBLIC SERVICE EDUCATION (Sorted by year)

Kirkpatrick & Miller-Stevens (2009)

Public Admin-istration

Rubrics

Survey

Quality of Outcome Assessment/ Student Learning Outcomes

Developing a rigorous method of outcome assessment, obtaining faculty involvement, and using the results

MPA Program — University of Colorado Denver

No

Yeager et al. (2007)

Public Service

Survey Student Learning Outcomes in Career

Return on education investment

MPA and MBA Graduates

Yes n=389

Aristigueta & Gomes (2006)

Public Service

Case Study Student Learning Outcomes

How to assess graduate program performance

NASPAA Graduate Programs

Qualitative, University of Delaware Case Study

Castleberry (2006)

Public Service

Survey Student Learning Outcomes

Are students meeting objectives of program?

MPA Graduates — Texas State University

Yesn=27

Beaumont (2005)

Public Service

Testing/Teacher Evaluation

Quality of Outcome Assessment

How well is civic engagement assessed?

Civic Learning in Colleges

No

Nishishiba et al. (2005)


Survey Student Learning Outcomes in Career

What factors foster civic engagement?

MPA Graduates — Portland State University

Yesn=435

Durant (2002)

Public Service

Case Study Curriculum Quality


How well is a program achieving its mission?

MPA Capstone Course and Mission Statement — University of Baltimore

Qualitative, University of Baltimore Case Study

Williams (2002)


Case Study Quality of Outcome Assessment

How appropriate and useful are outcome measures?

MPA Program — West Virginia University

No



Source/Year Field


Target Population

Data Provided

Roberts (2001)


Survey Employer Feedback

Stakeholder perceptions

MPA Graduates

Yesn=139

Boyle & Whitaker (2001)

Public Affairs

Case Study Curriculum Quality

How are MPA programs adapting with the trans-formation of governance?

Public Affairs Students — UNC Chapel Hill

Somen=34 for graduates; anecdotal evidence

Herbert & Reynolds (1998)


Survey Student Learning Outcomes

Are student learning outcomes better in cohort programs than in non-cohort programs?

12 MPA and Professional Degree Programs, 6 Cohort, 6 Non-cohort

Yesn=177cohort;n=165 non-cohort

Mitchell (1991)

Public Service

Survey Curriculum Quality

What types of skills are needed in public admin-istration?

Public Authority Executives and Managers

Yesn=1243

Cleary (1990)

Public Service

Survey Curriculum Quality

How well program curriculum matches practical needs

All types of public admin-istration master’s degrees

Yesn=173

Jennings (1989)

Public Service

Survey

Testing/Teacher Evaluation

Assessment Center


Perceptions of How Edu-cation has Contributed to Workplace Success

Evaluating the Cognitive Development of Public Affairs Students

Evaluation of Student Performance in Employment

Public affairs and public admin-istration students

No


Table 1. Continued


Source/Year Field


Target Population

Data Provided

RELATED DISCIPLINES (Alphabetical order by field)

Stone & Bailey (2007)

Business Survey Student Learning Outcomes

How well are conflict resolution skills used outside the class? (self-efficacy)

Juniors and Seniors in Business and Economics.

Yesn=140

Lucas & Cooper (2004)

Business Survey Student Learning Outcomes in Career

Does a student program improve entre-preneurial self-efficacy later?

Students at the University of Strathclyde

Yesn=55

Michlitsch & Sidle (2002)

Business Survey Quality of Outcome Assessment

Frequency of employment and perceived effectiveness of learning outcomes

Professors in U.S. Under-graduate Business Schools

Yesn=573

Yamarik (2007)

Economics Survey Student Learning Outcomes

What is the outcome difference between cooperative and lecture- based learning?

Inter-mediate Macro-economics Students

Yesn=93

Tam (2006, 2007)

Education Survey Quality of Outcome Assessment

Relationship between university experience and learning outcomes — is the university meeting its objectives?

Students at Lingnan University in Hong Kong

Yes, 2 samplesn=706n=988


Table 1. Continued


Source/Year Field


Target Population

Data Provided

Lee (2006) Education Survey Student Learning Outcomes

How vicarious student experiences are affected by strategies that promote effective learning

Intro-ductory Education Technology Course —Large Midwestern University

Yesn=65

Champagne (2006)

Health Survey Curriculum Quality

Assessment of service learning requirements

Under-graduate Health Education Students

Yesn=12

Schwoerer et al. (2005)

Human Resource Develop-ment

Case Study

Field Experiment

Learning Outcomes andSelf-Efficacy in Career

How does training impact self-efficacy outcomes?

New recruits —individuals hired for summer work for indep-endent contractor

Yesn=420

Carter (2002) Human Resource Develop-ment

Field Experiment

Student Learning Outcomes andSelf-Efficacy in Career

How can the relationship between cognitive ability and training methods be used to improve training outcomes?

Under-graduates in an intro-ductory human resources manage-ment company

Yesn=93

Tracey et al. (2001)

Human Resource Develop-ment

Field Experiment

Survey

Learning Outcomes andSelf-Efficacy in Career

How do individual characteristics impact/affect training and learning outcomes?

Private organization managers (hotel industry). Both managerial trainees and supervisors

Yesn=420


Table 1. Continued


Source/Year Field


Target Population

Data Provided

Sullivan & Thomas (2007)

Psycho-logy

Case Study

Survey

Student Learning Outcomes/ Curriculum Quality

Measuring and demon-strating that under-graduate curriculum results in positive learning outcomes.

Department of Psychology — Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Yes, qualitative and survey of post-gradsn=229

Fenwick (2002)

Various Survey Student Learning Outcomes in Career

How does a Master’s program using problem-based learning develop skills?

MA — Harrington University (Canada)

Yesn=133n=20 (follow up survey)

Attributing outcomes to education programs is challenging. Donald Kirkpatrick’s four-tier model for evaluating educational outcomes has been the dominant conceptual framework for more than three decades (Kirkpatrick, 1959, 1976, 1998). The literature in Table 1 predominately uses Kirkpatrick’s work as a foundation for outcome research. Kirkpatrick’s framework measures educational outcomes in four stages:

1. The students’ perceptions and assessments of program quality, at its conclusion.2. The realized use of knowledge and skills in the workplace at some point

after program completion.3. Changes in work processes that are the result of students’ learned skills

and knowledge.4. Overall productivity increases in organizations where alumni

are employed.

Hamblin (1974) has offered a fifth level: ultimate value. Later, Phillips (1997) refined Kirkpatrick’s model, by suggesting the monetary return on investment (ROI) as an additional level.


Table 1. Continued


Time, resources, and analytical challenges have constrained outcome research. Outcome measurement in public service education rarely is evaluated beyond Kirkpatrick’s second level, and infrequently it examines the impact of public service education on organizations or governance. Related literature focuses predominately on outcomes that directly and immediately emerge from public service education (Aristigueta & Gomes, 2006; Boyle & Whittaker, 2001; Castleberry, 2006; Cleary, 1990; Jennings, 1989; Nishishiba, Nelson, & Shinn, 2005; Williams, 2002; Yeager, Hildreth, Miller, & Rabin, 2007). Research in Table 1 from economics and education shows a similar focus (Lee, 2006; Michlitsch & Sidle, 2002; Yamarik, 2007). As mentioned, studies in the fields of human resource development and business offer some interesting insights. For example, this literature examines self-efficacy, an important concept that does not fit neatly into Kirkpatrick’s model (Carter, 2002; Lucas & Cooper, 2004; Schwoerer, May, Hollensbe, & Mencl, 2005; Stone & Bailey, 2007). We will return to this concept in our Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education.

Logic Model of Public Service EducationFigure 1 is a logic model for public service education programs (for more on

logic models, see McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004). A logic model is a useful tool to describe how a program is supposed to work, and can be used for evaluative purposes (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004). Logic models are constructed to help all stakeholders understand and communicate about a program. In addition, these models can help identify areas of the program that need to be evaluated (Newcomer, 2008). A logic model traces the path of a program — from the components that go into a given program, to the intended outcomes of the program, and ultimately to its projected longer-term impacts. In this case, given the expected inputs and activities in public service education programs, the model offers expected outputs and short-, intermediate-, and longer-term outcomes (Wholey, 1983). [See Figure 1]

Reading from left to right, the logical progress flows from inputs—the people, resources, services, and standards of public service education — to the activities of public service education. Activities include an assessment of the mission and of collaborative projects between the school, community, and government. These inputs and activities are expected to result in outputs— changes that occur in both the students and faculty who are involved in public service education. Beginning at this stage, we have separated the faculty and student outputs, as well as short-term and intermediate outcomes, in order to indicate the more specific, intended aims of public service education and its effect on both students and faculty. These outputs result in public service education outcomes, in the short, intermediate, and longer-term.2 The intended outcome of public service education is to add value to individuals and organizations — ultimately in the public interest. In order to point out



Figure1.A Logic Model for Public Service Education

-Fac

ulty

-Stu

dent

s

-Aca

dem

ic Su

ppor

t Se

rvices

-Gov

ernm

enta

l P

artn

ers

-Alu

mni

Su

ppor

t

-Car

eer

Ser

vice

s R

esou

rces

-NASP

AA

St

anda

rds

-Dev

elop

ing

and

Asses

sing

Sch

ool

Miss

ion

-Pee

r Int

erac

tion

-Fac

ulty

Men

torin

g

-Res

earc

h

-Classes

-Com

mun

ity-

Gov

ernm

ent

Pro

ject

s

-Pub

lic S

ervice

Int

erns

hips

- Fac

ulty

Reinf

orce

men

t of

Miss

ion

- Cre

atio

n of

N

ew P

ublic

S

ervice

Fac

ulty

- Pol

icy

Releva

nt R

esea

rch

- Con

sulti

ng- P

ro B

ono

Se

rvices

Inpu

tsA

ctiv

ities

Out

puts

FACULT

Y

- St

uden

ts Le

ave

with

Acq

uire

d Sk

ills an

d Kno

wled

ge

- St

uden

t Ev

alua

tion

of

Pro

gram

Va

lue

STUDEN

TS

Shor

t-te

rmIn

term

edia

teLo

nger

-ter

m

Out

com

es

- St

uden

ts Le

ave

with

Acq

uire

d Sk

ills an

d Kno

wled

ge

- St

uden

t Ev

alua

tion

of

Pro

gram

Va

lue

- En

hanc

ed

Se

nse

of

Kno

wled

ge

G

aine

d

- St

uden

t U

se

of

Kno

wled

ge,

Sk

ills an

d C

ompe

tenc

ies

in

Em

ploy

men

t

- Pl

acem

ent in

to

Pu

blic S

ervice

Po

sitio

ns

- Pra

ctiti

oner

/ Aca

dem

ic In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

es

Sp

ecifi

c Pu

blic, P

rivat

e, an

d N

onpr

ofit

Pr

ogra

ms

- Im

prov

ed Le

ader

ship

in G

over

nmen

t an

d N

GO

s - Su

cces

sful

ch

ange

in w

ork

pr

oces

ses

by

alu

mni

- Te

achi

ng b

y Alu

mni

- Pr

actit

ione

rs

to

Im

prov

e Pu

blic S

ervice

Ed

ucat

ion

Impr

oved

Prog

ram

Man

agem

ent

- Im

prov

ed

Pu

blic S

ervice

Ed

ucat

ion

Pr

ogra

ms

- M

ore

Et

hica

l and

Tr

ansp

aren

t G

over

nmen

t

- M

ore

Effic

ient

an

d Ef

fect

ive

G

over

nmen

t - Im

prov

ed,

M

ore

Pr

oduc

tive

N

GO

s

- In

crea

sed

Pr

estig

e of

Pu

blic S

ervice

Ed

ucat

ion

Valu

e Add

edin

the

Pu

blic Int

eres

t

SOC

IO-P

OL

ITIC

AL-E

CO

NO

MIC

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT



Indi

vidu

al

Cha

ract

erist

ics

Institu

tiona

lRe

sour

ces

and

Inte

grity

Classro

omLe

arni

ng

Field

Expe

rienc

es(P

ublic

Ser

vice

Stud

ents

and

Facu

lty)

Enha

nced

Sen

seof

Kno

wled

ge

Gaine

d

Stud

ent U

se

of K

nowl

edge

, Sk

ills,

and

Com

pete

ncies

in E

mpl

oym

ent

Plac

emen

tin

to P

ublic

Serv

ice

Posit

ions

Perc

eptio

ns

of Q

ualit

y & V

alue

of

Educ

atio

nal

Expe

rienc

e

Self

Con

fiden

ce__

____

___

Self

Effic

acy

____

____

_

Skill

s-Job

Mat

ch__

____

___

Refle

ctive

Judg

men

t an

d Le

arni

ng__

____

___

Indi

vidu

alPe

rform

ance

in

Pub

lic S

ervice

Org

anizat

ions

Impr

oved

Lead

ersh

ip

Succ

essfu

l C

hang

es in

W

ork

Proc

esse

sby

Alu

mni

Teac

hing

by

Alu

mni

-Pr

actit

ione

rs

Lear

ning

C

ultu

re__

____

___

Risk

Cul

ture

____

____

_

Tran

sform

atio

nal

Lead

ersh

ip -E

mpo

werin

g -C

reat

ive

-Miss

ion

-D

riven

__

____

___

Span

of

Aut

horit

y__

____

___

Impr

oved

Ove

rall

Perfo

rman

ce,

Effect

iven

ess,

and

Tran

spar

ency

of P

ublic

Serv

ice

Org

anizat

ions

(Pub

lic a

ndN

GO

s)

Incr

ease

dPr

estig

eof

and

Impr

ovem

ents

to P

ublic

Serv

ice

Educ

atio

nPr

ogra

ms

Inpu

tsA

ctiv

ities

Shor

t-te

rmO

utco

mes

Ena

blin

g In

divi

dual

Cha

ract

erist

ics

Inte

rmed

iate

Out

com

es

Ena

blin

gO

rgan

izat

iona

lC

hara

cter

istic

sLo

nger

-Ter

mO

utco

mes

Figure2. Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Affairs Education Model



their collaborative and integrated nature, longer-term outcomes do not separate students and faculty. This entire process is embedded in the socio-political-economicenvironment: Public service programs naturally are tied to contextual factors that surround public service.3

This logic model illustrates how we currently analyze outcomes of public service programs. As can be seen in Figure 1, Kirkpatrick’s four levels relate respectively to characteristics listed in outputs (student perceptions of quality), short-term outcomes (using skills and knowledge), intermediate outcomes (improved leadership and processes in organizations), and longer-term outcomes (more efficient and effective government). While this model is useful in demonstrating the intended outcomes of public service education, given the inputs and activities of public service education, we feel that it can be refined in order to trace the learning outcomes for alumni of specific public service programs. The next section develops our Model of Learning Outcomes for students of public service education. In a sense, this model (provided in Figure 2) is an iteration of Figure 1 that also provides a framework to better assess the value that public service education adds for specific alumni. Figure 1 and Figure 2 are not mutually exclusive approaches to outcome assessment. However, we suggest that the nuances of the logic model in Figure 2 can improve our understanding of the intended learning outcomes for cohorts of alumni. [See Figure 2]

ModelFigure 2 is quite similar in many ways to Figure 1. Both are logic models

of public service education that highlight the intended outcomes of programs. However, the inputs and activities of Figure 2 are simplified so that they relate more specifically to the enabling characteristics, and only are applicable to program alumni (not faculty). By contrast, Figure 1 more broadly defines inputs and activities according to existing literature. The short-term, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes generally are analogous in the two models, but, again, Figure 2 details the steps between the short-term, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes only for program alumni.

Our conception of short-term, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes is similar to the approach Jennings (1989) took to measuring MPA outcomes. Much like his value-added approach, short-term outcomes are the changes in student skills and knowledge. Similar to his career success approach, the intermediate outcomes involve individual career progress. Finally, Jennings’ impact approach (1989) evaluates “the impact of graduates on their organizations” (p. 442), which is a longer-term outcome in the Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education. Also, this model attempts to remedy Holton’s (1996) criticism that Kirkpatrick’s four-level model failed to provide linkages between the various levels. To gauge the contribution of our programs, we judge that Figure 2 is a more useful logic model than Figure 1.



In the Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education, inputs include individual and institutional characteristics that impact activities, including classroom and field learning. These inputs and activities result in short-termoutcomes: changes in an individual’s knowledge, skills, and abilities at the completion of her/his public service education. Short-term outcomes also include the student’s perception of his or her educational experience. The crucial next phase in the Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education is enablingindividualcharacteristics. Enabling individual characteristics affect intermediateoutcomes. As in Figure 1, these intermediate outcomes include individual performance in public service organizations, as well as improved leadership by alumni. The key intermediary step of enablingorganizationalcharacteristics lies between intermediate and longer-term outcomes. Finally, longer-termoutcomes show the ultimate aims of public service education: for example, to improve the overall performance and effectiveness of public service organizations.

As pictured in Figure 2, this Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education elaborates the steps — termed as enablingcharacteristics—between short-term, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes. Enablingcharacteristicsarethosefactorsintrinsictoanindividualoranorganizationthatarenottaughtorlearneddirectlythroughapublicserviceeducation program.Certainly, these characteristics may in some way be shaped by public service graduate education, but usually they are not explicitly taught by faculty and/or learned by alumni.

For example, while successful individual performance in a public service organization (intermediate outcome) is intended to result in the improved overall performance of public service organizations (longer-term outcome), other factors that mediate this pathway include the organizational learning culture, as well as the capabilities and abilities of the organization’s leadership. These enabling organizational characteristics maybe influenced by the inputs and activities (or intermediate outcomes) of public service education, but this is not necessarily the case. Therefore, so far as these characteristics (both individual and organizational) are not influenced by public service education programs, we suppose that their relative levels mediate the intended intermediate and longer-term outcomes of public service education. This hypothetically would mean that, even if the knowledge, skills, and abilities gained by alumni of a public service program are excellent, their moderate levels of self-confidence and self-efficacy will moderate performance in a public service organization. Similarly, even when there is excellent individual performance in public service organizations (from excellent public service graduate education), if the risk culture of these organizations is not supportive of calculated risk-taking, then they are less likely to improve. We return to this notion in the next major section, by discussing how it may be possible or even desirable to directly address these enabling characteristics through program and curriculum changes.



AKeyConceptinModelofLearningOutcomesforPublicServiceEducation:EnablingCharacteristics

Enabling characteristics are a fundamental concept that has been absent from outcome assessment in public service education. Enabling individual and organizational characteristics can help explain to what extent public service education adds value to students, organizations, and governance. For example, despite achieving intended short-term outcomes, public service alumni may not perform well in their careers. And even if public service alumni are successful in the workforce, organizational performance may not improve. By analyzing the enabling individual and organizational characteristics, respectively, we can achieve a better understanding of the impact of public service education, and see where value is or is not being added.

In business literature, these individual characteristics are frequently termed as “transfer” characteristics, and they are linked to individual and organizational innovation and achievement (see Brown & Reed, 2002; Ford, Quiñones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992). Enabling individual characteristics influence an individual’s capability to successfully apply the knowledge, skills, and abilities he or she has attained in a public service education program. Ford et al. (1992) cite self-efficacy and personal ability as such characteristics. Self-efficacy has been a common topic in outcome assessment outside public service education; it can be defined as the “willingness to act in an entrepreneurial way, to identify and seize opportunities” (Gecas, 1989; Lucas & Cooper, 2004, p.4) in a particular context (in this case, public service). Individual self-efficacy is closely related to an individual’s perception of and comfort with his or her own knowledge, skills, and abilities — what we term as “self-confidence” (Lucas & Cooper, 2004). Another enabling individual characteristic is that of reflective judgment and learning. Brinkerhoff & Apking (2001) suggest that the individual must reflect on his or her experiences in order for knowledge and skills to be employed and learned (also see Knowles, 1990; Tse, 2007). Emerging from this, the Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education also lists a job-skills match as an enabling factor. In a rapidly changing public service sector, appropriate employment for a given alumnus and other enabling individual characteristics are likely to be crucial facilitators of success. These four, key enabling individual characteristics help us to understand why — despite the realization of short-term outcomes — intended intermediate outcomes may not be achieved.4 In other words, it explains why public service education may not be adding value to students and organizations.

Enabling organizational characteristics function similarly, by connecting intermediate and longer-term outcomes. Ford et al. (1992) note that culture is an important organizational factor: It can influence whether individual job performance impacts organizational performance. This Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education offers both learning culture and



risk culture as characteristics that enable longer-term outcomes (see Kee & Newcomer, 2008). If the public service organization encourages and facilitates learning and calculated risk-taking, it is more likely that achievements of alumni will result in overall organizational improvement. Furthermore, transformational leadership in an organization is vital to non-profit and public organizational change (Kee & Newcomer, 2008). Leaders must be empowering, creative, and driven by a common mission to transform public service organizations. Furthermore, intuitively, they must allow their employees (public service alumni) sufficient authority, in order for individual performance to influence organizational performance. Enabling organizational characteristics help explain the way that intermediate outcomes of public service education add value to public service organizations.

Given this new Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education and the concepts of enabling individual and organizational characteristics, how can practitioners use the model to inform outcome assessment in public service education? In other words, what can be done for Public Service Education with this Model of Learning Outcomes? More importantly, how can it be used to improve public service education?

Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education: Moving Forward

ValueoftheModelofLearningOutcomesforPublicServiceEducationThe dialogue about outcome assessment needs to move toward evaluating

the value added by public service programs to students, organizations, and governance. The Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education helps explain the way that public service education adds this value. It provides a framework to explain why appropriate curriculum and short-term outcomes do not necessarily mean that intermediate and longer-term outcomes will be attained (see Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

Public service practitioners acknowledge that different categories of students (e.g., full- and part-time) may have different outcomes: All data gain meaning through comparison (e.g.. see Mason, 2002; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). In the same way, the model presented here posits that varied enabling individual characteristics could result in varied intermediate outcomes. And, varied enabling organizational characteristics could result in varied longer-term outcomes. These characteristics both facilitate and hinder the value-added impact of public service education. How can we develop evaluations to assess these enabling characteristics?

DevelopingAssessmentToolsIn public service education, assessments of graduate students and alumni



employers frequently take place (see Aristigueta & Gomes, 2006; Boyle & Whitaker, 2001; Cleary, 1990; Fitzpatrick & Miller-Stevens, 2009; Tam, 2007). Complete evaluations clearly identify the span of success throughout a diverse group of alumni (see Brinkerhoff & Apking, 2001). Crafted thoughtfully, these assessments also can be used to indicate the presence and absence of enabling characteristics.

While surveying is a common and useful technique, surveys frequently have been criticized for being incomplete and for assessing perceptions of a construct, rather than the construct itself (Jennings, 1989; Lee & Pershing, 2002). But, in order to capture enabling characteristics — due to their relative and subjective nature — evaluating perceptions is vitally important. A survey to evaluate the outcomes of public service education should be designed to gather data, not only from alumni, but also from other stakeholders such as employers, so that a variety of perspectives about enabling individual and organizational factors are captured.

Questions about enabling characteristics systematically can be included in performance surveys: It is possible to survey alumni about their self-confidence or to survey organizations about whether they have transformational leaders. Survey tools can ask questions about self-confidence, self-efficacy, skills-job match, reflective judgment, and the perceived impact of these factors on work performance. The results may be incredibly useful to illustrate the previously undeveloped enabling factors that either hinder or facilitate alumni in using the skills, knowledge, and abilities they gained from a program. For example, students may respond that their organizational culture facilitates the application of specific performance-measurement skills that were learned in an MPA program. The same applies to enabling characteristics at the organizational level: Surveys can be used to examine perceptions about an organization’s culture, individual span of authority, and transformational leadership. The results are likely to offer information about organizational characteristics that are either impeding or contributing to organizational change. Questions can be asked directly, “How would you evaluate your skills in facilitating change?” or indirectly, “When completing an important project using skills and knowledge that you acquired in your public service program, how confident are you when sharing this project with your peers and superiors?”

Faculty should think strategically when they design assessment processes, in order to develop tools that identify the interaction between enabling characteristics, and the skills and knowledge imparted by public service programs. Questions must be created to systematically tease out the relative impact that these enabling characteristics have on outcome measures. Where possible, evaluations should use comparison groups to simulate the control of key factors. For example, an evaluation could survey alumni with similar knowledge, skills, and abilities, and ask whether they feel as if their skills are a good fit for their employment position. In further analysis, those who believed their job-skill match was appropriate could be compared to those who did



not. Ideally, this would help tease out the impact of enabling characteristics on intermediate outcome measures.5 In other words, it would enable public service educators to evaluate how much value their programs do or don’t add to students and organizations.

ImprovingPublicServiceEducationThe question then becomes the following: How can we translate this

knowledge about enabling characteristics into improved public service education programs? Admittedly, the value of this Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education relies, in part, on the assumption that enabling characteristics can be targeted and improved upon through changes in the inputs and activities of public service education programs. While it is useful to know if a public service education program has not achieved its desired outcomes due to factors beyond the program’s scope, it is not satisfying. The purpose of rigorous outcome assessment is to improve public service programs.

We offer two hypothetical examples (one individual, one organizational) of how the Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education could be applied to improve public service education programs. First, it is clear that students have varying levels of enabling individual characteristics before they enter a program. If the public service curriculum previously has been extremely successful in outcome evaluations, students could be pre-screened for these enabling characteristics. Perhaps an assessment center or a case study interview could be used for admission evaluation (see Jennings, 1989). Second, our model suggests that organizational characteristics may impede the achievement of longer-term outcomes (organizational improvement). There are many ways that public service faculty can contribute to public and private organizations (Smith, 2007). If alumni continually express that organizations are inflexible and do not readily adapt or adjust as needed, program standards and expectations could be adapted to ensure that more faculty-practitioner collaboration occurs. Programs also could educate students on ways to be effective in this type of organizational environment.

As NASPAA moves to even more mission-based accreditation, with new standards set to be finalized in October 2009, there will be higher expectations for programs to demonstrate how they produce mission-based outcomes, and to what extent. A critical precondition for accreditation review is that “the mission, governance, and curriculum shall demonstrably emphasize public values” (NASPAA, 2009, p.2). Programs will be expected to clarify how they contribute to the furtherance of values such as “…ethical behavior and transparency; and the public interest and social equity” (NASPAA, 2009, p.2). Furthermore, the new standard regarding a mission statement specifically states that a program mission should include “the contributions it intends to produce to advance the knowledge, research and practice of public affairs, administration and policy”



(NASPAA, 2009, p.4). In the rationale provided for the standards of a mission and the expectations

for an ongoing evaluation of achieving mission-based outcomes, NASPAA clarifies “the expectation that the Program will evolve and improve reflects NASPAA’s commitment to public values of responsiveness and sustainability. In this way, NASPAA’s accreditation process promotes public values as the heart of the discipline” (NASPAA, 2009, p.4). Indeed, adding value to governance in the public interest is exactly what makes the public service discipline unique, and our programs are expected to measure how well they accomplish this worthy objective. Such evaluations need to be “approached creatively” to help programs provide useful answers to themselves, as well as to outside stakeholders (Durant, 2002, p.194).

Conclusion This paper has set the stage for the Model of Learning Outcomes for

Public Service Education by offering a literature review and a logic model of public service education (shown in Table 1 and Figure 1). The Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education offers an improved theoretical understanding of the ways that public service education adds value in the public interest (Figure 2). Finally, we have recommended how this new model can be used to inform outcome assessment per NASPAA standards, and to improve public service education programs.

Enabling characteristics deserve substantial research, specifically in relation to public service education. Public service educators need to utilize various evaluation techniques, and do so rigorously (see Carter, 2002; Fitzpatrick & Miller-Stevens, 2009; Schwoerer et al., 2005; Tracey, Hinkin, Tannenbaum, Mathieu, & Black, 2001). Public service education programs need to consistently measure the right things, in the right way, to ensure that outcome assessment is credible. Furthermore, public service education needs to be creative and proactive in recognizing and dealing with the enabling characteristics in program curriculum — a topic that this paper has only touched upon.

There is no doubt that it will be costly to measure the intermediate and longer-term outcomes of public service education. But if public service educators do not understand the way that public service education achieves intermediate and longer-term outcomes, then it will be difficult to assess whether our programs are truly working in the public interest. Due to many contextual factors, it is impossible to prove that public service education has added value to individuals, organizations, and governance in the public interest. However, with improved outcome evaluation, we may be able toplausiblyattribute the added value to public service education programs. It is not easy to judge the quality of our contributions to public service education and, subsequently, to the common good, but it is a worthy objective. The Model of Learning Outcomes for Public Service Education takes a step toward attaining this goal.



ReferencesAlexander, F.K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional

performance in higher education. JournalofHigherEducation,71(4), 411-430.

Aristigueta, M., & Gomes, K.M.B. (2006). Assessing performance in NASPAA graduate programs. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,12(1), 1-18.

Beaumont, E. (2005). The challenge of assessing civic engagement: What we know and what we still need to learn about civic education in college. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,11(4), 287-303.

Boyle, P., & Whitaker, G. (2001).Education for the new public service: Implications of the transformation of governance. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,7(4), 267-279.

Brinkerhoff, R.O. (Ed.). (1989). Evaluating training programs in business and industry. NewDirectionsforProgramEvaluation. (No 44). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Brinkerhoff, R.O., & Apking, A.M. (2001).Highimpactlearning. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Brown, R.E., & Reed, C.S. (2002). An integral approach to evaluating outcome evaluation training. AmericanJournalofEvaluation,23(1), 1-17.

Carter, S.D. (2002). Matching training methods and factors of cognitive ability: A means to improve training outcomes. HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly,13(1), 71-87.

Castleberry, T.E. (2006). StudentlearningoutcomeassessmentwithintheTexasStateUniversityMPAProgram. Texas State University: Applied Research Projects.Retrieved Nov. 19, 2007, from http://ecommons.txstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=arp

Champagne, N. (2006). Using the NCHEC areas of responsibility to assess service learning outcomes in undergraduate health education students.AmericanJournalofHealthEducation,37(3), 137-146.

Cleary, R.E. (1990). What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed? PublicAdministrationReview, 50, 663-669.

Downs, A. (1962, Spring). The public interest: Its meaning in a democracy. SocialResearch,1-36.

Durant, R.F. (2002). Toward becoming a learning organization: Outcomes assessment, NASPAA accreditation, and mission-based capstone courses. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,8(3), 193-208.

Fenwick, T. J. (2002). Problem-based learning, group process and the mid-career professional: Implications for graduate education. HigherEducationResearchandDevelopment,21(1), 5-21.

Fitzpatrick, J.L., & Miller-Stevens, K. (2009). A case study of measuring outcomes in an MPA program. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,15(1), 17-31.

Ford, K.J., Quiñones, M.A., Sego, D.J., & Sorra, J.S. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. PersonnelPsychology,45(3), 511-527.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. AnnualReviewofSociology, 15, 291-316.



Goodsell, C.T. (1990). Public administration and the public interest. In G.L. Wamsley et al. (Eds.), Refoundingpublicadministration (pp. 96-113).Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hamblin, A.C. (1974). Evaluationandcontroloftraining. London: McGraw Hill.

Herbert, T., & Reynolds, K. (1998). MPA learning outcomes: Does the cohort format make a difference? JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,4(4), 253-262.

Holton, E.E. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly,8(2), 95-113.

Jennings, E.T. (1989). Accountability, program quality, outcome assessment, and graduate education for public affairs and administration. PublicAdministrationReview, 49(5), 438-446.

Kee, J., & Newcomer, K.E. (2008). Transformingpublicandnonprofitorganizations. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. JournalofASTD,13(11), 3-9.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1976). Evaluatingtrainingprograms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluatingtrainingprograms(2nded.).San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Knowles, M. (1990). Theadultlearner:Aneglectedspecies(4th ed.). Houston: Gulf.

Lee, S.H., & Pershing, J.A. (2002). Dimensions and design criteria for developing training reaction evaluations. HumanResourceDevelopmentInternational, 5(2), 175-197.

Lee, Y. (2006). Examining the effect of small group discussions and question prompts on vicarious learning outcomes. JournalofResearchonTechnologyinEducation, 39(1), 66-80.

Lucas, W.A., & Cooper, S.Y. (2004). Enhancing self-efficacy to enable entrepreneurship: The case of CMI’s connections. MITSloanWorkingPaper4489-04. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=568383

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitativeresearching(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLaughlin, J.A., & Jordan, G.B. (2004). Using logic models. In J.S. Wholey, H.P. Hatry, & K.E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbookofpracticalprogramevaluation(2nd ed.), (pp. 96-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Michlitsch, J., & Sidle, M.W. (2002). Assessing student learning outcomes: A comparative study of techniques used in business schools. JournalofEducationforBusiness,77(3), 125-130.

Mitchell, J. (1991). Education and skills for public authority management. PublicAdministrationReview,51(5), 429-437.

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2008, January). General information and standards for professional master’s degree programs. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/seeking/reference/ standards.asp



NASPAA. (2009, April 4). DraftNASPAAStandardsReview. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/standard2009/docs/NASPAA_ Standards_4.15.2009.pdf

Newcomer, K.E. (2008). Assessing performance in nonprofit service agencies. In P.L. Julnes, F.S. Berry, M. Aristigueta, & K. Yang(Eds.), Internationalhandbookofpractice-basedperformancemanagement, publicperformanceandmanagementreview (pp. 25-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nishishiba, M., Nelson, H.T., & Shinn, C.W. (2005). Explicating factors that foster civic engagement among students. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,11(4), 269-285.

Office of the Information Commissioner-Ireland. (2002). Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002: Annual Report 2002. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.oic.gov.ie/ en/Publications/AnnualReports/2002/AnnualReport2002TextVersion/Name,2852,en.htm

Peat, B. (2006). Integrating writing and research skills: Development and testing of a rubric to measure student outcomes. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,12(3), 295-311.

Phillips, J.J. (1997). Handbookoftrainingevaluationandmeasurementmethods(3rd ed.). Houston: Gulf.

Roberts, G.E. (2001). Using stakeholder surveys in MPA program performance measurement. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,7(1), 19-30.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. AnnualReviewofPsychology,52, 471-499.

Schubert, G.A. (1960). Thepublicinterest. New York: Free Press.

Schwoerer, C.E., May, D.R., Hollensbe, E.C., & Mencl, J. (2005). General and specific self-efficacy in the context of a training intervention to enhance performance expectancy. HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly,16(1), 111-130.

Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimentalandquasi-experimentaldesignsforgeneralizedcausalinference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, H.A. (2007). Publicadministrationscholarsasasourceofknowledgeforfederalpractitioners:Barrierstocommunicationinthefederalenvironment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

Sorauf, F. J. (1957). The public interest reconsidered. TheJournalofPolitics, 19(4), 616-639.

Stone, R.W., & Bailey, J.J. (2007). Team conflict self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of business students. JournalofEducationforBusiness,82(5), 258-266.

Sullivan, B.F., & Thomas, S.L. (2007). Documenting student learning outcomes through a research intensive senior capstone experience: Bringing the data together to demonstrate progress. NorthAmericanJournalofPsychology,9(2), 321-329.

Tam, M. (2006). Assessing quality experience and learning outcomes: Part I: Instrument and analysis. QualityAssuranceinEducation,14(1), 75-87.



Tam, M. (2007). Assessing quality experience and learning outcomes: Part II: Findings and discussion. QualityAssuranceinEducation,15(1), 61-76.

Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.K., Tannenbaum, S., Mathieu, J.E., & Black, W.C. (2001). The influence of individual characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes. HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly, 12(1), 25-31.

Tse, H. (2007). Professional development through transformation: Linking two assessment models of teachers’ reflective thinking and practice. In T. Townsend & R. Bates (Eds.), Handbookofteachereducation (pp. 495-506). Netherlands: Springer.

Wamsley, G.L., Bacher, R.N., Goodsell, C.T., Kronenberg, P.S., Rohr, J.A., Stivers, C.M. et al. (1990). Refoundingpublicadministration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Wholey, J.S. (1983). Evaluationandeffectivepublicmanagement.New York: Little, Brown.

Williams, D.G. (2002). Seeking the holy grail: Assessing outcomes of MPA programs. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,8(1), 45-56.

Yamarik, S. (2007). Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes? JournalofEconomicEducation,38(3), 259-271.

Yeager, S. J., Hildreth, W.B., Miller, G., & Rabin, J. (2007). What difference does having an MPA make? JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,13(2), 147-167.

Footnotes1 The articles from other disciplines are listed as examples. We acknowledge

the differences between public service education and other professional education, but outcome measurement — if adapted appropriately — can be used across disciplines and cultures. In addition, public service education should compare itself, where possible, to other fields, in order to gauge progress in outcome evaluation.

2 The arrows in the model are learning loops, and suggest that intermediate outcomes also can improve public service education activities, as organizational processes improve.

3 This logic model is intended to be illustrative of most public service education programs. However, the examples cited throughout the model are not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive.



4 These enabling characteristics were determined during a thorough literature review, and by practitioner intuition about public service education students. Other characteristics found in future theoretical and empirical research (but not mentioned here) justifiably can be included.

5 Both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques are likely to be appropriate. Educational outcome measurement is complex; it is unlikely that causality will ever be certain.

Kathryn E. Newcomer is the Director of The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at The George Washington University. Dr. Newcomer also is Co-Director of The Midge Smith Center for Evaluation Effectiveness. She can be reached at The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University, 805 21st St. NW, Suite 601, Washington, D.C., 20052. E-mail: [email protected]

Heather Allen is a doctoral candidate and graduate research assistant at The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at George Washington University. She can be reached at The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University, 805 21st St. NW, Suite 601, Washington, D.C., 20052. E-mail: [email protected]



Knowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management:

Transfer-Inhibiting and Transfer-Enhancing Factors in the Belgian Public Sector

Bruno BrouckerKatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven,Belgium

AbstractThis article provides insight on the knowledge transfer of long-term programs in public management within the Belgian public sector. Two basic questions are addressed: What does transfer of public management programs to the workplace mean? And which transfer-inhibiting and -stimulating factors can be identified? The LearningTransferSystemInventory is used as a methodological tool to conduct this study. Results reveal that the transfer from the studied programs is inhibited by factors within the individual, the transfer climate, and the training program. The main problems seem to be that (a) the climate towards transfer is passive or neutral, (b) respondents are insufficiently prepared to enroll, and (c) training shows a gap between theory and practice. Because of these inhibiting factors, the “use” of program knowledge is limited to knowledge-based, interactive, or political use of new information. This article, which provides an incentive to assess other programs, emphasizes that educational programs in public management will be improved if sufficient effort is put into the conceptualization and implementation phases of a program.

IntroductionOver the years, research has demonstrated that the return on investment

(ROI) of educational programs for public and private organizations is insufficient because of their ineffective use of knowledge (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Awoniyi, Griego, & Morgan, 2002). Yet, educational investments still are considered as important strategies for maintaining an organization’s competitive position in the market. Therefore, it is useful to gain insight into the mechanisms of educational effectiveness, and the transfer of this knowledge to the workplace. To capture this elusive concept, the study of “training transfer” has tried to

JPAE16(2):231–253


determine noteworthy transfer-stimulating and transfer-inhibiting conditions. These research results are valuable tools for conceptualizing theoretical models and categorizing transfer-enhancing and transfer-inhibiting factors, in the ongoing search for a valid transfer-measurement instrument. As a result, several theoretical models emphasize the important sequence of “learning,” “transfer,” and “performance,” and claim that knowledge transfer is a necessary, yet insufficient, condition of increased performance (Foxon, 1994; Thayer & Teachout, 1995; Kontoghiorghes, 2004; Pidd, 2004). In the previously noted sequence, three basic variables were identified and confirmed by a wide range of studies as highly influential for transfer: (a) The individual, (b) the training program, and (c) the transfer climate (Foxon, 1994; Thayer & Teachout, 1995; Kontoghiorghes, 2004; Baldwin & Ford, 1988). These variables represent, respectively, (a) the individual’s competencies and motivations, (b) the program’s coherence with organizational needs, and (c) the organization’s general climate of support for the transfer process. When looking at transfer climate, for example, its five different types (Kirkpatrick, 1994) are preventing,discouraging,neutral,encouraging, and requiring(i.e., transfer can be prevented, discouraged, tolerated, encouraged or required).

Even though there is a consensus on the importance of the three-part sequence and the definition of its main independent variables (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Holton, 1996; Burke & Hutchins, 2007), the list of sub-factors that are linked to these main variables is extremely large, which, unfortunately, means that the subject runs the risk of theoretical vagueness. This article seeks to add a new perspective to the scientific state of affairs by studying the knowledge transfer of programs that often haven’t been studied in the past. Most transfer studies are limited to short-term training programs in the private sector (Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2007). Therefore, it would be interesting to study the transfer of long-term management programs in the public sector, and their main inhibiting and enhancing conditions. The aim is to compare the significant variables of transfer in the public sector to those of the private sector. Studying long-term programs in management also could broaden the debate over what transfer actually means, because it is likely that the transfer process for what one has learned differs from program to program.

As a result, two objectives are defined in this article: (a) Providing insight into the knowledge transfer processes of long-term managerial programs in the public sector, and (b) defining the meaning of transfer in these programs. Consequently, the following explorative research questions are considered:

• Is there any transfer of knowledge from management programs for civil servants, and, if so, what does it look like?

• Do variables matter in the public sector the same way they do in the private sector?

KnowledgeTransferofEducationalProgramsinPublicManagement:


To address these objectives/questions, the article is divided into three major sections. The first section provides a theoretical framework on transfer, its influencing variables, and the meaning of the word “use,” as it applies to the use of knowledge. The second section clarifies data collection and data analysis for this study. It delineates the starting point as a measurement instrument that has been developed and used since 2000, mainly in private organizations, called the LearningTransferSystemInventory.In the third section, results are analyzed and discussed.

Defining and Framing the Meaning of Transfer

DefinitionTransfer often is defined as “the effective and continuing application, by

trainees to their jobs, of the knowledge and skills gained in the training, both on and off the job” (Broad & Newstrom, 1992). Even though this definition doesn’t distinguish between different types of training programs, it highlights several important aspects of transfer. First is the importance of time, implied by the term continuing: If the application was a single-moment phenomenon without any change in work methods, one could not speak of transfer as it is defined here. Second, although not emphasized by this quotation, transfer is characterized by the resemblance between learning and work situations: The greater the resemblance, the easier the transfer. This is the essence of transfer — translating acquired knowledge from one situation to another. Third, transfer must be considered as a step between the learning process and actual job performance. Several theoretical models emphasized this sequence of events, and claimed that transfer is a necessary condition for increased performance (Foxon, 1994; Thayer & Teachout, 1995; Kontoghiorghes, 2004; Pidd, 2004). Fourth, transfer is merely one educational effect among others. A frequently used, though much-criticized, typology for educational effects is Kirkpatrick’s four-level model (1994; Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland, 1997). He distinguishes the following levels:

1. ReactionLevel How satisfied with the program are its trainees? A low satisfaction level could affect transfer motivation.

2. LearningLevelHave the participants learned anything?3. BehaviorLevel (Also called the transfer level.)4. ResultLevel Effects on the organization, such as increased

production, improved work quality, or cost reductions. Despite the insight that this typology offers for a quality evaluation of programs, the four-level model has fundamental counterarguments (Holton, 1996; Bates, 2005). For example, Kirkpatrick’s model is incomplete. It assumes that insight on the reaction, learning, behavior, and result levels makes it possible



to determine a program’s effectiveness. However, educational effectiveness is influenced by a large number of other important factors. Factors that influence transfer before, during, and after a program (Holton, 1996; Bates, 2005) exist on the organizational level (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Awoniyi et al., 2002; Van der Klink,Gielen & Nauta, 2001; Clarke, 2002; Ford, Quiñones, Sego, & Sorra, 1992; Gumuseli & Ergin, 2002; Quiñones, 1995; Olivero, Bane, & Kopelman, 1997), on the individual level (Quiñones & Holladay, 2003; Lim & Johnson, 2002; Ruona, Leimbach, Holton & Bates, 2002), and on the level of the program itself (Paek & Hawley, 2006; Ford et al., 1992; Broad & Newstrom, 1992). Second, Kirkpatrick presupposes a linear connection between the four levels, which assumes that satisfaction leads to learning, learning leads to transfer, and transfer leads to results. Until recently, there was no support to confirm this assumption (Holton, 1996; Bates, 2005). Finally, the model assumes that each level automatically yields more data about its effectiveness than the previous level did. Like Kirkpatrick’s linear connection, this assumption also lacks proof (Bates, 2005). Limitations of the Kirkpatrick model are taken into account in this article by applying the LearningTransferSystemInventory(LTSI). This survey instrument was developed to counter the limitations of the four-level model, as will be explained.

TypesofTransfer The concept of transfer traditionally is divided into four segments:

1. Directionof transfer, which highlights the influence of knowledge application on individual performance: Positiveandnegativetransferassume a positive or negative influence, while zerotransferimplies no influence at all(Van der Klink, et al., 2001).

2. Complexityof transfer, which is determined by the resemblance between learning and work situations. If the resemblance is strong, it creates horizontaltransfer, and application of knowledge easily will take place. The opposite is a situation of verticaltransfer, where, due to a smaller resemblance between learning and work situations, an application could occur in a larger number of situations (Bergenhenegouwen, Mooijman, & Tillema, 1994). Both types of transfer can be positive or negative.

3. Distanceof transfer, which encompasses nearand fartransfer. Neartransfer restricts the application of what has been learned to a small number of cases or similar situations. Fartransfer,on the contrary, is the application ofwhat has been learned in situations that are greatly different from each other and from the learning situation (Smans, 2005). Notice that the difference between near and far transfer on the one hand, and horizontal and vertical



transfer on the other, is not always clear in the literature. In both cases it refers to the application of knowledge in a similar situation vs. application of the same knowledge in a different situation.

4. Time of transfer, where transfer can be forward-or backward-reaching.Forward-reaching transfer tries to use what recently has been learned, by anticipating its relevance to a new situation, while backward-reaching transfer applies previously learned knowledge to a new situation (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). The difference between them is located in the moment of the situation: When forward-reaching,one proactively tries to predict an event where knowledge can or will be used, and when backward-reaching,one reactively emphasizes the use of knowledge once the situation occurs.

Defining“Application”

Seldom discussed in the transfer debate is the meaning of the word “application” or the verb “use.” Yet, the importance and relevance of discussing this issue reaches far beyond its linguistic character, because an organization’s judgment about a program’s ROI depends on it. For example, defining what it means to “use” the knowledge gained from a software program is easier than defining the use of acquired managerial knowledge. This means that the description of transfer is too general to capture the various possibilities of applying knowledge from different programs. In fact, it may be too broadly defined to clearly point to its meaning in everyday life. Therefore, as a theoretical analysis tool, literature about the use of scientific information in policy decision-making also applies to the transfer debate. In one way or the other, policy is confronted with scientific information, whereupon one bases decisions (or not).

Caplan (1979) distinguishes between the conceptualuse and instrumentaluse of knowledge and information. Instrumentaluse represents the daily use of knowledge in all types of small operations, as well as in micro-level and incremental decisions. An example would be transfer of acquired knowledge in a Web site design program. Using this knowledge may enhance marketing of organizational products, without triggering fundamental organizational changes. Conceptualuse is when knowledge transfer has a major impact on large decisions (Caplan, 1979). For example, the transferred knowledge of a Human Resources Management program could lead to the implementation of a new personnel evaluation system.

Weiss (1979) identified seven different possible forms of knowledge use. The starting point is that knowledge transfer rarely involves applying specific data in specific situations. Instead, it is knowledge use in the form of ideas and information (Neilson, 2001), which makes knowledge transfer a vague and difficult-to-observe process. The seven possible forms of knowledge use are as follows:



1. Knowledge-Based:The use of knowledge on a basic level to make small decisions. This is similar to Caplan’s (1979) definition for the instrumentaluse of knowledge and information.

2. Problem-Solving: When knowledge is used to solve a well-defined problem that is recognized by a program participant and a supervisor or colleagues. Depending on whether the defined problem is large or small, problem-solving could be, according to Caplan’s typology, either an instrumentalor a conceptualuse of knowledge.

3. Enlightenment:The application of knowledge over time, by accumulation. For example, one employee’s participation in changing a management program will not change the organization, but participation in the program by several generations of different employees over the years may make a major impact. Caplan doesn’t explicitly emphasize the impact of knowledge accumulation. However, because time is an important aspect here, the complexity of transfer is stressed, which makes this a conceptualuse of knowledge.

4. Political: The use of knowledge to strengthen a decision that already is made. This does not necessarily mean that the decision is rational, and it isn’t discussed by Caplan in terms of the difference between conceptual and instrumentaluses.

5. Strategic: An explicit decision not to transfer knowledge. This type of use requires extra knowledge and information in order, for example, to postpone a decision. Caplan doesn’t discuss this possibility, either.

6. Interactive: In a competitive situation between someone who followed a program and someone who didn’t, an interactive use of knowledge occurs when the organization’s management investigates to find the most useful information. In this case, management would have to be convinced by both sides. Contextual aspects are important in this type of knowledge transfer. They are not stressed in Caplan’s two main types.

7. Intellectual Enterprise: Using knowledge means finding one way to solve a problem, while intellectual enterprise is the process of considering several different solutions at one time. This isn’t discussed by Caplan.

In this article, different types of knowledge use are proposed in a model that is characterized by three dimensions: (a) time, (b) the number of stakeholders, and (c) transfer complexity. Enlightenment, intellectual enterprise, interactive use of knowledge, and problem-solving are types of use that require more than one stakeholder to transfer knowledge. Except for problem-solving, they have a higher level of complexity. Strategic, knowledge-based, and political types of uses range from notransfer to complextransfer, and do not require more than one stakeholder (though multiple stakeholders also can initiate this type of transfer). [SeeFigure1]



Figure1. Types of Knowledge Use

Strategic Knowledge based Political

Interactive

Enlightenment

Intellectualenterprise

Problem solving

Time

1 stakeholder

>1 stakeholder

No transfer Simple transfer Complex transfer

In conclusion, as stated by listing the different types of knowledge transfers, it is clear that there also are different types of knowledge use. Vertical transfer can, for instance, be a knowledge-based, or an enlightenment-based type of use. It is important to be aware of possible differences between the types. The knowledge transfer process can be very subtle or very explicit, which makes it hard to decide whether or not a transfer has occurred, and whether or not knowledge has been applied. Therefore we suggest another definition for transfer: Transferiswhenacquiredknowledgeandskillsaddvaluethatimprovesjobperformance. This definition highlights the sequence of events and emphasizes the importance of job performance. The ultimate goal of transfer is to improve performance, not to apply knowledge. This added value to performance can take different forms. It can be a cognitive reflection that is necessary to the performance, or it may relate to concrete actions. This added value doesn’t have to be systematic (as highlighted in the original definition); it may depend on different factors and it may not be systematic. Again, the ultimate goal is to have value added to the job; application alone isn’t sufficient. This article will assess whether the data support this description of the transfer phenomenon.

Measuring Transfer-Enhancing and Transfer-Inhibiting FactorsThe methodological part of this research topic is rather young. In transfer

studies, self-developed instruments frequently were used, according to the training program details and the specific research question(s). This was intriguing, given the fact that different instruments were used to measure the same concept. Once again, this is due to the fact that the “original” definition of transfer was too broad to be measured the same way in different programs.



In 1993, Rouiller and Goldstein developed a TransferClimateInstrument, but it was proven to have doubtful validity (Holton, Bates, Seyler, & Carvalho, 1997; Chen, 2003). Tracey, Tannenbaum, and Kavanagh in 1995 developed the GeneralTrainingClimateScale, which tried to measure the broad organizational environment and to focus more deeply on the transfer climate as a group perception (Tracey & Tews, 2005). Other studies tried to combine different instruments. To measure different levels of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model (1994), researchers Lim and Morris (2006) put it through five tests, including (a) the PerceptionSurveyofLearning, (b) the PerceptionSurveyofApplication,(c) pre-tests/post-tests to assess learning differences between, before,and after training; (d)the TrainingSatisfactionSurvey,and (e) the OrganisationalClimateSurvey.

The LTSI seems to be the only instrument that has been studied and used on a regular basis with successful results. As the name LearningTransferSystemInventory demonstrates, this instrument measures the “learning transfer system,” which includes all the factors within the individual, the training program, and the organization that influence transfer (Donovan, Hannigan, & Crowe, 2001). The first version of this instrument was developed in 1996, in order to counter problems of the previously described four-level model. It was introduced by Holton et al. (1997) in the article “Toward Construct Validation of a Transfer Climate Instrument.”The researchers’ aim was threefold: (a) To develop an instrument that could measure transfer-inhibiting and transfer-stimulating conditions in every organization and culture, (b) to focus on the question of whytransfer happens instead of whetherit happens, and (c) to contribute to the improvement of a conceptual model of transfer and educational effectiveness. The first version of the instrument, named the LearningTransferQuestionnaire(LTQ),was based upon a model developed by Rouiller and Goldstein in 1993, which had a doubtful validity (Holton et al., 1997; Chen, 2003). The LTQ was improved between 1996 and 2000, and eventually became the LTSI. It measures 16 factors (Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000). Their descriptions are listed in Table 1 (Holton & Bates, 1998). In this study, the LTSI was used to measure transfer-stimulating and transfer-inhibiting conditions of two master’s programs in Belgium. This is interesting for (similar) programs in other countries, because contextual, organizational features are taken into account. As such, the factors in this table can be used to assess other programs.[SeeTable1]

The LTSI has been translated and validated in several languages. Yamnill (2001) and Chen (2003) translated the instrument into Thai and Chinese, respectively. Both found a similar factor structure that was as valid as the original LTSI (Chen, 2003). The instrument also has been translated and validated in Arabic (Bates & Khasawneh, 2005) and French (Devos, Dumay, Bassart, Bodenghien, & Vallaeys, 2006). The cross-organizational validity of the instrument also has been confirmed (Holton, Chen, & Naquin, 2003). Eleven of the 16 factors focus on the characteristics of a well-specified program. They include



1. Supervisor Support;2. Transfer Design;3. Negative Personal Outcomes;4. Personal Capacity for Transfer;5. Learner Readiness;6. Perceived Content Validity;7. Peer Support;8. Opportunity to Use;9. Motivation to Transfer;10. Supervisor Sanction; and11. Positive Personal Outcomes.

The remaining five factors are more general, and focus on every program in an organization. They are

12. Performance Coaching;13. Performance-Outcomes Expectations;14. Performance Self-Efficacy;15. Transfer Effort-Performance Expectations; and16. Openness to Change (Holton et al., 2000).

Table 1. LTSIScaleDefinitions

TraineeCharacteristicsScales

LearnerReadiness: The extent to which individuals are prepared to enter and participate in a training program.

PerformanceSelf-Efficacy: An individual’s general belief in being able to change personal performance outcomes, when desired.

MotivationScales

MotivationtoTransferLearning: The direction, intensity and persistence of effort towards utilizing in a work setting skills and knowledge learned in training.

TransferEffort-PerformanceExpectations: The expectation that effort devoted to transfer will lead to changes in job performance.

Performance-OutcomesExpectations: The expectation that changes in job performance will lead to outcomes valued by the individual.



WorkEnvironmentScales

Feedback/PerformanceCoaching: Formal and informal indicators from an organization about an individual’s job performance.

Supervisor/ManagerSupport: The extent to which managers support and reinforce on-the-job learning.

Supervisor/ManagerSanctions: The extent to which individuals perceive negative responses from managers when applying skills learned in training.

PeerSupport: The extent to which peers reinforce and support on-the-job learning.

Resistance/OpennesstoChange: The extent to which prevailing group norms are perceived by individuals to resist or discourage the use of skills and knowledge acquired in training.

PersonalOutcomes-Positive: The highest degree of positive outcomes that can be achieved by using training on the job.

PersonalOutcomes-Negative: : The extent to which individuals believe that applying skills and knowledge learned in training will lead to negative outcomes.

AbilityScales

OpportunitytoUseLearning: The extent to which trainees obtain or are provided with resources and job tasks that enable them to use skills taught in training.

PersonalCapacityforTransfer: The extent to which individuals have the time, energy, and mental space in their work lives to make changes required to transfer learning to the job.

PerceivedContentValidity: The extent to which the trainees judge the training content as accurately reflecting job requirements.

TransferDesign: The extent to which training has been designed for giving trainees the ability to transfer learning to the application of job duties, so that training instructions match job requirements.

Note. Adapted from “Learning Transfer System Inventory: Administrator’s Guide,” by E. Holton & R. Bates, 1998.

Research Methods

CaseSelectionTwo Belgian cases were selected for this study. It was not the primary

purpose of these case studies to extrapolate results to a larger group of cases (Seawright & Gerring, 2008). Instead, the main goal was to gain insight into two selected educational programs, to explore what the meaning of transfer might be in that setting, and to explore findings from the private sector in a different

Table 1. Continued



setting. Nevertheless, these case studies can be an inspiration for other cases, and help other educational institutes to ameliorate their programs, in order to enhance effectiveness and knowledge transfer. The Belgian context as such has not been studied, but, methodologically, it is important to mention that the organizational features that are emphasized may be influenced by “Belgian characteristics.” It would be interesting to study similar programs in other countries, in order to see whether the results presented here are valid for different cultures’ cases.

According to the typology discussed by Seawright and Gerring (2008), it can be assumed that this study is based on influentialcases. They state that “the goal of this style of case study is to explore cases that may be influential vis-à-vis some larger cross-case theory, not to propose new theoretical formulations (though this may be the unintended by-product of an influential case analysis)” (p. 303). The case in this article is to study transfer of management programs in a different context, in order to see whether they differ from the transfer of short-term programs in the private sector. It is possible, as has been suggested, that the generally accepted definition of transfer may be refined in order to meet the specificities of programs and sectors.

DataSamplingandTopicGuideThe data that this study is based on were collected in two series of

qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Belgian federal civil servants.1 All of them graduated from an educational program in public management between 2001and 2007. Both series of interviews were distributed equally across gender, age, and work experience. The first group of interviewees graduated from an academic Master in Public Management and Public Policy program (MPP). By interviewing those respondents, we aimed to have a broadpicture of transfer and transfer-inhibiting factors from this program in a diversityoforganizations. A total of 13 people were interviewed, which represents a response rate of almost 40 percent. The respondents worked in the following organizations: Belgian Military; Court of Audit of Belgium; Federal Departments of Economy, Health, Internal Affaires, Justice, and Social Security; Federal Parliament; Federal Police; National Institute for Disease and Invalidity Insurance; and the National Office of Pensions.

The second group graduated from a Public Management Program (PUMP) that was limited to 50 federal civil servants, who were selected by their departments and the university. PUMP is commissioned by the federal government, and aims to create a pool of experts who are capable of supporting the administration’s modernization. This group of interviewees was limited to civil servants from the Federal Department of Justice, in order to gain an in-depth picture of transfer and transfer-inhibiting factors from a program in onedepartment. Sixteen people (representing a 40 percent response rate) were interviewed from the following institutions: Correctional Institution for



Juveniles; Court of Appeal; Department of Homeland Security, Gambling Commission; Department of Penitentiaries, Prisons; and the National Institute for Criminality and Criminology. The PUMP can be considered as an executive program that only addresses professionals.

Table 2 provides an overview of the interviews, along with core information on interviewees’ respective programs. All interviewees graduated between 2001 and 2007. Although this is a large range of years, we thought it would be interesting to see if time made an impact on transfer. Given that these kinds of programs may have a different form of transfer, it was necessary to consider a large time frame, because transferring management programs may need more time than transferring short-term, technical training programs. The number of respondents was rather small in terms of absolute numbers, but in terms of the response rate, it was quite good. [SeeTable2]

Table 2. OverviewofInterviews

PublicManagementProgram(PUMP)

MasterinPublicManagementandPublicPolicy(MPP)

MainObjectivesofProgram

• Provide insight in public management and policy

• Impart knowledge and skills concerning methods in public management and policy

• Develop competencies for public sector managers

• Create a pool of experts and generate managerial capacity within the federal administration

• Support the modernization process

• Generate an intradepartmental and interdepartmental network of experts

• Provide insight in public management and policy

• Impart knowledge and skills concerning methods in public management and policy

• Develop competencies for public sector managers

• Encourage networks among (future) civil servants from various public administrations

TargetGroup

• Civil servants from the federal administration

• Civil servants (federal, Flemish/regional and local levels)

• Regular students



SpecificProgramCharacteristics

• Selection procedure

• Commissioned by the federal administration

• Focus on the federal administration

• Supervisor’s permission is requested

• Participants are part time-released

• Target group = Civil servants with high potential

• No selection procedure

• Civil servants from federal, Flemish/regional and local levels may participate

• Focus on public sector in general

• Supervisor’s permission is advised

• Time-release for classes and tasks depends on the organization’s support

• Target group = Everyone interested

TargetGroupforInterviews

Graduates working in the Justice Department

Graduates working in different organizations of the Belgian federal administration

AimofInterviews

Gain insight on knowledge transfer in one specific department (i.e. Justice Dept.); In-depth insight

Gain insight on knowledge transfer in many different federal organizations; Administration-wide insight

NumberofInterviewsConducted

(Allrespondentsgraduatedbetween2001-2007)

16 interviewees (response rate=40%) from:

• Correctional Institution for Juveniles

• Court of Appeal

• Department of Homeland Security, Gambling Commission

• Department of Penitentiaries, Prisons

• National Institute for Criminality and Criminology

13 interviewees (response rate=40%) from:

• Belgian Military

• Court of Audit of Belgium

• Federal Depts. of Economy, Health, Internal Affaires, Justice, and Social Security

• Federal Parliament

• Federal Police

• National Institute for Disease and Invalidity Insurance

• National Office of Pensions

InterviewDates July – August 2007 February – May 2007

Methodology

Semi-structured interviews were based on Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) factors. Each factor was considered as a topic and divided into different subtopics. Because the LTSI only focuses on transfer-inhibiting and transfer-stimulating factors, a battery of questions about transfer was added.

Table 2. Continued



ResultsThe results described here are general conclusions from the interviews for

each topic. Differences between the two categories of respondents are highlighted when necessary. Because this article has an explorative nature, it is more important to focus on the perception of the majority than on the individual differences between respondents. Of course, when the majority is small, an in-depth view of individual perceptions is necessary.Transfer-InhibitingandTransfer-StimulatingConditions

LearnerReadiness:Though both PUMP and MPP graduates enrolled on their own initiatives, more than 90 percent said they lacked a clear idea about the utility of the program towards their work. In other words, they weren’t completely ready to enter the program, because they didn’t know what they would do afterwards.

PerformanceSelf-Efficacy:No respondent doubted his/her personal capacities to transfer knowledge. This self-confidence is strengthened by the fact that they all had high grades or obtained their graduation certificates quite easily. Nevertheless, most of the respondents doubted whether they would receive the opportunity from their organizations to transfer their acquired competencies.

MotivationtoTransferLearning:Each MPP graduate had a modest transfer motivation: There was transfer willingness, but they also were conscious about the fact that transferring these kinds of programs isn’t straightforward. The PUMP graduates were extremely motivated to transfer, but once they returned to the workplace, some of them were confronted with organizational resistance, which decreased their initial motivation.

TransferEffort-PerformanceExpectations&Performance-OutcomesExpectations: Both MPP and PUMP graduates believe that transfer will lead to increased job performance, and that it also may lead to career growth or change. Though the respondents are aware of the fact that transfer isn’t a guarantee to success, they all expect some kind of positive consequence from their knowledge transfer.

Feedback/PerformanceCoaching&Supervisor/ManagerSupportandSanctions:One MPP respondent claimed to have no support at all from his supervisor to enroll in the program. Though not obligatory, the other MPP participants had supervisor support. However, only a few were asked to provide feedback to their supervisors about the program and how things were going. Generally speaking, providing feedback to a supervisor was limited to job performance for both programs. This suggests that actual work performance receives more attention than transfer. Some PUMP graduates did receive more strategic tasks, which they perceived as a reward, but these merely were added to existing tasks and created extra work.

PeerSupport:Peer support is non-existent in the MPP. In the PUMP,



peer support is limited to one’s closest colleagues, even though there is some skepticism among the colleagues about the program’s utility.

Resistance/OpennesstoChange:Fifty percent of the respondents in each program perceived their organizations as innovative, the other fifty percent perceived them as conservative towards change.

PersonalOutcomes–PositiveandNegative:For most of the MPP graduates, there was no outcome at all. Three of them declared that they would receive a premium, due to their graduation, but not because of any knowledge or expertise transfer. As for PUMP, the higher-ranked civil servants perceived the program as having a positive influence on their careers, which was contrary to perceptions in the lower ranks.

OpportunitytoUseLearning:Almost nobody from the MPP graduates was subjected to a change in the responsibilities or tasks linked to their positions. The benefit of the program seemed to be limited to gaining extra insight into their personal jobs. PUMP graduates received more opportunities, because some of them were asked to do more strategic tasks, and others voluntarily changed their job content in order to use their newly achieved knowledge. However, generally speaking, it can be concluded that opportunity mostly comes by coincidence, rather than because it is specifically designed for a person’s job. This means that the link between the program and the career is not structured.

PersonalCapacitytoTransfer: The graduates had to find their own necessary time and energy to apply newly acquired knowledge in the workplace. Even if they were asked to change their job content, they were fully responsible for knowledge transfer. The PUMP graduates were confronted with increased tasks, which gave them less time to try to transfer new knowledge.

PerceivedContentValidity/TransferDesign:Though all participants were satisfied about the quality of the MPP, most of them (with the exception of one respondent) perceived a gap between theory and practice. The PUMP participants were unanimously positive about the program and perceived no gap.

TransferAs stated above, the perception of the respondents towards transfer was

questioned during the interviews: Did they sense that the program had an influence on their jobs? Did they sense a use of their knowledge?

Two MPP graduates stated that they actually used the program: One of them worked for the study group of a political faction, where advice had to be formulated on topics like administrative reform and governmental relations. Obviously, a Master in Public Management and Policy would have added value to this kind of work. The other person worked for a public sector educational institute. What she transferred was more focused on what she had learned about the academic educational system, rather than on course contents, which, ironically, is not an expected type of transfer. All other respondents from both



programs stated that transfer was vague or indirect. Yet, it seemed that the PUMP group achieved some kind of transfer more often than the MPP group. Respondents easily confirmed the application of their programs, and had more of a feeling that they could be better at doing their jobs. It could be assumed that executive programs are more likely to obtain transfer, because they have a more specific target group, and, as such, more specific goals and expectations.

One MPP respondent stated that his supervisor was not interested in the program, and that he didn’t want him to use newly learned models, theories, or skills. Other respondents stated that they got the opportunity to participate in modernization projects because of the program. But they did not necessarily use newly acquired knowledge in this new work. It seemed that the positive image of having completed these programs sometimes had a bigger impact on a job than its specific content did.

DiscussionBecause the main inhibiting and/or stimulating transfer conditions stem

from the individual, the transfer climate, and the educational program, they will be discussed in this section and presented within the context of the most recently described results.

TheIndividual:Based on the results, it seemed that all respondents were interested in the program, and that they enrolled on their own initiatives — with or without supervisor support. Consequently, it can be assumed that transfer motivation was present. It also can be assumed that they all had the necessary intellectual capacities to increase their learning levels and to transfer their knowledge. In addition, the respondents believe that they have the necessary capacities to do so, which of course is an important condition for transfer. Satisfaction with the program was high, which was essential, according to the moderating effect of this variable.

However, not everything was positive on the individual side. An important transfer-inhibiting aspect was the lack of preparedness by the majority of respondents. The major consequence of this aspect is that civil servants had no clear idea about how they could use the program. Theoretically, participants first should question themselves about the competencies they have, and the ones they need to acquire. A program can be used to fill the gap between the two. It is highly doubtful that the respondents had a clear picture about the role of the program in developing their competencies. And, of course, this was not only the responsibility of the individuals, but also that of the supervisors who agreed with their enrollment. Those problems can be countered when the program doesn’t remain isolated from other organizational processes. Central questions in that respect were: How can the organization benefit from these competencies? Which projects could be carried out after the program by the person in question? How can the organization and the individual benefit from efforts that have been made



in the program? Can the individual be rewarded by the organization? In sum, it is crucial to consider the program as one of the HRM mechanisms that can increase performance. Kessels, Smit, and Keursten (1996) highlight this aspect in their pedagogical model: After describing the “as is” phase of the organization, and defining the “to be” situation, it became necessary to find out which competencies were needed to achieve organizational goals. The educational program must encounter these goals by giving identified skills and knowledge to the employees. It also is the responsibility of the program to ensure that its participants have a clear picture of the role of the program in developing their competencies. The difference between PUMP and the MPP was that PUMP specifically had been designed for the federal administration, which was not the case for the MPP. Logically, PUMP participants should have had a clearer picture about the utility of the program for themselves and their organizations, because PUMP is explicitly designed to benefit the federal administration. However, this assumption is not supported by data. The fact that the PUMP respondents got permission to enroll in the program, but did so (a) without any vision of competency development as an integral part of organizational function and performance, and (b) without knowing what they could expect from the program, indicates that their enrollment was based only on the perception of interest and usefulness, and not on an actual, well-defined, organizational need.

TheTrainingProgram:Interest in and satisfaction with the programs was high. However, one major transfer-inhibiting aspect was the perceived gap between theory and practice in the MPP. Most of the respondents experienced a large gap, which made knowledge transfer more difficult. From a theoretical perspective, transfer in this situation seemed to be that of fartransfer. The participants from PUMP didn’t estimate a gap as large as those from the MPP did—which seems obvious, given the fact that the program is specifically designed for the federal administration.

TheTransferClimatecan be described as neutral. Most supervisors gave respondents permission to enroll, but none of them requested feedback during the program. In most cases, information that the respondents were participating in the program was not even provided to their colleagues. Although only one supervisor was explicitly against the use of acquired knowledge, nobody stimulated or required transfer. One possible explanation for this neutral attitude is that most of the supervisors didn’t have a clear idea about the program’s utility for their departments. Some graduates wanted to use their knowledge, but didn’t get the opportunity, while others got opportunities, but didn’t use the program. Fifty percent of the respondents perceived their workplaces as conservative, and none had the feeling that active steps were being taken to let transfers happen with ease. The transfer climate of the PUMP group seemed to be less passive than that of the MPP group, even though the main transfer responsibility remained with the individual.



Transfer: In conclusion, the data demonstrated that an optimal level of transfer was not reached, because of the presence of transfer-inhibiting conditions within the individual, the transfer climate, and the training program. However, the general conclusion was not completely negative. There still seemed to be some kind of transfer, but it is important to consider which transfer was the case here. Tying back to this article’s central question on the nature of transfer of public management programs, the following conclusions can be made, according to the Weiss’ (1979) typology explained in the section on defining “applications.”

•Knowledge-Based: The data seemed to support the idea that received knowledge sometimes is used for small, incremental decisions. Respondents clearly stated that the programs helped them in daily work.

•Problem-Solving: Given the lack of preparedness by the participants, it is highly doubtful that acquired knowledge was used to solve a well-defined problem.

•Enlightenment: The results of this study didn’t reveal any results about enlightenment. First, the study was based on a small sample of participants. Enlightenment may happen after a while, if a larger group follows the same program. The number of participants was too small to state whether there was transfer to the federal administration as a whole. Second, this study didn’t address group processes. If one wanted to measure enlightenment, transfer must be moved from the individual to the group level. As such, we cannot state that enlightenment was achieved, but it still could be achieved in the future.

•PoliticalorStrategic: It seemed to be observed that information was used to give a decision more weight.

• Interactive: There was competition between those who participated in the program, and those who didn’t. The specific position of the participant seemed to be important in such situations. In the PUMP data, it was made clear that there was a difference between higher- and lower-ranked civil servants.

• IntellectualEnterprise: This was not supported by the data, because the acquired knowledge from the PUMP or MPP groups wasn’t considered as one of the possible ways to deal with certain problems. In addition, the data didn’t support a problem-solving use of knowledge, which made it even harder to assume that intellectual enterprise would be observed.

From this perspective, the data support the fact that transfer is limited to a knowledge-based, interactive, or political use of new information. It is clear that



a higher level of transfer would have been a problem-solving use of knowledge, or enlightenment.

Conclusion Although the type of knowledge transfer found in the data was rather

amorphous, it doesn’t mean that no transfer occurred. Because the concept was broadened in the theoretical part of this article, it was made clear that a whole range of transfer possibilities could have occurred, even if they were difficult to observe in everyday life. We can assume that those programs had an added value of performance. From this perspective, it is extremely important to further investigate the nature of transfer, since this also could stimulate the development of transfer-enhancing strategies. This article demonstrated that (a) programs and employers need to encourage the awareness of specific goals for degrees, (b) it is important for programs to tailor degrees more explicitly to their audiences, and that (c) it is possible for “executive” master’s degrees to be more successful because they specifically address their goals to a certain audience. This is useful for other institutions, because their roles are extremely important to the success of a program and its use afterwards. Therefore, it would be interesting to study other programs in other countries, in order to see whether the same conclusions would be made, and to help ameliorate a program’s weak points.

Academics and practitioners are focusing more and more on public management programs. Therefore, it is necessary to broaden the transfer debate from the private sector to the whole labor market. The public sector in itself needs specific strategies to enhance the ROI of educational programs. The reason for this is the specific nature of the public sector. The following three examples detail this nature and its potential to create transfer-inhibiting or transfer-enhancing behaviors.

1. Because it seeks public rather than private profit — and because the goal of public profit is vastly different from the private sector’s goal — it becomes extremely difficult to hold an employee accountable for a certain percentage of gained or lost profit. In other words, if the ROI of an educational program itself is difficult to measure (Kirkpatrick, 1994), it becomes even more difficult to measure the ROI of public sector programs.

2. In Belgium, civil servants mostly are appointed for life, which means that their personal investment after the program is difficult to compel. Their engagement is merely a personal choice. This makes it important to emphasize the opportunities that individuals receive from following a program for their careers or for their job duties. Although this factor wasn’t addressed by the model, it would be interesting to take into account for further research.



3. In its role as accountable to the political world, the public sector always is connected to those specificities. This means that a governmental shift could cause changes within the public sector. From a normative point of view, it stands to reason that educational investments made in the past would continue to generate positive effects for the future, even in a changed political climate. Similarly, every developed competency should have a positive impact on an organization, despite political contexts.

Finally, two questions remain: What can other countries learn from this?

And how can this knowledge improve the teaching of programs in public management? It is crucial to be aware that the effectiveness of educational programs can be partly foreseen. Indeed, what happens before the program takes place is of high importance for what will happen after its completion. In other words, the conceptualization and implementation of a program have a transfer-predictive nature, and may be even more important than the actual transfer phase. Organizations — whether in Belgium or elsewhere — should take into account that, if the involved parties (the participants, the organization, and the training institute) clearly discuss (a) preparedness, (b) the link between the program and its benefit to the organization, (c) program goals, (d) supervisor support, and (e) participants’ expectations about the program and about their jobs afterwards, then different transfer inhibiting factors already will have been encountered. In sum, organizations should discuss the knowledge transfer issue before sending an employee to a program. And the discussion must not remain as a bilateral debate between supervisors and participants. It instead should be a joint effort with the personnel unit of the organization, the training institute, and in some cases the participants’ colleagues.

Public management programs automatically will be improved if sufficient effort is put into the conceptualization phase. It absolutely is necessary that these kinds of programs be aware of the educational needs of organizations, and integrate enough realistic case-material for participants to easily link theory with practice. Educational goals also must clearly be defined for organizations, so that they know what can be expected. As such, goals and needs can meet, and create a program with a high utility rate.

ReferencesAlliger, G., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the

relations among training criteria. PersonnelPsychology,50, 341- 358.

Awoniyi, E., Griego, O., & Morgan, G. (2002). Person-environment fit and transfer of training. InternationalJournalofTrainingAndDevelopment,6(1), 25-35.



Baldwin, T., & Ford, J. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. PersonnelPsychology,41, 63-105.

Bates, R. (2005). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: The Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence.EvaluationandProgramPlanning,27, 341- 347.

Bates, R., & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations.InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment,9(2), 96-109.

Bergenhenegouwen, G., Mooijman, E., & Tillema, H. (1994). EffectevaluatieVanOpleidingen.Strategischopleideninorganisaties.[Effect evaluation of educational programs. Educating strategically in organisations]. Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen.

Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transferoftraining:Action-packedstrategiestoensurehighpayofffromtraininginvestments.Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Burke, L., & Hutchins, H. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. HumanResourceDevelopmentReview,6(3), 263-296.

Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization.AmericanBehavioral

Scientist, 22(3), 459-470.

Chen, H. (2003). Cross-culturalconstructvalidationofthelearningtransfersysteminventoryinTaiwan. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Clarke, N. (2002). Job/work environment factors influencing human transfer within a human service agency: Some indicative support for Baldwin and Ford’s transfer climate construct. InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment, 6(3), 146-162.

Devos, C., Dumay, X., Cassart, B., Bodenghien, A., & Vallaeys, P. (2006). Evaluationdesfacteurssusceptiblesd’influencerletransfertdesacquisdeformation. [Evaluation of factors capable of influencing transfer of knowledge]. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Humanities & Social Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven [Universite’ Catholique de Louvain], Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Donovan, P., Hannigan, K., & Crowe, D. (2001). The learning transfer system approach to estimating the benefits of training: Empirical evidence. JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,25, 221-228.

Ford, J., Quiñones, M., Sego, D., & Sorra, J. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. PersonnelPsychology,45, 511-527.

Foxon, M. (1994). A process approach to the transfer of training. Part 2: Using action planning to facilitate the transfer of training. AustralianJournalofEducationalTechnology,10(1), 1-18.

Gilpin-Jackson, Y., & Bushe, G. (in press). Leadership development training transfer: A case study of post-training determinants.JournalofManagementDevelopment.

Gumuseli, A., & Ergin, B. (2002). The manager’s role in enhancing the transfer of training: A Turkish case study. InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment,6(2), 80-97.



Holton, E. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly, 7(1), 5-21.

Holton, E., & Bates, R. (1998). Learningtransfersysteminventory:Administrator’sguide. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.edholton.com/_private/New%20EdHolton/LTSI.htm

Holton, E., Bates, R., Seyler, D., & Carvalho, M. (1997). Toward construct validation of a transfer climate instrument. HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly, 8(2), 95-113.

Holton, E., Bates, R., & Ruona, W. (2000). Development of a generalized learning transfer system

inventory.HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly, 11(4), 333-360. Holton, E., Chen, H-C, & Naquin, S. (2003). An examination of learning transfer system

characteristics across organizational settings.HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly, 14(4), 459-482.

Kessels, J., Smit, C., & Keursten, P. (1996). Hetachtveldeninstrument:Analysekadervooropleidingseffecten. [The eight-field instrument: Analytical framework of educational effects]. San Francisco: The Learning Company.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluatingtrainingprograms:Thefourlevels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kontoghiorghes, C. (2004). Reconceptualizing the learning transfer conceptual framework: Empirical validation of a new systemic model. InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment, 8(3), 210-21.

Lim, D., & Johnson, S. (2002). Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer.

InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment, 6(1), 36-48.

Lim, D. & Morris, L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly, 17(1), 85-115.

Neilson, S. (2001). IDRC-supportedresearchanditsinfluenceonpublicpolicy.Knowledgeutilizationandpublicpolicyprocess:Aliteraturereview.[Review for Evaluation Unit of International Development Research Centre (IDRC)]. Ottawa, ON: IDRC.

Olivero, G., Bane, K., & Kopelman, R. (1997). Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. PublicPersonnelManagement,26(4), 461-69.

Paek, J., & Hawley, J. (2006, February). Astudyoftrainingprogramcharacteristicsandtrainingprogrameffectivenessamongorganizationsreceivingtrainingservicesfromexternaltrainingproviders. Paper presented at the International Research Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development, Columbus, OH.

Pidd, K. (2004). The impact of workplace support and identity on training transfer: A case study of drug and alcohol safety training in Australia. InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment, 8(4),274-88.

Quiñones, M. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. JournalofAppliedPsychology,80(2), 226-238.



Quiñones, M., & Holladay, C. (2003). Practice variability and transfer of training: The role of self-efficacy generality. JournalofAppliedPsychology,88(3), 1094-1103.

Ruona, W., Leimbach, M., Holton, E., & Bates, R. (2002). The relationship between learner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees. InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment,6(4), 218-228.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. EducationalPsychologist, 24(2), 113-141.

Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options.PoliticalResearchQuarterly, 61, 294-308.

Smans, S. (2005). Transfervantraininginarbeidsorganisaties:Eenverkennendestudienaardepraktijk. [Transfer of training in labour organizations: An explorative study in practice]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven [Universite’ Catholique de Louvain], Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Thayer, P.W., & Teachout, M.S. (1995). Aclimatefortransfermodel (Report AL/HR-TP-1995-0035). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Materiel Command.

Tracey, J., & Tews, M. (2005). Construct validity of a general training climate scale.OrganisationalResearchMethods,8(4), 353-374.

Van der Klink, M., Gielen, E., & Nauta, C. (2001). Supervisory support as a major condition to

enhance transfer. InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment,5(1), 52-63.

Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. PublicAdministrationReview, 29, 426–631.

Yamnill, S. (2001). FactorsaffectingtransferoftraininginThailand. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Footnote1 There are, basically, three government levels in Belgium: federal, regional

(Flemish), and local.

Bruno Broucker is a doctor of Social Sciences and, until March 2010, was a senior researcher at the Public Management Institute, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. He is currently working at the Office for Educational Policy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. His research expertise focuses on educational policy, educational effectiveness, and transfer of knowledge.



Methods Taught In Public Policy Programs:Are Quantitative Methods Still Prevalent?

Göktug MorçölPennsylvaniaStateUniversityatHarrisburg

Nadezda P. IvanovaPennsylvaniaStateUniversityatHarrisburg

AbstractThis paper presents the results of a content analysis of the titles and descriptions of methods courses offered in 44 graduate programs in public policy at universities and colleges in the U.S., and compares the results to those of an earlier survey on the methodological preferences of policy professionals. The rationale for classifying methods courses as quantitative and qualitative and the results of the past research on methods courses are discussed. The results of the analyses show that quantitative methods are used in a large majority of the courses studied and that they are prevalent in the practice of policy professionals. The authors question whether the prevalence of a quantitative/positivist methodological approach in public policy programs and practice is a good match for the demands of today’s complex world of governance.

IntroductionThere have been sporadic studies and debates on what types of methods

policy analysts use (quantitative or qualitative), and the practical and epistemological implications of these usages since the 1970s. To some, the observed prevalence of quantitative methods in the practice and education of policy analysis is reflective of the ongoing dominance of positivist epistemology (e.g., Amy, 1984; Ascher, 1987; Brunner, 1991; Durning, 1999; Fischer, 1995, 2003; Torgerson, 1986); to others, this association between quantitative methods and positivism is false and/or the discussions of what kind of methods are used are immaterial (Lynn, 1999; Weimer, 1999). In this paper we aim to contribute to these discussions by presenting the results of a content analysis of the titles and descriptions of courses taught in public policy programs at educational institutions in the U.S.

JPAE16(2):255–277


Debates on Positivism and Quantitative vs. Qualitative MethodsThe role of positivism in the social (human or cultural) sciences has been

debated for a long time. One can trace the source of these debates back to the social constructionist critique of the 1960s and 1970s, or farther back to the phenomenological and hermeneutic critiques of the over-quantification of human sciences in the 19th century. In the public policy/policy sciences/policy analysis literature, Lasswell’s observation that policy scientific knowledge is contextual and temporal and therefore difficult to quantify and generalize (Lasswell, 1971; Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950, pp. xiv-xxiii) may be considered the earliest critique of quantitative methods. A full-blown critique in the public policy/policy analysis literature was launched in the 1980s and 1990s (Amy, 1984; Torgerson, 1986; Ascher, 1987; Brunner, 1991; Fischer, 1995; Durning, 1999). In the first decade of the 21st century, the critique of quantitative methods turned into protest movements among some academics in two disciplines neighboring public policy/policy analysis: (a) The “post-autistic economics” movement in economics, and (b) the “Perestroika” movement in political science. Both have challenged the quantitative methodological orthodoxy and made significant inroads in their respective fields.1

To better understand the issues involved in these debates, the terms quantitative and qualitative need to be defined and some questions need to be answered. Are these two, meaningfully distinguishable categories? Are there necessary connections between quantitative methods and positivism? As a reviewer of an earlier version of this paper pointed out, there are no universally and clearly accepted definitions of these concepts, but the terms are used quite commonly, particularly in research methods textbooks (e.g., Berg, 1998; Creswell, 2009; King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Despite the lack of universal definitions, we think the terms quantitative and qualitative are meaningful signifiers of two different orientations in research methodology. In the following paragraphs, we summarize discussions on these concepts in existing literature and present the conceptual framework we used in our research.

There are two general approaches to defining the terms quantitative and qualitative. In the first approach, merely technical distinctions are made between quantitative and qualitative forms of research. Qualitative research is either defined as small-n research and is contrasted with large-n (quantitative) research (e.g., King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994), or the term qualitative is used for nominal-level measurements and is contrasted with higher levels of measurement, particularly interval and ratio levels (e.g., Rice University, n.d.).

The second approach follows the differentiation made by 19th-century hermeneutic scholars. They argued that the methods of natural sciences could not be used in the human (social, cultural) sciences, because human beings were meaning-making and interpreting entities, and the meanings they make and their actions could be understood only in their own contexts. Following this tradition,

MethodsTaughtInPublicPolicyPrograms


Berg (1998) and Creswell (2009) define qualitative research as a collection of methods that can be used to understand human meanings (concepts, metaphors, symbols, descriptions, etc.) in their historical contexts, and point to the flexible and emergent nature of qualitative research designs. They contrast this research approach with quantitative research, which aims to make generalizations about objectively existing phenomena by using numbers and calculations, and following predefined procedures. In their conceptualization, quantitative research is closely related to positivist epistemology and natural sciences, hence its appropriateness for social/human sciences is considered questionable.

The dichotomous conceptualization of quantitative versus qualitative research used in this paper is based on the second approach. We will elaborate on our conceptualization, but, before we do that, we need to address two issues discussed in the literature: (a) Whether there is a necessary distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods, and (b) whether epistemological and general methodological debates apply to policy analysis and policy research.

Those who agree with the fundamental premise of the hermeneutic divide between the natural and social sciences tend to view quantitative and qualitative methodologies as two distinct paradigms and question the applicability of the former in the social sciences (e.g., Guba, 1978; Patton, 1975). According to Porter (1995), even if there is no clear paradigmatic distinction between the two, there is a phenomenological one: “[Q]uantification is a technology of distance” and it “minimizes the need for intimate knowledge and personal trust” (p. ix), whereas qualitative methods reduce the distance between the researcher and the subjects being studied. Reichardt and Cook (1979) disagree with this notion of paradigmatic distinction and take a pragmatic position: Qualitative and quantitative methods can be chosen and mixed depending on the purposes of a study. King, Keohane and Verba (1994) reject the notion of paradigmatic distinction on the grounds that there must be a unified inferential logic for all scientific inquiry, and they stress that qualitative research can, and should, emulate quantitative research in deriving valid causal inferences, which is the ultimate goal of science (p. 3).

Yanow (2007) and Yanow and Schwartz-Shea (2006) argue that both quantitative and qualitative methods are interpretive forms of inquiry; both types of researchers interpret and count. But there is a philosophical divide, according to Yanow, who says the terms “quantitative” and “qualitative” have become shorthand proxies for positivism and interpretivism, which are vastly different in their approaches to inquiry (p. 406). According to Yanow and Schwartz-Shea, positivists assume that data are given; interpretivists, on the other hand, think that data are made sense of or interpreted. In the former, words are translated into numbers, because numbers are assumed to be superior to words. In the latter, words (descriptions) are equally valuable; numbers are not rejected, but they are explicitly interpreted (p. xix). Yanow and Schwartz-Shea go on to argue that there are qualitative methods based on positivistic principles, and they make



a tripartite categorization: quantitative, positivist-qualitative, and traditional- (interpretivist-) qualitative methods.

We agree with Yanow and Schwartz-Shea’s (2006) differentiation between interpretivist research and positivist research, but we do not find their tripartite categorization meaningful. An elaborate discussion of their categorization is beyond the scope of this paper, but we should note that they define “positivist-qualitative methods” as a residual category and do not show any good examples of methods that would fit into this category. Therefore, we will use the more commonly accepted nomenclature “quantitative versus qualitative,” with the latter referring to Yanow and Schwartz-Shea’s “traditional- (interpretivist-) qualitative methods” (p.xvi).

In the public policy/policy analysis literature there has been some discussion about the influence of positivism on policy analysis practice. Interpretivist, post-positivist, social constructionist, and critical policy theorists argue that policy analysis practice is positivistic for the most part, and point to the pervasive use of quantitative methods as evidence of the dominance of positivism (e.g., Amy, 1984; Ascher, 1987; Brunner, 1991; Durning, 1999; Fischer, 1995, 2003; Torgerson, 1986). In policy analysis, Fischer (1995) cites the widespread use of cost-benefit analysis, quasi-experimental design, multiple regression analysis, survey research, input-output studies, operations research, mathematical simulation models, and systems analysis as the manifestation of the dominance of positivist epistemology (pp. 10-11). Lynn (1999) and Weimer (1999) do not think that there is a connection between positivism and quantitative methods. They also point out that the positivist philosophy of knowledge and related methodological practices were widely criticized in the 1960s and 1970s and consequently abandoned by social scientists in general, and policy analysts in particular.

DeLeon (1994) concedes that positivism suffered some setbacks, but it has survived, if not thrived, particularly in the practice of policy analysis (e.g., DeLeon, 1994). Heineman, Bluhm, Peterson, and Kearny (1990) observe that positivistic/quantitative methods have remained prevalent throughout the history of policy analysis, despite fluctuations in their popularity over time. In support of this observation, study results indicate that policy analysts largely held positivistic views in the 1990s (Morçöl, 2001).

Radin (2000) points out that, in the 1960s and 1970s, policy analysts favored using economic models and cost-benefit analysis methods, whereas in the 1990s, they preferred a diversified approach that included both quantitative and qualitative methods. Yang (2007) concurs that quantitative methods dominated during the 1960s, because most policy analysts held degrees in economics. In the 1970s and 1980s, quantitative methods lost their predominance in policy analysis, mainly because of the critiques of positivism in that period. Quantitative methods re-emerged in the 1990s, due partly to the wider availability of statistical software and computers. Yang points out that this re-



emergence can be observed in the educational program curricula, conference paper presentations, and journal articles of the 1990s.

Heineman, Bluhm, Peterson, and Kearny (1990) claim that the prevalence of quantitative methods in policy analysis is because the utilitarian value of efficiency has been a central value of mainstream policy analysis, and the measurement of efficiency requires quantitative methods (p. 39). Stone (2002, pp. 163-177) explains this prevalence with the nature of power relations in political systems: Powerful political actors use numbers to bolster their authorities, create illusions, and elicit desired outcomes.

Our Conceptualization of Quantitative and Qualitative MethodsThe conceptualization we used in this study is summarized in Table 1.

This conceptualization is based on the previously explained differentiation between quantitative and qualitative (interpretivist) methods. We compiled the methods listed in the table from (a) the contents of well-known policy analysis textbooks (Dunn, 2008; MacRae & Whittington, 1997; Patton & Sawicki, 1993; Quade, 1989; Weimer & Vining, 1992), (b) literature with critical assessments of mainstream policy analysis methods (Dryzek, 1993; Fischer, 1995, 2003, 2009), and (c) general social science methods literature (Berg, 1998; Creswell, 2009; Lewins & Silver, 2007; Silverman, 2006; Yanow, 2000; Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2006). [See Table 1]

Some of the names and categorizations we used in Table 1 need clarification. We first categorized the methods listed into methodsofempiricalinquiry and methodsofdecision-makingandplanning. Policy researchers and analysts use both, but for different purposes. We categorized the methods of empirical inquiry into three subcategories: Design, datacollection, and dataanalysis. There are some methods, particularly qualitative ones, which require holistic approaches and do not fit any of these subcategories. For instance, in many qualitative methods of inquiry, design may not be a distinct step — a design emerges during the process of inquiry, and data collection and analysis may not be separate processes — and information may be constructed and interpreted interactively (Creswell, 2009). Because of these holistic characteristics of qualitative inquiry, we created a subcategory of combined methods and placed a large majority of qualitative methods there.

We included names of all the methods we found in our literature searches, although this created some redundancies, and some of the methods listed are obviously inclusive of others (e.g., statistical methods include regression analysis). We preferred to list all of them, because, as explained in the following methods section, the names listed in the table became keywords in our database queries, and we did not want to miss any of them. We chose to list the names in alphabetical order, although some of the methods in each category that are relatively close to each other, logically could be listed one after another (e.g., content, discourse, and narrative analyses have commonalities). We preferred



Not

e. T

he m

etho

ds th

at a

re h

ighl

ight

ed w

ith

bold

face

and

ital

ics

are

both

qua

ntit

ativ

e an

d qu

alit

ativ

e. E

ach

of th

ese

met

hods

is p

lace

d in

eit

her

a qu

anti

tati

ve

or a

qua

litat

ive

colu

mn,

dep

endi

ng o

n w

heth

er it

has

mor

e of

one

of t

he o

ther

qua

lity.

Our

judg

men

t on

whe

ther

a m

etho

d is

mor

e qu

anti

tati

ve o

r m

ore

qual

itat

ive

is b

ased

on

our

read

ings

of t

he li

tera

ture

and

ow

n ex

peri

ence

s. M

ixed

met

hods

is p

lace

d in

a q

uant

itat

ive

colu

mn,

bec

ause

in th

e lit

erat

ure

we

are

fam

iliar

wit

h, th

e qu

anti

tati

ve c

ompo

nent

s ar

e em

phas

ized

mor

e. B

ut a

fter

a m

ore

com

preh

ensi

ve r

evie

w o

f the

mix

ed m

etho

ds li

tera

ture

, we

thin

k th

is it

em

may

be

plac

ed in

eit

her

colu

mn.


Table 1. AClassificationofMethodsofSocialEmpiricalInquiryandDecisionMakingandPlanning


alphabetical order, not only to make it easier for the reader to find methods in the table, but also to avoid controversies over the literature’s different definitions and usages of methods (e.g., not everybody agrees on the differences between content and narrative analyses).

Some of the methods listed in Table 1 were more difficult to categorize as quantitative or qualitative. We designated these as bothquantitativeandqualitative, and highlighted them in boldfaced italics. We listed these methods in one of the quantitative and qualitative columns, based on our judgment about whether a particular method was more quantitative or more qualitative. An example of this is content analysis. As Berg (1998) points out, the term may be used for both quantitative and qualitative forms of analyses. Although the terms narrative analysis or discourseanalysis may be more appropriate for the latter, as Silverman (2006) observes, the differences between content analysis and these two are not always clear or agreed upon by all researchers. Although one easily can make some conceptual distinctions (i.e., in quantitative content analysis, the researcher assumes that the meanings expressed in words are stable and understood roughly in the same manner by the author and the reader, and counts them as equivalent units; whereas in qualitative forms of content analysis, the researcher treats meaning-making and interpretation as complex processes and aims to understand meanings in the historical, cultural, and political contexts of the authors), in order to avoid difficulties in interpretation, we categorized content analysis as both quantitative and qualitative. We should note here that the queries we conducted in our research are examples of quantitative content analysis.

The distinction we made between surveys and qualitative (long, in-depth, semi-structured) interviews also need to be explained. Although there may be some qualitative elements (open-ended questions that require contextual interpretations) in a particular questionnaire, survey research is far more quantitative than qualitative. Even when open-ended questions are included in a questionnaire, most of the time the responses are coded, in order to be analyzed quantitatively; they rarely are contextually interpreted. Part of the reason for this is that a major objective of survey research is to make generalizations from a sample to a population, which requires quantification. Survey research is classified as quantitative research by its proponents and field experts (e.g., Czaja & Blair, 2005; Fowler, 2008).

The concerns and issues of qualitative interviews are very different. Books on qualitative interviewing focus on concerns and topics, such as understanding conversations, interviewing as a craft (not science), interviewing as social production of knowledge, power asymmetries in interviewing, thematizing an interview, meaning-coding and meaning-interpretation, social construction of validity, listening/hearing, and conversational partnerships (Gubrium & Holstein, 2003; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008; Rubin & Rubin, 2005).



We also should note that we consider brainstorming, Delphi, political feasibility analysis, and assumptional analysis as qualitative methods, because although each one may involve some counting, they primarily are verbal and interpretive. Brainstorming and Delphi are highly interpretive and interactive methods. Political feasibility analysis involves some quantification, but it clearly is judgmental at its core (Dunn, 2008). Assumptional analysis is based on linguistic structural analysis (Dunn, pp. 111-114), and, as such, is interpretive.

Research on Methods Taught in Educational ProgramsStudies conducted since the 1980s on the methods taught in educational

programs for political science and public policy indicate that quantitative methods have been prevalent. In a survey conducted among 71 “leading American graduate programs” in public policy, Jenkins-Smith, Mitchell, and Silva (1999, p.7) found that about two-thirds of the programs offered advanced statistics, but only two-fifths of them offered courses on qualitative methods. Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford (2003) found that, although qualitative research methods quite frequently were used by political scientists, they frequently were not taught in political science programs at universities. Schwartz-Shea (2003) made similar findings in the U.S. among 57 “leading doctoral programs” (p.379) in political science: Whereas a large majority of the programs require quantitative methods courses, a very small minority require qualitative methods courses or courses in the philosophy of science. In their content analysis of 14 research methods textbooks used in social science, political science, and public affairs programs, Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2002) found that “interpretivist qualitative methods” (p.xx) were not mentioned in them at all, whereas what they call “positivistic qualitative methods”(p.xx) found moderate treatments and positivistic quantitative methods were given the most space.2

In a series of studies from different time periods, Hy, Nelson, and Waugh (1981); Hy, Waugh, and Nelson (1987) and Waugh, Hy, and Brudney (1994) found that the frequency of quantitative methods taught in public administration and political science graduate programs increased during the 1970s and 1980s. LaPlante (1989) found that in Master’s of Public Administration (MPA) and Master’s of Public Policy (MPP) programs, the breadth and depth of course offerings in both quantitative and qualitative methods had increased in the 1980s.

The picture that emerges from the studies cited here is somewhat mixed, but the commonality is that quantitative methods are taught far more frequently in the educational programs studied by researchers. In our research, we aimed to find if this also is true for public policy/policy analysis programs. Like Jenkins-Smith, Mitchell, and Silva (1999), our study focused on programs in public policy and policy analysis, but, unlike these researchers, we did not survey program administrators. Instead, we conducted searches at the programs’ Web



sites. This methodology parallels Schwartz-Shea (2003), but our study and hers differ in their targets: Her study exclusively focused on political science programs. In our study, to provide a background and context, we compared our findings from Web site searches with findings of an earlier survey that one of the authors of this study conducted among public policy professionals. In the survey and in Web searches, we primarily focused on U.S. educational programs, because policy analysis practice and education are far more widespread in this country than in other nations, and because the number of public policy educational programs in other countries was too small for meaningful comparisons. We describe our methods in more detail in the next section.

MethodsTo measure the prevalence of quantitative and qualitative methods courses,

we searched the Web sites of graduate programs in public policy, policy analysis, and related topics at 44 universities and colleges in the U.S., in 2008 and 2009. The names of the universities and the specific programs included in our study are listed in the Appendix. We identified the universities and colleges included in our study from the programs listed on the Web sites of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA; www.naspaa.org) and the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM; www.appam.org). At the NASPAA Web site, we identified universities that offered MPP programs. At the APPAM Web site, we selected the academic entities that were listed as “institutional members.” We then combined the NASPAA and APPAM lists for our study.

Because we wanted to find out what methods are being taught to future public policy/policy analysis practitioners, we primarily concentrated on master’s level programs. There are so few public policy-related programs at the undergraduate level that they do not allow for meaningful comparisons or analyses. We did include doctoral programs at these universities, but our main focus was master’s-level courses. In many programs, graduate-level courses are offered to both master’s and Ph.D. students, and there also are Ph.D.-only courses. We sorted out the Ph.D.-only courses and analyzed them separately for comparison, as discussed next.

MPP programs were the primary focus of our searches. We also included programs with similar names, like the Master of Public Administration in Public and Nonprofit Management and Policy program at New York University, the public policy concentration in the Master of Public Affairs program at Indiana University, and the Master of Public Affairs program with Policy Concentration at the University of Wisconsin. We specifically did not include MPA programs in our study, but we included programs where no clear differentiation could be made between the MPA and MPP — as in cases of the MPA/MPP program at Rutgers University, and Carnegie Mellon’s Master’s of Science (MS) in Public



Policy and Management Program. We also included programs that specialized in environmental policy, social policy, health policy/public health, international policy, education policy, and urban affairs/planning/policy. Examples of such programs are the Master’s of Arts (MA) in Energy and Environmental Analysis at Boston University, and the Sustainable International Development program at Brandeis University, as well as its programs for an MS in Health Policy and Management and MA in Sustainable International Development.

Our inclusion of these specialized programs is justified because, as Radin (2000) points out, after the 1960s and 1970s, the practice and education of policy analysis became specialized in these areas. These specialized programs proliferated in recent years, along with core public policy programs like MPPs.

Once we identified the universities and their programs, we searched their Web sites and downloaded titles and descriptions of courses on methods. We identified courses with clear methods components, and defined methods as tools of empirical inquiry and tools of decision-making and planning. In searching methods courses, we used the specific names of methods that were listed in Table 1. We also included courses that contained generic methods-related names, such as microeconomics, macroeconomics, decision (making), analysis, analytic(al), research, design, method(s)/methodology, technique(s), inquiry, policy (or program) evaluation, data, statistics/statistical, and assessment. We then checked the descriptions of these courses for clear statements regarding methods components; if there were none, we left them out.

All of the programs we investigated had required methods courses; some also offered elective methods courses. We included in our analyses the elective courses that students were most likely to take because of the way corresponding programs were structured.

In our searches, we initially identified 332 master’s-level methods courses. We entered information on these courses into a Microsoft Office Access (MS Access) database. When we could not obtain descriptions for some of these courses, we did not exclude them if the course titles provided valuable information about their contents.

We conducted three groups of analyses. First, we read the titles and descriptions of both the master’s and Ph.D.-level courses, to determine whether they were quantitative, qualitative, or both. When a course title clearly stated that it was quantitative or qualitative, we classified it as such. When the contents of a course were not self-classified as quantitative or qualitative, we read the titles and descriptions and made a determination using the conceptualization in Table 1. The results of our analyses are presented in Table 2 (see next section).

In the second group of analyses, we used the MS Access “query” function to identify the specific methods mentioned in course titles and descriptions, based on the names of methods listed in Table 1. After each query, we double-checked all course title and description fields for possible errors. For instance, a description



saying “This course surveys methods of…” might have been misclassified as “survey research methods” rather than the specific method being taught. The results of our query analyses are presented in Table 3 (see next section).

Finally, we compared results from the second group of analyses with those from a survey that one of this paper’s authors conducted among policy professionals in 1998. Details of survey methods can be found elsewhere (Morçöl, 2001). Briefly, the survey was conducted via e-mail, among policy professionals whose names and e-mail addresses were listed in the APPAMMembershipDirectory (APPAM, 1996) and the PolicyStudiesPersonnelDirectory(PSPD) (Nagel & Quandt, 1996). The e-mail survey also was sent to a sample of professionals whose e-mail addresses were retrieved from the Web sites listed in the ThinkTankDirectory (Hellebust, 1996). The author received 79 completed questionnaires from the APPAM list, 59 from the PSPD list, and 233 from the think tank list (for a total of 371 responses). Survey results are presented in Table 4 (see next section).

ResultsResults from the first group of analyses are presented in Table 2. We classified

methods courses according to the criteria described in the previous section. When unable to determine — from either the title or the description of a course — whether its methods were quantitative, qualitative, or both, we classified it as uncertain. [See Table 2]

Table 2. QuantitativeandQualitativeCoursesTaughtinMaster’sandPh.D.Programs

Master’s Programs Ph.D. Programs

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Quantitative 248 88 77 79Qualitative 19 7 15 15Both 15 5 6 6Subtotal 282 100 98 100

Uncertain 50 20GrandTotal 332 118

Note. Pearson’s chi-square = 6.80, df = 2, p< 0.05

Table 2 shows that quantitative courses constitute very large majorities of methods courses taught in both the master’s programs (88%) and the Ph.D.



programs (79%). However, there is a noteworthy increase from the percentage of qualitative courses taught at the master’s level (7%) to those taught at the Ph.D. level (15%). These differences between the percentages of quantitative, qualitative, and both kinds of courses are statistically significant, at the 0.05 level.

The results of our queries in the MS Access database are presented in Table 3. In this table, each method is listed according to its frequency count in course titles (T) and in course descriptions (D). Note that because we found courses whose titles and/or descriptions included the names of multiple methods, the frequency counts in the table exceed 332, which is the number of total master’s-level courses in the database. [See Table 3]

Because of redundancies in the counts (e.g., regression analysis is a statistical analysis) and the inclusion of multiple methods in a single course, this table should be cautiously interpreted. Still, the table unmistakably shows that quantitative methods are mentioned many more times than qualitative methods in the titles and descriptions. The methods with the highest frequencies in the table are statistical analyses, regression analysis, surveys, and cost-benefit analysis. It can be concluded from the table that experimental and quasi-experimental designs are the top designs, surveys are the top data-collection methods, and statistical analyses — particularly regression analysis — are the top analytical approach. These quantitative methods are followed by ethical analysis, which in this table has the highest frequency count among the qualitative methods.

It also should be noted that several of the qualitative methods shown in Table 2 are not listed in Table 3, because they have zero frequencies. Whereas only two of the quantitative methods did not appear in Table 3 (input-output analysis and PERT/CPM), it is lacking three of the combined quantitative and qualitative methods (content analysis, Delphi, and political feasibility analysis), and 28 of the solely qualitative methods. More specifically, most of the “combined qualitative methods” did not qualify for Table 3, and it contained none of the “qualitative decision-making and planning methods.”

A comparison of the results shown in Table 3, with the results of a survey by one of the paper’s authors — conducted among policy professionals in 1998 (shown in Table 4) — is interesting in two respects. First, there is a remarkable consistency in the top-ranked quantitative methods of Tables 3 and 4. Excluding the broad category of statistical analyses, one can observe that the top three methods are surveys, regression analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. Second, neither the qualitative methods (brainstorming and assumptional analysis) nor the “both qualitative and quantitative” methods (political feasibility analysis and Delphi) listed in Table 4 are observably taught in any of the educational programs we studied (Table 3). The absence of brainstorming in the curricula of policy programs is especially noteworthy, because it is the top qualitative method in the field (57% of policy professionals use it). [See Table 4]



Table 3. RankingsofMethodsinTheirRespectiveCategories

Q U A N T I T A T I V E Q U A L I T A T I V EA. METHODS OF EMPIRICAL INQUIRY

Design Methods1. Experimental/ Quasi-Experimental (T: 5; D: 29)2. Cross-sectional (T: 1; D: 3)3. Longitudinal (T: 1; D: 3)4. Repeated Measures Design/ Panel Studies (T:0; D: 9)

Data Collection Methods

1. Surveys (Sample Surveys) (T: 12; D: 28) 2. Secondary Data (T: 0; D: 2)3. Data-mining (T: 0; D: 1 )

1. Qualitative (long, in-depth, semi-structured) Interviews (T: 1; D: 6)2. Focus Groups (T: 0; D: 4)3. Participant Observation (T: 0 ; D: 3 )

Data Analysis Methods

1. Statistical Analyses (general) (T: 43; D: 107)2. Regression Analysis (all types) (T: 20; D: 78)3. Time-series Analysis (ARIMA, Smoothing, Forecasting) (T: 3; D: 17)

1. (Computer Assisted) Qualitative Data Analysis (T: 0; D: 3)

Combined Methods

1. Geographic Information Systems (T: 4; D: 4)2. Game Theory/Games (T: 2 ; D: 5)3. Simulations (Optimization, Computer Modeling) (T: 1; D: 10)4. Mixed Methods (T: 1; D: 1)5. (Dynamic) Systems Analysis (Modeling) (T: 0; D: 3 )6. Meta-analysis (T: 0; D: 2)7.(Social) Network Analysis (T: 0; D: 2)

1. Ethical Analysis (T: 7; D: 13)2. Case Study (T: 1; D: 6)3. Legal Analysis (T: 1; D: 3)4. Archival/Documentary Research (T: 0 ; D: 2)5. Ethnography, Ethnoscience, Ethnographic Semantics (T: 0; D: 2)6. Grounded Theory (T: 0; D: 1)7. Phenomenological Methods (T: 0; D: 1)

B. METHODS OF DECISION-MAKING AND PLANNING

1. Cost-benefit Analysis (T: 12; D: 28)2. Cost-effectiveness Analysis (T: 2; D: 6 )3. Decision Analysis/ Decision trees (T: 1; D: 5)4. Linear Programming (T: 0; D: 5)

Note. In the table, each method is listed according to its frequency count in course titles (T) and in course descriptions (D). Mixedmethods is both quantitative and qualitative. It is placed in a quantitative column because,in the literature we are familiar with, the quantitative components are emphasized more. But, after a more comprehensive review of the mixed methods literature, we think this item may be placed in either column.



Table 4. RankingsofQuantitativeandQualitativeMethodsUsedbyPolicyProfessionals(1998Survey)

Ranking Quantitative Qualitative FrequencyPercent of

Total (n=371)

1. Surveys 295 (80%)

2. Cost-benefit analysis 256 (69%)

3. Regression analysis 244 (66%)

4. Brainstorming 210 (57%)

5. Cost-effectiveness analysis

203 (55%)

6. (Quasi-)experiments 186 (50%)

7. Simulations 162 (44%)

8. Time-series analysis 160 (43%)

9. Decision analysis 146 (39%)

10. Political feasibility analysis

141 (38%)

11. Input-output analysis

99 (27%)

12. Game theory 84 (23%)

13. Delphi 67 (18%)

14. Linear programming 62 (17%)

15. Assumptional analysis

59 (16%)

16. PERT/CPM 33 (9%)Note.The methods that are highlighted with boldface and italics are both quantitative and qualitative. In our judgment, the two methods are more qualitative, which is why they are placed in the qualitative column. This is based on reading the literature and our own experiences in using them.



ConclusionsThe results of our study show that quantitative methods are prevalent in

the education of policy analysis professionals. These findings are consistent with those of Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford (2003); Jenkins-Smith, Mitchell, and Silva (1999); Schwartz-Shea (2003); and Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2002).

Although the results of a 1998 e-mail survey and 2006-2008 Web site searches are not directly comparable — because we aimed to answer different research questions, used different methods, and there is a time lag between them — some cautious conclusions can be drawn from their comparison. Similarly, some differences exist between the 1998 and 2008-2009 studies in their rankings of methods, which also may be attributed to their different foci or the time lag between them. But the consistency in the highest-ranked quantitative methods of both items is noteworthy: Surveys, regression analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and (quasi-) experiments top both lists. This shows a consistency between the methods used by policy practitioners and those taught by educators.

There is an intuitive connection between the education and practice of policy professionals, but the consistency observed in Tables 3 and 4 does not help us answer this fundamental question: Do policy analysts use these methods because they learned them in school, or are these methods taught because the policy profession demands them? Durning (1999) argues that the dominance of positivism in policy analysis practice is created and perpetuated by the methods professionals learned in the education process. But could there also be a feedback mechanism that signals educational institutions on what methods are demanded in the practice, and therefore should be taught? More focused empirical studies in the future can help illuminate the education–practice connection.

Future studies also may look into some of the discrepancies between our findings and those of other researchers. For instance, none of the qualitative methods used by policy professionals in 1998 — even the most popular one of brainstorming — is listed in the titles or descriptions of the courses we studied in 2008-2009. It seems that the educational programs ignore qualitative decision-making and problem-solving methods like brainstorming, political feasibility analysis, assumptional analysis, and Delphi (unless they teach them in their courses without listing them in titles or descriptions). Instead, some of the programs teach qualitative methods that are more suitable for academic research (qualitative interviewing, case studies, ethnography, phenomenological research, content analysis, and the like). Some of the qualitative methods being taught (focus groups, ethical analysis, and legal analysis) also can be used in decision-making and problem-solving, but the absence of methods like brainstorming in the current curricula is noteworthy.

The overall prevalence of quantitative methods observed in our study indicates that despite claims that qualitative methods have gained some ground in recent decades (e.g., Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2002, cite sources who



argue that policy analysis scholarship took an “interpretive turn” (p. 482) in the 1980s), there remains a large imbalance between how many quantitative and qualitative methods are taught in the curricula of public policy and similar programs. One may argue that we studied only the titles and descriptions of the courses, and therefore our results may not be true indicators of the actual course contents (perhaps a larger percentage of these courses included qualitative methods). It is possible that in our content analyses we missed a few methods that actually are taught in the courses, but that are not listed in their titles or descriptions. However, unless there is a systematic bias among faculty members against listing qualitative topics (but not against listing quantitative topics) in course titles and descriptions — which is unlikely — the overall observed imbalance has validity. The imbalance we observed also is consistent with those observed by Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford (2003); Jenkins-Smith, Mitchell, and Silva (1999); Schwartz-Shea (2003); and Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2002).

The small difference between the percentages of qualitative courses taught at the master’s and Ph.D. levels (7% and 15% respectively, as shown in Table 2) is statistically significant. This may be interpreted as a sign that future master’s programs will offer more qualitative courses. It can be plausibly speculated that at least some of the graduates of these Ph.D. programs will be more accustomed to qualitative methods and likely will teach them in future master’s programs. Future similar studies can show if there are any significant patterns or changes.

What we and other researchers found about the prevalence of quantitative methods in educational programs, and what future studies will find about trends and patterns does matter, because, as Quade (1989), and Hajer and Wagenaar (2003) point out, there are implications and consequences of solely using one method or another. Quade cautions against the simplifying tendencies of quantitative analyses, which can be particularly important in policy analysis: “[I]n order to quantify a model, too many aspects of the problem it seeks to illuminate may have to be suppressed or drastically simplified” (p. 170). Such a simplifying approach is not suitable for governance and policy-making in the dynamic and complex world of today, according to Hajer and Wagenaar (2003). They argue that the qualitative methodological approach and its interpretive, pragmatic, and deliberative applications in policy analysis is better attuned to the “continuous give and take in networks of actors” that populates today’s “decentered world of governance” (p. xiv), whereas the quantitative/positivist methodological approach is more in tune with the bureaucratic institutional arrangements of modern government (p. 6). If Hajer and Wagenaar are right, then the prevalence of quantitative methods in education is a mismatch for today’s decentered and complex world of governance.



ReferencesAmy, D.J. (1984). Toward a post-positivist policy analysis. PolicyStudiesJournal,13, 210-211.

Ascher, W. (1987). Editorial: Policy sciences and the economic approach in a post-positivist era. PolicySciences,20, 3-9.

Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. (1996). APPAMmembershipdirectory. Washington, D.C.: APPAM.

Bennett, A., Barth, A., & Rutherford, K.R. (2003). Do we preach what we practice? A survey of methods in political science journals and curricula. PS:PoliticalScienceandPolitics,36, 373-378.

Berg, B.L. (1998). Qualitativeresearchmethodsforthesocialsciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brunner, R.D. (1991). The policy movement as a policy problem. PolicySciences,24, 65-98.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethodsapproaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designingsurveys:Aguidetodecisionsandprocedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeLeon, P. (1994). Democracy and the policy sciences: Aspirations and operations. PolicyStudiesJournal,22, 200-212.

Dryzek, J.S. (1993). Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In F. Fischer and J. Forester (Eds.), Theargumentativeturninpolicyanalysisandplanning (pp. 213-232). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Dunn, W.N. (2008). Publicpolicyanalysis:Anintroduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Durning, D. (1999). The transition from traditional to post-positivist policy analysis: A role for Q-Methodology. JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement,18, 389-410.

Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluatingpublicpolicy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframingpublicpolicy:Discursivepoliticsanddeliberativepractices. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, F. (2009). Democracyandexpertise:Reorientingpolicyinquiry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fowler, F.J., Jr. (2008). Surveyresearchmethods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guba, E.G. (1978). Towardamethodologyofnaturalisticinquiryineducationalevaluation. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Gubrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (Eds.). (2003). Postmoderninterviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hajer, M.A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberativepolicyanalysis:Understandinggovernanceinthenetworksociety. New York: Cambridge University Press.



Heineman, R.A., Bluhm, W.T., Peterson, S.A., & Kearny, E.N. (1990). Theworldofthepolicyanalyst. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Hellebust, L., (Ed.). (1996). Thinktankdirectory:Aguidetononprofitpublicpolicyresearchorganizations. Topeka, KS: Government Research Service.

Hy, R.J., Nelson, P.B., & Waugh, W.L. (1981). Statistical backgrounds and computing needs of graduate students in political science and public administration. TeachingPoliticalScience,8, 201-212.

Hy, R.J., Waugh, W.L., & Nelson, P.B. (1987). The future of public administration and quantitative skills. PublicAdministrationQuarterly, 11, 134-149.

King, G., Keohane, R.O, & Verba, S. (1994). Designingsocialinquiry:Scientificinferenceinqualitativeresearch. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews:Learningthecraftofqualitativeresearchinterviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jenkins-Smith, H., Mitchell, N., & Silva, C. (1999). The state of public policy graduate education in leading American political science departments. PolicyCurrents:NewsletterofthePublicPolicySectionoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation,9(3-4), 7-10.

LaPlante, J.M. (1989). Research methods education for public sector careers: The challenge of utilization. PolicyStudiesReview,8, 845-851.

Lasswell, H.D. (1971). Apreviewofpolicysciences. New York: American Elsevier.

Lasswell, H.D., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Powerandsociety:Aframeworkforpoliticalinquiry.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2007). Usingsoftwareinqualitativeresearch:Astep-by-stepguide. Los Angeles: Sage. Lynn, L.E. (1999). A place at the table: Policy analysis, its postpositive critics, and the future of

practice. JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement,18, 411-424.

MacRae, D., & Whittington, D. (1997). Expertadviceforpolicychoice:Analysisanddiscourse. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Morçöl, G. (2001). Positivist beliefs among policy professionals: An empirical investigation. PolicySciences, 34, 381-401.

Nagel, S., & Quandt, K., (Eds.). (1996). Policystudiespersonneldirectory (2nd ed.). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Policy Studies Organization.

Patton, C., & Sawicki, D.S. (1993). Basicmethodsofpolicyanalysisandplanning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Patton, M.Q. (1975). Alternativeevaluationresearchparadigm. Grand Forks, ND: The University of North Dakota Press.



Porter, T.M. (1995). Trustinnumbers:Thepursuitofobjectivityinscienceandpubliclife. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Quade, E.S. (1989). Analysisforpublicdecisions (3rd ed.). New York: North Holland.

Radin, B. (2000). BeyondMachiavelli:Policyanalysiscomesofage. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Reichardt, C.S., & Cook, T.D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T.D. Cook

and C.S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitativeandquantitativemethodsinevaluationresearch (pp. 32-56). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rice University (n.d.). Online statistics: An interactive multimedia course of study. Retrieved July 6,

2009, from http://onlinestatbook.com Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitativeinterviewing:Theartofhearingdata. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz-Shea, P. (2003). Is this the curriculum we want? Doctoral requirements and offerings in methods and methodology. PS:PoliticalScienceandPolitics,36,379-386.

Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2002). “Reading” “methods” “texts”: How research methods texts construct political science. PoliticalScienceQuarterly,55(2), 457-486.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpretingqualitativedata (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Stone, D. (2002). Policyparadox:Theartofpoliticaldecisionmaking (rev. ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Torgerson, D. (1986). Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to its limitations. PolicySciences,19, 397-405.

Waugh, W.L., Hy, R.J, & Brudney, J. (1994). Quantitative analysis and skill building in public administration graduate education. PublicAdministrationQuarterly, 18(2), 204-222.

Weimer, D.L. (1999). Comment: Q-method and the isms. JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement, 18, 426-429.

Weimer, D.L., & Vining, A.R. (1992). Policyanalysis:Conceptsandpractice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yang, K. (2007). Quantitative methods for policy analysis. In F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, and M.S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbookofpublicpolicyanalysis:Theory,politics,andmethods. (pp. 349-368). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conductinginterpretivepolicyanalysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, and

M.S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbookofpublicpolicyanalysis:Theory,politics,andmethods (pp. 405-416). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Yanow, D, & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.). (2006). Interpretationandmethod:Empiricalresearchmethods

andtheinterpretiveturn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.



Footnotes1 Brief histories of these two movements can be found at http://www.paecon.

net/HistoryPAE.htm (post-autistic economics) and http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/Perestroika/Miller.htm (Perestroika).

2 As mentioned, the distinction that Schwartz-Shea and Yanow make between interpretivist and positivist qualitative methods is debatable. In our discussions we ignore this distinction.

Göktug Morçöl is an Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg. His current research focuses on business improvement districts, complexity theory applications in public policy and governance, and the methodology of public policy research. He has authored, edited, or co-edited five books. His papers have been published in AdministrativeTheory&Praxis,theInternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,PoliticsandPolicy,PolicySciences,Emergence:ComplexityandOrganization, and others. Email: [email protected]

Nadezda P. Ivanova, M.P.A., is a doctoral candidate in public administration in the School of Public Affairs at the Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg. Her dissertation focuses on the evolution of environmental policy networks, particularly those networks that are formed to reduce levels of fine particulate pollutants in the air. Her research interests also include dynamic network analysis, applications of complexity theory in public policy, and research methods. She holds an M.S. degree in chemical engineering from the Mendeleyev University of Chemical Technology of Russia, Moscow. E-mail: [email protected]



Appendix: UniversitiesandProgramsintheStudy

NAME OF UNIVERSITY

DEGREES OFFERED

MASTERS DEGREE(S)

Ph.D. DEGREE(S)

1 American University MPP

2 Arizona State University MPP

3 Brandeis University MPP Social Policy, MS International Health Policy, MA Sustainable International Development

4 Brigham Young University MPP

5 Brown University MPP

6 California Polytechnic State University

MPP

7 California State University, Sacramento

Master of Public Policy & Administration

8 Carnegie Mellon University MS in Public Policy & Management

Public Policy & Management

9 College of William And Mary

MPP

10 Duke University MPP Public Policy

11 George Mason University MPP, MS Transportation Policy

Public Policy

12 George Washington University

MPP, MS Health Policy

Health Policy

13 Georgetown University MPP

14 Georgia Tech MS Public Policy Public Policy



15 Harvard University MPP Public Policy, Social Policy, Health Policy

16 Indiana University Master of Public Affairs (Policy Analysis Concentration)

Public Policy, Education Policy

17 Johns Hopkins University MA Public Policy

18 Michigan State University MPP

19 Milano (The New School) MS Urban Policy Analysis & Management

20 Mills College MPP

21 Mississippi State University Master of Public Policy & Administration

22 New York University MPA in Public and Nonprofit Management and Policy

23 Pepperdine University MPP

24 Princeton University MPP Public Affairs

25 Rutgers, New Brunswick MPP Planning and Public Policy

26 University of California, Berkeley

MPP Public Policy

27 University of California, Los Angeles

MPP

28 University of Chicago MPP Public Policy

29 University of Kentucky MPP Public Policy and Administration

30 University of Maryland, Baltimore County

MPP Public Policy

31 University of Maryland, College Park

MPP Policy Studies



32 University of Massachusetts, Amherst


33 University of Massachusetts, Boston

MS in Public Affairs Public Policy

34 University of Michigan MPP Public Policy

35 University of Minnesota MPP Educational Policy

36 University of Missouri-St. Louis


37 University of Pennsylvania M Ed Education Policy; MS in Policy Research, Evaluation and Measurement;M. Phil.Ed. in Policy Research, Evaluation and Measurement

Education Policy

38 University of Pittsburgh Master of Public Policy & Management

Political Science (Public Policy Concentration)

39 University of Southern California

MPP Policy Planning and Development

40 University of Southern Maine

MPP & Management

Public Policy

41 University of Texas, Dallas MPP Public Policy

42 University of Texas, Austin Master of Public Affairs

Public Policy

43 University of Utah MPP

44 University of Wisconsin, Madison

Master of Public Affairs

Note. Master’s of Public Policy programs are abbreviated as MPP. Other degrees are spelled out as names used at the programs’ Web sites.



Information Literacy in Public Affairs Curriculum

Rita OrmsbyBaruchCollege,TheCityUniversityofNewYork

Daniel W. WilliamsBaruchCollege,TheCityUniversityofNewYork

AbstractIn this article, a librarian and a professor who work at the same university trace the development of information literacy standards. These standards were applied retrospectively to a graduate course that the professor teaches; the librarian was one of his students at that time. The article offers suggestions for guiding students on how to use and evaluate information resources, in order to complete a term-long research project. It also addresses librarians’ efforts in educating both students and other faculty on information literacy.

“Literacy” and Academic Training In the past few decades, advocates of disciplines and practices that include

science, math, business, geography, finance, computers, technology, culture, multiculturalism, health, media, law, management, and economics are mostly metaphoric when using the term “literacy.” The term “innumeracy,” for example, was coined as the numerical equivalent of illiteracy (apparently so math and language could be equal contenders in the battle for educational dollars). While researching this paper, we found a growing menu of metaphoric catchphrases such as “parental literacy” (Kambhampati & Pal, 2001, p.97), “deposit insurance literacy” (Smith & Walika, 1993, p.36), “family literacy” (McCaleb, 1998, p.48), and the “literacy of thoughtfulness” (The Futurist, 1991; Holt, 2005). These expanded concepts of “literacy” first surfaced in the mid-1950s world of economics (Jones & Lee, 1956).

Well-established within this traditional turn-of-phrase is the term “information literacy,” which is defined as “the ability to effectively access and evaluate information for a given need. It includes an integrated set of skills (research strategy and evaluation) and knowledge of tools and resources” (Breivik

JPAE16(2):279–306


& Gee, 1989, p.24). Information literacy has its roots in public policy debates, when then-New York State senator and librarian Major R. Owens (1976) wrote that information literacy was needed for greater work effectiveness, for increased efficiency, and for the survival of democratic institutions. As information services expanded and changed amid complex social, economic, and technological environments, the push to eliminate illiteracy took the spotlight, and early references to the needed growth of information literacy surfaced among pre-conference materials and delegates’ remarks (Benenfeld, 1978; Boorstin, 1979) during the first White House Conference on Library and Information Services. Breivik and Gee (1989) recommended closing the gap between the classroom and the library, and integrating the library into the curriculum so that students could become self-directed, independent learners. The potential controversy of designating these skills as “information literacy” is the following:

1. TaughtAlready? By so designating them, one may create a presumption that these skills are not already taught in the curriculum, which may not in fact be true.

2. OpportunityCosts? By adding a “literacy” status to information skills, one may be side-stepping questions of relative value, as compared to other skills that would compete for the curriculum.

3. Pre-matriculation? There is little evidence that these skills would be considered for admissions or other pre-matriculation standards for graduate schools. Undergraduates might prefer to attain some of these skills in a quality program.

4. LocusofTeaching? The term seems to imply a skill that once was part of library work, which could bias the discussion regarding the locus of teaching.

Today, the hypothetical notion of requiring information literacy is past. Accreditation organizations, such as the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (in the Mid-Atlantic region), have set accreditation criteria related to information literacy, as discussed in the next section. On the other hand, standards regarding library services of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA, 2006) are of much more limited scope, as evidenced by the following:

8.2 Library Services. All students and faculty shall have reasonable access to library facilities and services that are recognizedas adequate for master’s level study in public affairs and administration. This would normally include texts, monographs, periodicals, serials, pamphlets, and research reports. The program faculty should have a major role in selecting library acquisitions for its program (p.12).

InformationLiteracyinPublicAffairsCurriculum


Colleges and universities operate in a multiple-accreditation environment, so they must meet the standards of all of their accrediting bodies. While particular programs may not face concerns over information literacy, it is unrealistic to think that these criteria could exist in a vacuum and be ignored. Professors, on the other hand, may consider these standards to be intrusive, ill-conceived, or interfering with academic freedom.

This paper examines information literacy concepts integrally taught in a public affairs curriculum, through a substantive graduate-level course. This integral approach differs from alternative delivery models such as library workshops, librarian visits to classrooms, or simply assuming that students start graduate programs with the requisite skills. This paper centers on an Ethics and Public Decision Making course that involved both of its authors. One was taking the class; the other taught it. Because the concept of integrating information literacy into public affairs curricula is not limited to this particular course, other examples are mentioned.1

AccreditationIn 1989, the American Library Association’s (ALA) Presidential Committee

on Information defined information literacy as the ability “to recognize when information is needed and to have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information” (ALA, 1989). Since then, information literacy standards, performance measures, and outcome measurements for higher education have been approved by the Board of Directors of the Association of the College and Research Libraries (ACRL), an ALA division. In 1999, the standards were endorsed by the American Association of Higher Education, and by the Council of Independent Colleges in 2004 (ALA, 2000).

Regional standards for accreditation were being revised to include fuller references to information literacy as an expected outcome of graduate and undergraduate education (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002; Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, 2005; North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 2003; New England Association of Schools and Colleges, 2005; Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2001).

According to the ACRL’s standards (ALA, 2000), information literate students will

• Determine the nature and extent of information needed;• Access needed information effectively and efficiently;• Evaluate information and its sources critically and incorporate selected

information into their knowledge bases and value systems;• Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose; and• Understand many of the economic, legal, and social issues

surrounding the use of information and access and use information ethically and legally.



Learning GoalsIn DevelopingResearchandCommunicationSkills:GuidelinesforInformation

LiteracyintheCurriculum (2003), the Middle States Commission on Higher Education said it does not “require that information literacy be defined and accessed separately from other student learning goals, because it may well be reflected in the achievement of other goals” (p.1).

Instruction in ethics and information literacy instruction share goals of life-long learning. Significant debates exist in each area of study on how best to accomplish this teaching across the curriculum — whether course-integrated or separate courses of instruction are preferable. Hejka-Ekins (1998) suggested that for public administration providing both is optimal, but idealistic.

Similarly, Galvin (2005) concluded, “librarians need to strive for the ideal in the future, but live and work in the present, with its limitations” (p. 352).

Recently, the CollegeStudents’PerceptionsofLibrariesandInformationResources:AReporttotheOCLCMembership (De Rosa, 2006) found that the majority of college student respondents were not making high use of libraries’ available electronic resources (including online magazines, databases, and reference assistance.) The report confirmed what Martin (2006) wrote: Google dominates students’ online search processes. Bell and Shank (2004) have advocated that the marginalization of the academic library requires the “blended librarian,” whom they defined as “an academic librarian who combines the traditional skill set of librarianship with the information technologist’s hardware/software skills, and the instructional or educational designer’s ability to apply technology appropriately in the teaching-learning process” (p.374). Ducas and Michaud-Oystryk (2004) noted that with new skills librarians may now undertake increased roles in evaluating, analyzing, and filtering information, and also may become active partners with faculty in both the educational process and in scholarly communication. However, their survey of faculty found a contrast between librarians’ willingness to collaborate and a lack of interest by faculty (2004).

Although committed to information literacy as a priority, so perhaps as a self-reflective exercise, the ACRL President’s Program from the 2006 ALA Conference (advertised as a “great debate”) was entitled “The Emperor Has No Clothes: Be It Resolved that Information Literacy is a Fad and Waste of Librarian Time and Talent.” The program description asked the following:

Is information literacy a concept created by academic librarians to make themselves more relevant to the curriculum or is it one of the most important roles? Is information literacy critical thinking in disguise or is there a real body of knowledge to be communicated? Does civil society’s dependence on life-long learners require the acquisition of information literacy



skills? Can libraries justify the expenditures they’ve made on teaching information literacy or do the data suggest otherwise? This debate will test our assumptions and beliefs about a core element of the academic librarian’s role in the education process (ACRL 2006, para. 2).

These questions are being debated within and beyond the library profession. The goal for supporters is the development and implementation of information literacy initiatives across their curricula. Such programs have been detailed by Brown, Murphy, & Nanny (2003), D’Angelo & Maid (2004), and Owusu-Ansah (2004). Risë L. Smith (1997) called for librarians to shift their focus from students to faculty — in order to teach the faculty how to teach information literacy. However, Oberman (in Grassian & Kaplowitz, 2001) observed that the librarians’ success with infusing information literacy programs into university curriculums also requires them to realize they “don’t own information literacy and information literacy is not always described in terms that librarians would use” (p. xxix).

East (2005) suggested that, if academic librarians’ efforts to develop more effective information literacy programs were less successful than expected, then

Perhaps this is partly because we tend to plan our training programs on the assumption that we, the librarians, are the best judges of what the trainees need to know. The new postgraduate student, however, will be much more interested to find out how senior colleagues find and use information than to learn what librarians think about this process. If the advice given by a librarian is to be taken seriously, it must tally with the observed behavior of successful researchers (p.134).

For example, simply using the term “information literacy” may introduce unacceptable jargon to traditional academics, and thereby create barriers rather than linkages. As we discuss the role of academic librarians, we explore implications for the future of information literacy that include improving faculty-librarian collaborations, and assessment. Information Literacy At Baruch College

Bernard M. Baruch College (Baruch) is a senior college within the City University of New York (CUNY). Baruch’s School of Public Affairs master’s program places special emphasis on “educating responsive and accountable leaders who combine managerial expertise, creative and critical thinking, and rigorous analysis in the formation and execution of public policy” (Baruch



Graduate Bulletin 2003-2005, p.81). Assignments in public affairs offer students opportunities to expand their knowledge of public administration principles and practices. It also gives them a chance to question, to discuss, to debate policy issues; to gain an understanding of the foundations of economic and statistical analysis; and to develop written and oral communication skills in many media and format varieties. A capstone seminar also is required for graduation (Graduate Bulletin, 2003-2005).

TheCUNYCouncilofChiefLibrariansInformationLiteracyWhitePaper urges that information literacy be fully integrated across the university (CUNY, 2001). At Baruch College’s William and Anita Newman Library, and elsewhere, librarians endorse information literacy. Baruch’s librarians, who hold faculty rankings, seek to incorporate information literacy in their reference work with students and other faculty by offering an undergraduate minor in information studies. Librarians provide faculty-requested, course-integrated, and course-related instruction for freshmen English classes and other undergraduate/graduate courses, and they also provide workshops that are open to all students.

According to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2003), “the principles underlying information literacy are as old as higher education itself. Faculty and administrators have expectations for how students will acquire, analyze and use information related to courses that the institution offers” (p.1). However, to make the case that students who graduate are information-literate, the Middle States Commission (2003, p.40) notes that “it is the institution’s responsibility to ensure that information literacy goals are defined, and that various elements found scattered across the curriculum are identified.”

This paper now discusses a specific course to explore the language and constructs of information literacy in the public affairs curriculum.

Course ContextThe course “Ethics and Public Decision Making” is taught by the academic

co-author of this paper in a Master’s of Public Administration program. The librarian co-author of this piece completed the course online in Fall 2000, while in pursuit of a master’s degree in Public Administration. The course now is offered solely in the traditional classroom setting.

The word “ethics” has an extraordinarily broad range of uses, even when limited to matters involving professional education. Public administrators have a variety of reasons to be concerned about ethics. Some of these are the need to (a) understand common concepts, (b) handle special problems, (c) understand multiple, specific ethical statuses, and also because (d) ethics occupies a unique place in political theory. It is quite a challenge to address these matters in a typical semester with a primarily naive audience. Adding the asynchronous and quasi-anonymous nature of the Internet does little to improve this learning environment. Furthermore, it is unsatisfactory to teach an assortment of facts



about these matters. It is essential to teach students competent reasoning skills for handling the types of ethical matters they might face in their professions or personal lives.

To meet these challenges, one course objective uses skills that ordinarily are taught in a philosophy course, so that students learn to reason about the ethical matters that public administrators might realistically encounter. In the classroom, these skills are taught through student-led discussions, professor-led cross-examinations, student-to-student instructions, staged debates, defense of disagreeable positions, and other devices aimed at separating students from their emotive commitment to a particular view. The idea is to develop the student’s ability to provide a full and fair presentation of a situation.

While course details vary from year to year, the core structure remains the same. The early weeks are designed to loosen the students’ notions of ethics away from any naïve notions they may have. This is accomplished largely by exposing them to views outside their norm, which include things like (a) addressing the Aristotelian view exhibited in the Kurosawa-directed film Ikiru[ToLife] (1952), (b) defending the views of George Washington Plunkitt (Riordon, 1982), (c) reading Goodsell’s InDefenseofBureaucracy (1985), and (d) reading Holes (Sachar, 2000), a young-adult fiction work that portrays juvenile justice issues. A simpler student eye-opening method is exposure to other people’s views of potentially important moral issues. To do this, students bring in a local newspaper clipping that presents an issue of interest. National news items are not allowed, so that the subject remains localized to personal interests. For the online course, a URL link serves as the “clipping.” The purpose of this “loosening” effect is to provide students with a broader understanding of their basic environment and help them gain perspective. We expect this ultimately creates public servants with a foundation of strength, and fosters a sensible, open-minded approach to the reasoning process.

Next, a research project on an ethical dilemma begins. This semester-long project is woven through the ongoing process, where students are learning or relearning the more difficult decision-making tactics. About halfway through the semester, each student submits a research project proposal that aims to discuss and attempts to resolve the ethical dilemma chosen in earlier weeks.

To qualify as “ethical,” the problem must be one that cannot be resolved by knowing more facts — it must lack a ready-made answer. To qualify as a “dilemma,” a problem must have at least two plausible solutions. Quite often, students choose an issue with many possible solutions, but have no idea which one they ultimately will support. Other times they start out as totally unable to see any possible answers to the issue. Regardless, the professor advises the class that he is good at “smoking out” people with “false” dilemmas, where students use the paper-writing assignment as an opportunity to craft a polemic in favor of one predetermined view.



Project proposals were required to include at least 10 citations showing that there is available research material, and the citations had to be from quality sources, which meant they had to extend beyond peer-reviewed journal sources and extend to books, studies, and reports. When students asked, “What if I cannot find 10 sources?” they were advised to select a different topic, because the 10 sources were only the beginning of the research, not the end.

Shortly after submitting their proposals, students experienced their first attempt to tackle a dilemma in real time. This demonstrated a “reenactment” of the Friedrich-Finer debate (on the nature of administrative responsibility) (Friedrich, 1940, pp.3-24; Finer, 1941, pp.335-350), where students were arbitrarily assigned to one side of a debate, and were required to switch sides several times throughout the session. This taught them how to defend a moral viewpoint that they did not necessarily agree with, and it simultaneously familiarized them with a substantial concern of American political thought. This particular element of the class was not successful in the online version of the course.

The students’ ultimate achievements are the semester projects, which reflect their attempts to resolve the dilemmas that they selected to work on. Because students also receive guidance on keeping things balanced, they are taught to divide the project into the following stages:

1. Exposition: Provide a straightforward account of the arguments offered by proponents of the issue.

2. Strengthsandweaknesses: Evaluate the straightforward account to discover what might be strong or weak about the situation. Focus on errors of fact, errors of argument, and misleading accounts of normative views.

3. Remediation: Fix the errors. Make arguments as strong as possible. Explore the possibility of misunderstandings, where arguments do not actually oppose each other, but provide more perspective.

4. Synthesisorselection: Try to achieve a resolution, either by finding that the arguments are compatible, or by selecting one argument on which to focus.

5. Honestfailure is permitted.

In summary, here we have reviewed the basic structure of the course Ethics and Public Decision Making. The course serves as an example of integrating the curricular objectives of a master’s program with another set of curricular objectives that are labeled as “information literacy.” The second author of this paper is familiar with several courses that exhibit information literacy characteristics such as research methods, program evaluation, and the history of public administration (an undergraduate course). In the following analysis, examples are drawn from these or other courses, as well as from this core example.



Information Literacy ComponentsTo identify elements of information literacy in a graduate public affairs

course, the ACRL standards on information literacy (ALA, 2000) are used from the Middle States Commission of Higher Education’s CharacteristicsofExcellenceinHigherEducationEligibility:RequirementsandStandardsforAccreditation (2002), and from DevelopingResearch&CommunicationSkills:GuidelinesforInformationLiteracyinthe Curriculum(2003). Applicable performance indicators from these documents are summarized and retrospectively applied to the Ethics and Public Decision Making course in Table 1.2 [See Table 1]

Framing The Research QuestionGuidelines on information literacy from the Middle States Commission

on Higher Education (2003) set an expectation that, after training, a graduate student “articulates a focused research question; reevaluates it for clarity or precision; redefines the question; and considers the costs and benefits of

Table 1. InformationLiteracyStandardsandPerformanceIndicatorsIncorporatedintoaGraduateSchoolofPublicAffairsCourse:PAF9010EthicsandPublicService

Information Literacy Components

Middle States Learning Goals (Quality Criteria):Graduate Student

Source: Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2003). Developingresearch&communicationskills:Guidelinesforinformationliteracyinthecurriculum, p.11. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

ACRL Standards and Performance Indicators

Source: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association. (2000). Informationliteracycompetencystandardsforhighereducation. Chicago: American Library Association.

Incorporated into Graduate Course PAF 9010 Ethics and Public Service

Framing the Research Question

Articulates a focused research question, reevaluates it for clarity or precision, redefines the question, and also considers the costs and benefits of completing a particular research project based on available financial resources.

Standard 1: The information-literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.

Performanceindicators: Student defines and articulates the need for information.

Students post value-laden ethical dilemmas to be resolved. After professor’s and students’ comments, revised research questions are more focused; library offers print and electronic research resources, and free interlibrary loan service.



Accessing Sources

Understands how information is produced and disseminated; develops and implements a search strategy appropriate to the discipline.

Performanceindicators: Students identify various types and formats of potential information sources.

Standard 2: Information-literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently.

Performanceindicators: Selects the most appropriate investigative methods or retrieval systems for accessing needed information; retrieves information on-line or in person by using a variety of methods.

Blackboard, e-mail and AOL Instant Messenger are used for Web-based class communication.

Research paper instructions include a minimum acceptable number of academic sources. Students begin research process by using subscription databases, print resources, and the World Wide Web to present a preliminary list of resources to consult.

Evaluating Sources

Reviews retrieved information in order to assess the reliability of each source; modifies search strategies to ensure that information retrieved is as comprehensive as possible

Performanceindicators: Students refine search strategy, if necessary, then extract, record, and manage the information retrieved.

Students are introduced to academic journals in the subject area and review initial research results. They also review, evaluate, and revise information retrieved, and continue research process if more information is needed. Results of initial literature reviews are posted for comments and suggestions from the professor and other students.

Evaluating Content

(Includes the following: Learner achieves understanding, and then incorporates selected information into his/her knowledge base and value system.)

Understands the value of information within a discipline or profession, as well as its contradictions, the author’s research methodology, and other unique characteristics. Selects information that provides evidence needed at a professional level, and skillfully integrates new information with prior knowledge

Standard 3: Information-literate stu-dent critically evaluates information and its sources. Selected information then is incorporated into the student’s knowledge base and value system. Performanceindicators: Students summarize main ideas from information gathered; articulate and apply initial criteria for evaluating information and its sources; and synthesize main ideas to construct new concepts.

Students prepare drafts of papers on resolving an ethical dilemma, and include evaluations of information sources, plus possible actions or policies to resolve dilemma. Resolution may result in advocating one course of action and presenting reasons why this approach is preferred.


Table 1. Continued


Using Information for a Specific Purpose

Expertly organizes content that supports the student’s product or performance; produces new knowledge in the discipline or develops new strategies as a practitioner; and also considers the value of further research that uses alternative methods or strategies

Performanceindicators: Students compare newknowledge to prior knowledge, and deter-mine contradictions, added value, or other unique characteristics of information. They validate understanding and interpretation by discourse with other individuals, subject-area experts and/or practitioners. Standard 4: Information- literate student — individually or as a group member — effectively uses infor-mation to accomplish a specific purpose. Performanceindicators: Revises development process for the product or the performance; effect-ively communicates the product or performance.

Students use information and reasoning to resolve ethical dilemmas, or to state why they cannot be resolved. Students offer alternatives to existing policies, procedures, or priorities. Drafts of papers are reviewed by students and professor; comments and suggestions are received; then papers are revised and final versions are submitted.

Understanding Issues Affecting the Use of Information

Observing Laws, Regulations and Institutional Policies

Understands issues of intellectual property, copyright, the fair use of copyrighted material, human subject research, and other emerging or reemerging ethical issues.

Standard 5: Information- literate student understands many of the economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information; also can ethically and legally access and use information.

Performanceindicators: Students follow laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources.

Students understand the privacy and security concerns of some ethical dilemmas, and use proper citations to acknowledge use of information sources and works by others.

Note. Table format and contents adapted from “Developing Research & Communication Skills: Guidelines for Information Literacy in the Curriculum (Figure 2.Learning Goals Across Academic Level),” by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools’ Commission on Higher Education, 2003, pp.11-12. Copyright 2003 bythe Middle States Commission on Higher Education.


Table 1. Continued


completing a particular research project in light of available financial resources” (pp.11-12). The ACRL’s (ALA, 2000) first standard, “the information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed,” is supported with a performance indicator on whether studentsdefine and articulate the need for information.

In the Ethics and Public Decision Making curriculum, students were (a) assigned a research question, (b) given guidance on the particulars of a topic that will satisfy the assignment, and (c) instructed in the use of peer-reviewed journals or similar sources to continue formulating their questions. Course criteria required the question to be an unresolved “dilemma” for the student conducting the research, which meant that it generated more than one possible resolution, but it lacked a ready-made answer. The dilemma also had to be normative, as measured by the criterion that “facts” alone would not resolve it. And the dilemma had to be one that could benefit from research, based on the criterion that it should generate 10 quality citations. To further focus their research, students received comments from each other and from the professor.

The students’ perspective on the project is that this research paper is specially designed to provide a skill that may be needed later in life — the ability to objectively weigh emotionally charged, competing views. Students were obliged to select a value-laden dilemma that was related to government and defined as a “problem involving value considerations for which there is more than one competing solution, where alternatives appear incompatible” (Williams, 2000a, p.1). Considerable effort was put toward explaining that “value-laden” meant no amount of fact-finding was going to solve the matter. “Values” were choices and callings to one’s ultimate beliefs. “Dilemmas” had to be situations with at least two plausible solutions. If the student already knew which solution was preferred, it was not a dilemma.

In the final paper, not to exceed 20 pages, students had to provide “reasons and evidence for a variety of views concerning the selected issue, and not simply provide a polemic in behalf of one perspective” (Williams, 2000b, 1). Further requirements were a balanced discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of relevant points of view, followed by an attempt to resolve the dilemma. The course syllabus provided topics addressed by previous students, such as whether public pension plans should continue to invest in companies that manufacture tobacco products, and whether trans-national adoptions should be permitted. Ultimately, students were free to select any topic of interest, as long as they could identify 10 or more academic references for their research. The expectation was that students would find sufficient literature to assist with resolving their moral dilemmas. The objective was to build their capacity to do this again at some point in the future, when the dilemma was not a removed academic exercise, but a real and pressing issue in the student’s professional or personal life.

As seen both from the curriculum and from student experiences, the



information literacy attribute is not an add-on or adjunct to the course. Instead, it is a central element of the teaching goal.

Accessing SourcesThe Middle States Commission on Higher Education guidelines for

information literacy (2003) set an expectation that, after training, a graduate student “understands how information is produced and disseminated; [and] develops and implements a search strategy appropriate to the discipline” (pp.11-12). The ACRL’s (ALA, 2000) second standard is that the “information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently” (p.8). Related performance indicators are

• Selecting the investigative methods or retrieval systems most appropriate for accessing needed information, and using a variety of methods to retrieve information online or in person; and

• Identifying a variety of types and formats for potential information sources.

In Ethics and Public Decision Making, students were instructed to use appropriate bibliographical sources, full-text sources, and databases to identify a minimum of 10 appropriate citations that related to at least two competing solutions to the ethical dilemma. The minimum of 10 citations demonstrated that there would be sufficient material for the report. The professor instructed students on searching electronic subscription resources that were available through EBSCO Host databases, JSTOR databases, and ProQuest’s ABI Inform/Global.3 Available library support included reference assistance, access to print and electronic research resources, and free interlibrary loan service.

The student’s perspective of how to solve a dilemma brings us to the information part. Whether impartial, fair, or balanced, consideration of value-laden, competing views depends greatly on the best possible advice. Where do you get that advice? Students do not necessarily have much insight for answering this question. They may well thrash about and take whatever advice they can find. But they were advised that the final paper should be thorough.

How can librarians help students find this advice? Although the Middle States Commission on Higher Learning goals call for students to be able to develop a search strategy for a discipline (2003), according to Grassian and Kaplowitz (2001), adult learners in the course may select research topics that have personal relevancy, but that also are often interdisciplinary, which makes them complex and time-consuming to research. The “information literacy” librarians can beneficially communicate about information access as it relates to multiple disciplines. Specifically, they can show students (a) the current methods of finding peer-reviewed journals, (b) how to distinguish levels of quality in non-



peer reviewed journals, (c) how to find reliable, non-acquired (free) services, and (d) how to use print resources.

For this assignment, students were not expected to pay for any information, or access to it. The Commission on Higher Learning goals say that students may need to be “considering the costs and benefits of completing a particular research project, in light of available financial resources” (2003, pp.11-12). The criteria apply to employed, part-time adult learners, whose time is greatly valued. By researching a complex topic, students may need to (a) reduce work hours, (b) purchase supplies, (c) construct materials, which may include otherwise unavailable data; or (d) pay for interlibrary loan services, a cost that Baruch’s Newman Library assumes.

In fact, the library never should become a narrowing gatekeeper; it instead should maximize access. To meet their needs for information, Baruch students have on-campus and remote access to more than 100 subscription databases that span all disciplines, funded partly by a student technology fee. In addition to having access to other CUNY libraries, Baruch College students could use research resources at The New York Public Library, and the Queens and Brooklyn Public Library systems. If needed, through the Newman Library’s membership in the Metropolitan New York Library Council (METRO, www.metro.org), librarians may arrange for students to access materials available only at participating academic libraries, or in special collections. Additionally, the Library of Congress, Google Scholar, other search engines, and several journals, membership associations, think tanks, and services for publications provide access to full-text items.

Orientation at the Baruch School of Public Affairs includes some guidance in the basics of searching online catalogs, using subscription databases, and working with Microsoft Excel. Upon request, the Newman Library’s liaisons to Baruch’s School of Public Affairs conduct course-related lectures on the library’s services, and on its print/electronic resources that feature computerized classrooms for hands-on experience. As noted, they are well-suited to provide guidance on search strategies and evaluating search results.

Evaluating SourcesGuidelines on information literacy from the Middle States Commission

on Higher Education (2003) set an expectation that, after training, a graduate student “reviews information retrieved to assess the reliability of each source; [and] modifies search strategies to ensure that the information retrieved is as comprehensive as possible” (pp.11-12). ACRL performance indicators (ALA, 2000) specify that “students refine the search strategy if necessary and extract, record, and manage the information retrieved” (p.10).

During the Ethics and Public Decision Making class, students were taught how to find articles, and how to use scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Because normative arguments appeared in some quality, non-peer reviewed journals,



students also were allowed to use top-tier commercial publications such as AtlanticMonthly, but were prohibited from using lower-quality material. The professor’s guidelines are shown in Table 2. [See Table 2.]

Table 2.GuidelinesforFindingAppropriateLiterature

1. Prefer peer-reviewed journals. How do you know a journal is peer-reviewed? With electronic databases, you select the “peer-reviewed” box. If this is not available, the more arcane the title, (such as “Journal of…”), the more likely the journal is to be peer-reviewed.

2. Non-peer-reviewed articles are acceptable for this paper, but they must come from high-quality sources. TheAtlanticMonthly is high quality; the NewYorkDailyNews is not. Students are advised not to limit themselves to non-peer-reviewed materials unless there are no peer-reviewed articles. The total absence of peer-reviewed material is a hint that this could become a very difficult paper to write.

3. Books, studies and other published material may be acceptable. Be cautious, as “trade” publications are not necessarily of the same quality as academic presses and academic-sounding sources may not in fact be academic. Pay attention to the availability and quality of citations. In general, the newest material is published in journals.

4. Do not expect that empirical evidence will settle the matter. So, do not obtain articles that solely contain statistical charts, tables or equations.

5. Make certain that the article exhibits reasoning.

6. More is better.

These guidelines were designed to make sure that students used quality material and effective reasoning methods. In today’s open-information environment, students need more skill to determine whether information is credible or whether it is a hoax. Course guidelines also prohibited the shortcuts



and evasion caused by asking to treat each branch of dilemmas as a separate, complete search. Completeness was a demanding criterion, especially among part-time graduate students who preferred to decide for themselves how many citations would be enough.

During the literature development phase, students provided feedback to each other. In the one time this course was offered online, it involved posting and commenting via e-mail. In the live classroom version, students worked in small groups to provide feedback. The professor also gave feedback on the quality of the literature.The professors also set similar expectations in Program Evaluation or Capstone courses, where students were referred to literature in order to (a) learn what already was known about a subject, and (b) frame related questions. Unlike the ethics course, the literature review in these empirical courses served as a preliminary stage of preparation for later work. Again, students were given guidance on what literature to seek and how to find it. They also received guidance on what literature to avoid. Note that, when applying Table 2 to empirical courses, Step 2 would be modified and Step 4 would be reversed.

When researching an interdisciplinary topic for the first time — with information from numerous stakeholders in varied formats — it was difficult for students to know when they had done enough research. A sensible suggested guideline to follow was “You know you have found (most everything) when everyone is citing other articles/authors that you are reading, and no one else.” However, it may fall short of the Middle States Commission on Higher Learning goal that the information retrieved should be as comprehensive as possible (2003). These days, information possibilities have indeed proved to be nearly endless, and it could take longer than a semester to review all retrieved information.

Thus, a minimum requirement of 10 academic sources for Ethics and Public Decision Making research papers is a realistic number and enables students to revise their topics if 10 are not easily located. When students share preliminary findings with and get feedback from fellow students and the professor, they generally give suggestions on where to expand and/or narrow the focus. In recent years, Internet “alert services,” offered through free and subscription databases, and the availability of “blogging,” means that students and researchers can keep up on newly available information — which is important if the timing is key to resolving the dilemma.

Historian and Librarian of Congress Daniel J. Boorstin (1980) contrasted information from knowledge, and noted that “knowledge is orderly and cumulative, information is random and miscellaneous” (p.3). More recently, Marcum (2002) opined, “information is not knowledge” (p.8). In the process of making ethical policy decisions and laws to resolve dilemmas, the need to locate and critically examine information is not new. When examining solutions to “the railroad problem” in a McClure’sMagazineseries in the early 20th century, Baker (1906) opined, “it becomes of incalculable importance, then, to know where



the information upon which we now base our thinking is coming from. Are the sources clear? Is the information true?” (p.535). Baker (1906) also wrote that people had a duty to inquire about the sources of information; “they are entitled to know, when a man is presenting an argument, whether he represents himself or is paid by someone else. It is one thing to inform the public’s mind, and another thing to deceive it” (pp.535-536).

“Following the money,” these days may be more difficult, but academic librarians can help students (a) locate print resources, (b) access databases of political and charitable contributions, (c) trace the registered owners of Web sites, and (d) learn their backgrounds and resources. Tips for evaluating information found on Web sites are readily found on libraries’ Web sites, and are easily shared with students in lectures, workshops, or handouts. Additionally, librarians can help students find feedback on previous research, speeches, reports, and information to supplement the subject expertise of the professor. When combined, these resources work toward teaching students to be self-directed problem-solvers, which fits the standards set by the Middle States Commission on Higher Learning, in the publication titled DevelopingResearchandCommunicationSkills (2003, p.10).

Evaluating ContentThe previously noted guidelines on information literacy (2003) state that, after

training, a graduate student, “understands the value of the information within a discipline or profession; its contradictions, the author’s research methodology, and other unique characteristics; selects information that provides the evidence needed at a professional level; [and] skillfully integrates new information with prior knowledge” (pp. 11-12). The ACRL’s third standard says, “The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system” (ALA, 2000, p.11). This standard is supported by a performance indicator that shows whether students can (a) summarize main ideas from the information gathered, (b) articulate and apply initial criteria for evaluating both information and its sources, and (c) synthesize main ideas to construct new concepts (ALA, 2000).

The criterion simply restates the aim of the whole project and, in a greater sense, the aim of education: That students learn to discover information and learn to think. In the project assigned for Ethics and Public Decision Making, students work through a series of thinking steps to reach the goal of either resolving — or discovering that they cannot resolve — an ethical dilemma. This work is not based on intuition, but on established knowledge and reasoning processes. This is the essence of intelligent thought. During the course, students receive very specific criteria for thinking through the problem, and either resolving or failing to resolve the dilemma.



Using Information for a Specific PurposeGuidelines on information literacy (2003) further state that, after training,

a graduate student, “expertly organizes content in support of the student’s product or performance; produces new knowledge in the discipline or develops new strategies as a practitioner; and considers the value of further research using alternative methods or strategies” (pp.11-12). The ACRL’s fourth standard says that an “information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose” (ALA, 2000, p. 13). This standard is supported through performance indicators that say students should do the following:

1. Compare new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine added value, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information; and validate understanding and interpretation through discourse with other individuals, subject-area experts and/or practitioners.

2. Revise the development process for the product or the performance, and communicate the product or performance effectively (ALA 2000, p. 13).

The Ethics and Public Decision Making curriculum calls for students to develop proposals, papers in draft, oral presentations of papers, and a final written paper. In the online version of this course, the draft was posted to a discussion board. After drafts of papers are reviewed by students and the professor, and comments and suggestions are received, the student revises the paper and submits a final version. In the classroom setting, students meet in groups to discuss drafts and give an oral presentation to the entire class. The second half of the course is built around learning the skills needed to write a final paper, draft it, receive feedback, and redraft a final version.

In a Capstone course, also taught by the professor of the Ethics course, students similarly learn how to conduct independent, empirical projects by using secondary data found through libraries and other resources, such as the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/). They also use information resources that are similar to those described for the ethics and program evaluation courses. Critical skills learned in this course include how to integrate an empirical study with existing research, and how to communicate findings in a Capstone paper.

Public policy decisions often are made in situations with conflicting ethical and moral issues, according to Garcia-Zamor (2001). The assigned course readings, and related classroom or Web-based discussions, offer varied opportunities for considering issues, conflicts and possible resolutions of past dilemmas, as well as what students choose to research and to resolve. This is



accomplished through classroom discussions and by circulating drafts of papers via Blackboard. Then, the authors are questioned about the papers and proposed resolutions. Rabinowitz (2002) found that helping students determine how to ask the right questions is required in order to develop transferable knowledge and become successful lifelong learners in any chosen profession. Prior to revising and submitting the final project paper, students had the opportunity to consider peer questions and the professor’s written comments. More importantly, students, and the professor, had opportunities to learn from each other.

The dilemmas selected by students, and their corresponding viewpoints, are as varied as the demands placed on public employees. They also reflect a student community at one of the most diverse colleges in the United States (U.S.News&WorldReport, as cited in Baruch College CampusNews, 2010). As Pickus and Dostert (2002) wrote, “An understanding of ethics as collaborative judgment recognizes that, in the absence of a privileged standpoint from which a determination of absolute truth could be made, our ethical judgments will have to be carried out in community with others” (p.16).

Understanding Issues Affecting the Use of InformationThe Middle States guidelines on information literacy (2003) continue by

saying that (after training) a graduate student “understands issues of intellectual property; copyright, the fair use of copyrighted material, human subject research, and other emerging or reemerging ethical issues” (pp.11-12). The ACRL’s fifth standard states that an “information literate student understands many of the economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information and access and uses information ethically and legally” (ALA, 2000, p.14). This standard is supported by a performance indicator that requires students to follow the laws, regulations, institutional policies and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources (ALA, 2000, p.14).

To eliminate uncertainties on how sources should be cited, APocketStyleManual (Hacker, 2004) is a required text. The professor’s discussion of citations, while openly related to plagiarism, focuses on demonstrating that students perform work in the form of conducting library research, which makes the focus more positive than negative. Students also are encouraged to seek help from librarians — in person at the reference desk, through e-mail, or via chat reference services. If writing help is needed, they can use the English Department’s Writing Center. In requested workshops, librarians also can discuss plagiarism and how to avoid it.

But the issues surrounding access to and use of information are broad, and range from basic literacy, to policy decisions on censorship, privacy, the security of public records, and intellectual property issues. All of these subjects are the subject of class discussions and of some research papers. Throughout the Ethics and Public Decision Making course, students are exposed to new and tested ideas and theories that come from revered thinkers, as well as new experts and



authors, new print and electronic resources, new technology, and new methods of viewing, discussing, researching and resolving ethical problems in the public sector. Hopefully these things will be applicable to the issues faced by these students, as hopefully they are becoming well-rounded candidates for future careers in public service.

Analysis As shown in this review, practices that contribute to “information literacy”

are entirely consistent with educational objectives for an ethics course in public affairs and with other courses in the public affairs curriculum. The educational goals for the ethics course specifically include and integrate five standards that are specified by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, as well as some similar guidelines and performance standards from the Association of College and Research Libraries. Elements of other courses also integrate these guidelines. In fact, for these information-rich courses, it is unclear what the course would be without substantial information literacy components. Regarding the controversies raised at the beginning of the paper, we see that two of the four controversies can be merged together. These include: TaughtAlready? and OpportunityCosts? As described for the Ethics and Public Decision Making course, the subject of information literacy is being taught and, therefore, the question of whether or not to teach information literacy is relatively weak. For the subjects described in this paper, the information literacy component is a substantial element of the course’s purpose. Therefore, it is not realistically possible to talk about meaningful opportunity costs.

This also addresses the issue of pre-matriculation, although not completely. There are elements described in the ethics course that are reasonable to expect the student to arrive with (otherwise it is not meaningful to offer the course to the student). On the other hand, a student who arrives with some knowledge of using searchable full-text databases, peer-reviewed journals, and quality commercial journals, is better prepared and requires less classroom training than a student who knows none of these. Likewise, a student who knows how to cite appropriately is more prepared for the course.

So, this brings us back to the locus of teaching and the concept of collaborative work between the classroom, the professor, and the librarian. As described here, some elements of the information literacy content in this course call on the professor’s formal training and knowledge within the substantive field. For Ethics and Public Decision Making, the professor brings specific knowledge of ethical issues as related to public affairs, and brings knowledge of the rigorous form of reasoning applied in moral philosophy. Looking back at Table 1, this knowledge is especially crucial for framing the question, evaluating content, and using information for specific purposes. The area most amenable to librarian leadership is accessing sources. The remaining two areas — evaluating sources



and understanding issues — are best conceived as a joint venture.Clearly, a librarian has superior knowledge of rapidly changing information

resources. While a professor could be an experienced library user, he or she might not be aware of recent changes or be skilled in specialized techniques, such as use of a database’s thesaurus. On the other hand, a professor could have better knowledge of the respect that the academic community grants to particular journals and, therefore, would know more than a librarian about the journals that students need for a particular discipline, course or research assignment. Similarly, the librarian and the professor each is able to provide useful guidance to help students find the effective set of appropriate materials for a particular course or research assignment. For example, the professor may provide guidance about the preferred standards of books or articles, timelines, and guidelines like those shown in Table 2. Librarians know about the use of citation indexes, the use of citations as sources, subject guides, open access journals, and recently published or acquired materials. The students can benefit the most if given both sets of guidance in the most effective forms. In recent years, librarians have offered instruction on citations and use of material per the limitations of copyright law. However, professors provide guidance on which of several citation styles to use, and provide similar guidance for other activities that fall beyond the scope of the library’s services and sources.

Some librarians consider a professor’s classroom demonstration of information resources as encroaching on librarianship. Why does the professor do this? From the professor’s perspective, the librarian is invited into the classroom to demonstrate library services and resources as a guest lecturer. Understanding guest lecturer status is critical for successful performance, and affects the opportunity for return invitations. In this respect, the professor focuses on the course objectives, and not on the information literacy objectives. More explicitly, any coincidence between the course and information literacy criteria results from information literacy objectives that coincidentally match the teaching objectives of the professor. It is not from a deliberate plan. Unless the professor and librarian engage in collaborative teaching, as described by Stein and Lamb (1998), librarians have no access to the classroom, and they would have to put the professor’s objectives ahead of their own. This could result in the dilemma faced by Radford University instructional librarians: “We wanted to teach what the professors thought would be most helpful for their students, yet it was obvious that they did not realize how long it would take to adequately cover the proposed topics” (Benges-Small & Brainard, 2006, p. 80). At the McConnell Library, their practical solution is “an instructionalalacarte menu” that allows faculty to use an online request form and to select topics that include time estimates and costs for a course-related guest lecture.

From the librarian’s perspective, the challenge of being a guest lecturer for a single course session includes many of the same challenges that face the



classroom professor. For starters, there is limited time to discuss an expanding subject, and the students have varied degrees of experience and interest in the subject matter, as well as varied degrees of expertise in using the resources for writing research papers that typically are offered through an academic library. If a session is arranged in haste, too little information might be shared about course objectives, or the objectives of the research assignment.

Because librarians sometimes overlook the fact that information literacy encompasses skills and concepts learned over time, according to Galvin (2005), they should not overlook out-of-class opportunities to promote and support information literacy. Galvin suggests pathfinders or subject guides for specific courses or assignments, which can serve as tools that enable students to learn at their own pace.

Specific suggestions on how librarians and faculty might plan for a guest lecture and encourage students to look for the best resources (which may, or may not, include those that are the easiest to locate) are offered in Table 3. [See Table 3 ]

These suggestions include the possibility of the librarian attending the course prior to being a guest lecturer, and also enable follow-up by both the professor and the librarian, with invitations to later oral presentations by students for discussing research. Staffing and time constraints could limit the feasibility of these suggestions. More formal evaluation and assessment measurements than those suggested might already be in place.

ConclusionThis paper offers an attempt to retrospectively apply information literacy

criteria to a graduate course in Ethics and Public Decision Making, in order to analyze whether it assists with meeting the accreditation criteria — required as evidence of the way we use information literacy as a learning outcome within the curriculum. According to Newcomer (2003),

In the current mission-oriented accreditation environment, we are supposed to articulate our program’s vision, mission, and measurable objectives. We are then supposed to collect data that will tell us the extent to which our objectives are met. However, in the fluid environment we now confront, how is this possible? One of the most difficult puzzles we confront as faculty today is creating a shared sense of what our students need, how we can structure a curriculum to address these needs, and finally how we can prepare ourselves to implement what we decide upon and to anticipate what we cannot envision (p.38).

The current status of information literacy — explored at the previously noted 2005 Conference at Baruch College — focuses on undergraduate education, so it is not directly related to the previous discussion in this paper.



Table 3.PlanningandGoalsofGuestLecturebyLibrarian

Professor provides or reviews with librarian

Librarian provides for professor Students will have

Specific course objectives and objectives of research assignment

Understanding Received info prior to lecture and understand the purpose

A sense of the subject matter and the students’ level of research experience; whether a single lecture or ongoing librarian support through research cycle is being requested

If possible, prior observation of class for understanding of content and to gauge level of students’ knowledge; prepare the content and pace of lecture to meet the level of students’ knowledge and experience; commit to ongoing support if requested

Explanations of jargon and terms from professor and/or librarian

Any special needs of students to accommodate during the lecture

Understanding and accommodation

Accommodation of special needs

Specific objectives of research assignment

Understanding and agreement on assignment

Understanding, or will direct questions to professor

Whether students are researching individual topics or if the same broad topic is being examined by groups or individuals

Basic understanding of topic; if a multi-disciplinary topic, understanding of sources and information most likely to be requested; provide means of access if not available through campus resources

Received the assignment; perhaps will have narrowed topic or assigned tasks (if group project)

Specific objectives of guest lecture, including possibly:

Demonstration of databases and/or Web sites or print resources with hands-on opportunities for students

Retrieval of specific types of literature (books, peer-reviewed journals, newspapers, trade or other non-peer-reviewed journals, case studies) or background sources, perhaps within specific time periods of publication

Citation style

Understands requests, reviews databases, Web sites and print resources

Alerts professor of new resources and discusses features and advantages; agrees to demonstrate requested databases and sources and to avoid demonstrating databasesthat have not been requested; offershands-on opportunities

Understanding of basic searching and retrieving process to get information from demonstrated resources; receives handout or similar for reinforcement of search strategies and resources; will seek additional help with locating resources from librarian or professor after lecture

Understanding of which citation format to use for the research paper

Requests demonstration of sources for locating works of specific writers, events or items in specific journals, and explains why they are being specified

Understands the requests; Is prepared to offer brief evaluative comments to students to support the faculty’s inclusion of selected resources

Understanding of basic distinctions between resources; review process to obtain needed resources

Attends lecture and offers feedback to librarian on presentation; if desired, provides additional feedback after student research papers are submitted; invites librarian to any oral presentations

Accepts immediate and post-event feedback; alerts professor to any questions on assignment that were left unanswered; attends oral presentations if schedule permits

Understanding of and ability to meet deadlines for drafts and final paper; learned from the sharing of viewpoints and conclusions drawn of others’ research and subject expertise of professor



However, engaging in educational reforms without an empirical basis is unwise. The evidence adduced here is qualitative, retrospective, and to some

degree self-reported. This suggests that information literacy already exists at the university level in some public affairs courses. Before engaging in reform, perhaps we should ask the following: To what degree can information literacy be found throughout the university system? Opportunities for future research exist — particularly in the area of assessment — because faculty and librarians share goals of preparing students for their future careers, which are certain to create a demand for information, analysis, critical thinking and ethical behavior. Both librarians and professors have expert information to share with colleagues and students. Both share the need to develop assessment tools.

ReferencesAmerican Library Association (ALA). (1989). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy.

Finalreport. Retrieved January 13, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.cfm

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). ALA. (2006).Getreadyforanothergreatdebate. Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://acrlblog.org/2006/01/19/get-ready-for-another-great-debate/

ACRL. ALA. (2000).Informationliteracycompetencystandardsforhighereducation.Retrieved January 16, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm

ACRL. ALA. (2001).Objectivesforinformationliteracyinstruction:Amodelstatementforacademiclibrarians. Retrieved January 13, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/objectivesinformation.cfm

Baker, R.S. (1906). Railroads on trial: How railroads make public opinion. McClure’sMagazine,26(5),

535-550. Retrieved May 7, 2005, from American Periodicals Series Online.

Bell, S.J., & Shank, J. (2004). The blended librarian. College&ResearchLibraryNews, 65(7), 372-375.

Benenfeld, A.R. (1978). Information literacy – Awareness of and access to information resources. In American Society for Information Science (Eds.), EightkeyissuesfortheWhiteHouseConferenceonlibraryandinformationServices,(pp.7-9). Somerset, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.

Benges-Small, C., & Brainard, B. (2006). And today we’ll be serving…An instruction a la carte menu. College&ResearchLibraries News, 67(2), 80-82, 96.

Baruch College Office of Communications and Marketing. The City University of New York (CUNY). (2003). GraduateBulletin2003-2005. Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/bulletin/documents/baruch_grad_bulletin_2003_05.pdf

Baruch College Office of Communications and Marketing. CUNY. (2009, August 20). U.S. News & World Report ranks Baruch College among the best in the nation. CampusNews. Retrieved January 16, 2010, from http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/news/USNews2010.htm



Boorstin, D.J. (1979, November). Gresham’slaw,knowledgeorinformation?Remarks made at the White House Conference on Library and Information Services, Washington D.C.: Library of Congress.

Breivik, P.S., & Gee, E.G. (1989). Informationliteracy:Revolution inthelibrary. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Brown, C., Murphy, T.J., & Nanny, M. (2003). Turning techno-savy into info-savy: Authentically integrating information literacy into the college curriculum. JournalofAcademicLibrarianship, 29(6), 386-399.

CUNY Council of Chief Librarians. (2001). Informationliteracywhitepaper. Retrieved June22, 2004, from http://libraries.cuny.edu/whitepaper.pdf

D’Angelo, B.J., & Maid, B.M. (2004). Moving beyond definitions: Implementing information literacy across the curriculum. JournalofAcademicLibrarianship, 30(3), 212-217.

De Rosa, C. (2006). Collegestudents’perceptionsoflibrariesandinformationresources.AreporttotheOCLC[OnlineComputerLibraryCenter]membership. Retrieved from http:/www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm

Ducas, A.M., & Michaud-Oystryk, N. (2004). Toward a new venture: Building partnerships with faculty. CollegeandResearchLibraries, 65(4), 334-348.

East, J.W. (2005). Information literacy for the humanities researcher: A syllabus based on information habits research. JournalofAcademicLibrarianship, 31(2), 134-142.

Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. PublicAdministrationReview, 1(4), 335-350.

Friedrich, C.J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In C.J. Friedrich & E.S. Mason, (Eds.), Publicpolicy:Ayearbookofthegraduateschoolofpublicadministration(pp.3-24). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The Futurist. (1991). Toward a literacy of thoughtfulness. Futurist, 25(6), 43.

Galvin, J. (2005). Alternative strategies for promoting information literacy. JournalofAcademicLibrarianship, 31(4), 352-357.

Garcia-Zamor, J. (2001). Administrativeethicsanddevelopment administration. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Goodsell, C.T. (1985). Thecaseforbureaucracy:Apublicadministrationpolemic (2nd ed.). Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.

Grassian, E., & Kaplowitz, J.R. (2001). Informationliteracyinstruction: Theoryandpractice. New York: Neal Schuman.

Hacker, D. (2004). Apocketstylemanual (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford Books.

Hejka-Ekins, A. (1998). Teaching ethics across the public administration curriculum. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, 4(1), 45-50.



Holt, L. (2005). Spotlightoncomprehension:Buildingaliteracyofthoughtfulness. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.

Jones, G., & Lee, B. (1956). Requisites for economic literacy. NationalAssociationofSecondarySchoolPrincipalsBulletin,40(2), 349-375.

Kambhampati, U.S., & Pal, S. (2001). Role of parental literacy in explaining gender difference: Evidence from 20 developing countries. EuropeanJournalofDevelopmentResearch, 13(2), 97-119.

Kurosawa, A. (Director) & Motoki, S. (Producer). (1952).Ikiru:Tolife. [Motion picture]. Japan: Toho Company., Ltd; Chicago, IL: Home Vision.

McCaleb, S.P. (1998). Connecting preservice teacher education to diverse communities: A focus on family literacy. TheoryIntoPractice, 37(2), 148-154.

Marcum, J.W. (2002). Rethinking information literacy.LibraryQuarterly, 72(1), 1-26.

Martin, P. (2006). Google as teacher: Everything your students know they learned from searching Google. College&ResearchLibraryNews, 67(2), 100-101.

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. (2002). Characteristicsofexcellenceinhighereducation:Eligibilityrequirementsandstandardsforaccreditation. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. (2003). Developingresearch&communicationskills:Guidelinesforinformationliteracyinthecurriculum. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. (2006). Standards:Generalinformationandstandardsforprofessionalmastersdegreeprograms. Retrieved May 14, 2006, from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/seeking/reference/standards.asp

Newcomer, K. (2003). Sustaining and invigorating MPA program communities. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, 9(1), 35-38.

New England Association of Schools and Colleges. (2005). Commissiononinstitutionsofhighereducation: Standardsforaccreditation. Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.neasc.org/cihe/standards_for_accreditation_2005.pdf

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (2003). Thehigherlearningcommission:Handbookofaccreditation(3rd ed.). Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org

Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. (2005). Accreditationhandbook.Retrieved June

24, 2006, from http://www.nwccu.org/Pubs%20Forms%20and%20Updates/Publications/Accreditation%20Handbook%202003%20Edition%20Updated%20September%201%202005.pdf

Oberman, C. (2001). Introduction. In E.S. Grassian & J.K. Kaplowitz (Eds.), Informationliteracyinstruction:Theoryandpractice. New York: Neal-Schuman.



Ormsby, R., & Williams, D.W. (2005, March). Informationliteracyincorporatedintoagraduateschoolofpublicaffairscourse:PAF9010ethicsandpublicdecisionmaking. Poster presented at the CUNY Baruch College conference: Integrating information literacy & communication skills across the curriculum. Retrieved January 21, 2006, from http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/news/literacy/default.htm

Owens, M.R. (1979). The state government & libraries.LibraryJournal, 10(1), 19-28.

Owusu-Ansah, E.K. (2004). Information literacy and higher education: Placing the academic library in the center of a comprehensive solution.JournalofAcademicLibrarianship, 30(1), 3-17.

Pickus, N.M., & Dostert, T. (2002). Rethinking the role of ethics in public affairs education. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation, 8(1), 9-23.

Rabinowitz, C. (2002). The way I see it: Looking for a few good questions. It really is process, not product. College&ResearchLibraryNews, 63(7), 492-493.

Radford University. McConnell Library. (2010). Instructionalacartemenu. Retrieved January 16, 2010, from http://library.radford.edu/instruction/menu.html

Riordon, W.L., & Plunkitt, G.W. (1982). PlunkittofTammanyHall:Aseriesofveryplaintalksonverypracticalpolitics,deliveredbyex-SenatorGeorgeWashingtonPlunkitt,theTammanyphilosopher,fromhisrostrum—theNewYorkCountycourthousebootblackstand. Mattituck, N.Y.: Amereon.

Sachar, L. (2000). Holes. New York: Dell Yearling.

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Commission on Colleges. (2001). Principlesofaccreditation:Foundationsforqualityenhancement. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/Principles of Accreditation.PDF

Smith, P.A., & Walika, C. (1993). Improve your deposit insurance literacy. ABABankingJournal, 85(9), 36.

Smith, R.L. (1997, April). Philosophicalshift:Teachthefacultytoteachinformationliteracy. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Nashville, TN. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/nashville1997/pap/smith.htm

Stein, L.L., & Lamb, J.M. (1998). Not just another BI: Faculty-librarian collaboration to guide students through the research process.ResearchStrategies, 16(1), 29-39.

White House Conference on Library and Information Services. (1979). Informationforthe1980s:FinalreportoftheWhiteHouseconferenceonlibraryandinformationservices.Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

Williams, D.W. (2000a). Definition of value laden dilemmas. Retrieved December 21, 2000, from http://www.baruch.cuny.edu

Williams, D.W. (2000b). Topic: Your project. Retrieved December 21, 2000, from http://www.baruch.cuny.edu



Footnotes1 In developing this study, we recognize substantial methodological concerns.

These include the fact that the events are reported by participant observers who at the time were not seeking to conduct a study. These conditions can produce considerable opportunity for bias and misrepresentation. Nevertheless, we present this case study for the purpose of finding common understanding and potential good practices. Clearly, this study should be treated as exploratory.

2 The authors presented this table at a poster session during the 2005 Baruch College Integrating Information Literacy and Communication Skills Across the Curriculum: Learning Goals and Assessment Conference, New York, March 11, 2005. It is available online at http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/InformationLiteracyConference.htm

3 In research for this paper, the determination of improved functionality of PAIS and Philosopher’s Index has led to including them in future curriculum.

Rita Ormsby is an Associate Professor and Information Services Librarian at The William and Anita Newman Library, Baruch College, The City University of New York, 10010. She serves as the library’s liaison to faculty at the School of Public Affairs who teach courses relating to the nonprofit sector, and to faculty at the Stan Ross Department of Accountancy in the Zicklin School of Business. E-mail: [email protected]

Daniel W. Williams is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Affairs, Baruch College, The City University of New York, 10010. He has taught ethics, budgeting, performance measurement, and related topics for 15 years. He formerly was the budget director for the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services. E-mail: [email protected]



ConversationStarters

Let’s Get Them Out of the Country!Reflecting On the Value of International

Immersion Experiences for MPA Students

Sarah E. RyanTheUniversityofTexasatElPaso

AbstractPublic affairs education is beginning to reflect the increasing internationalization of the field. While many of our professors are experienced teachers of international and intercultural content, most of our programs are just starting to provide international immersion experiences. Crafting those opportunities in ways that are accessible to typical graduate students is a monumental, but rewarding, task.

Let’s Get Them Out of the Country!Throughout the past few years, public affairs educators have debated how to

“spark discussions of diversity and promote cultural competencies among [our] students” (Ryan, 2007/2008, p. 487). We have criticized gaps in the curriculum (Hewins-Mahoney & Williams, 2007; Wyatt-Nichol & Antwi-Boasiako, 2008) and explored the potential of our classrooms to serve as innovation incubators and consulting labs (e.g., Mason, 2008; Waldner & Hunter, 2008). We have grappled with the issue of how to train public sector leaders who are capable of providing efficient, ethical, and empathetic service to culturally, ethnically, and socio-economically diverse communities (see Alvarez & Timney, 2008; Brintnall, 2008; Revell, 2008; Wyatt-Nichol & Antwi-Boasiako, 2008). For many of us, these discussions repeatedly have ended with the realization that our students need more intercultural education.

For public affairs students to succeed in the global public sector, they must recognize the influence of culture — especially their own — on the ways that communities, workplaces, and societies operate. Scholars have called this an awareness of “backstage” cultural paradigms, those that dictate “whycertain practices and communication behaviors carry certain significance” (Cheney,

JPAE16(2):307–312


2001, p. 94; Varner, 2001). A number of studies have documented that U.S.-educated students tend to recognize the influence of culture on organizational praxis only when it is “foreign,” or different from seemingly universal norms (Keshishian, 2005; See also, Keshishian, 2003). Students begin to question these assumptions while working through international case studies and intercultural examples, but U.S.-based instruction does not fully problematize domestic students’ beliefs. Despite the best classroom efforts, nothing seems to succeed as well as in-person experiences of other places and cultures. Future administrators benefit greatly from non-U.S. experience. We need to get them off campus and out of the country!

Though faculty and staff continually dream up new ways to infuse their programs with intercultural experiences (see Driskill, 2007; Garies, 2005; Wilkinson, 2006), most higher education professionals agree that an immersive international experience is the best way for students to gain appreciation for the cultural dimensions of administration (Cheney, 2001). However, we know that many obstacles prevent students from studying abroad, engaging in international field research, and completing extra-national internships. While international immersion programming continually has improved, fewer than 3 percent of U.S. undergraduates study abroad each year (Cushner & Karim, 2003). Due to additional constraints faced by MPA candidates (e.g., many are working professionals), the percentage who engage in work/study abroad is likely to be lower. Additionally, because financial support has been shrinking (e.g., decreased Fullbright funding), many students view less-expensive, short-term experiences (e.g., those lasting three weeks) as the only viable immersion option. Short-term experiences do not always have the full desired impact, because students are not away from home long enough to absorb and process information about the new location and its local cultures (Cushner & Karim, 2003). Noting these trends, educators have a two-fold challenge: (a) To craft programming that is appealing enough to warrant financial and personal sacrifice, and (b) to provide meaningful, short-term, immersion experiences.

CraftingImmersionProgrammingthatAppealstoStudentsConventional wisdom suggests that students pursue international immersion

experiences for mostly instrumental reasons, such as resume-building, academic advancement, or professional development. However, recent research — conducted almost solely with undergraduate populations — has revealed that academic and career concerns minimally influence students’ decisions to participate in international immersion programs (Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Marcotte, Desroches, & Poupart, 2007). Typically, students pursue extra-national experiences because they already possess language skills, intercultural competencies, and a minimum level of comfort in interacting with people of different backgrounds (Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Marcotte et al., 2007). Using both longitudinal and post-graduation, retrospective data, researchers have demonstrated

ConversationStarters—Let’sGetThemOutoftheCountry


that undergraduate students with positive impressions of international immersion programs and low levels of ethnocentrism are most likely to sign up for study-abroad experiences (Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Marcotte et al., 2007). Although such students retrospectively report personal and career growth, they do not fully anticipate these benefits prior to traveling abroad (Marcotte et al., 2007).

Because students do not clearly perceive the instrumental benefits to immersion experiences, there is little reason for reticent or culturally isolated students to risk uncertainty by studying abroad. This leaves educators in a bind: The students who are likely to benefit the most from immersion experiences are the least likely to sign up, and the arguments that might compel them to do this (e.g., resume-building) do not resonate with the students who are most likely to pursue international experiences. Solving this problem requires a great deal of student outreach. To reach the students who currently shy away from international experiences, we must present compelling arguments that address both the safety and the resume-building advantages of international experiences. For MPA candidates, the messages must be clearly and forcefully articulated. Examples could include: “There is no substitute for international experience if you plan to serve international constituents” and “there are certain organizations (e.g., the United Nations) unlikely to hire you without international experience.” Concomitantly, we must design programming that helps students develop as administrators while they are abroad, even if that experience is only a few weeks long.

ProvidingMeaningfulShort-TermImmersionExperiencesIf we are to recruit students with the promise of career-altering, international

immersion, we must be sure that our programming actually will deliver on that promise. I faced this challenge firsthand when I designed immersion experiences in Eastern Europe and Central Africa. Fortunately, I discovered a vast body of literature on intercultural exchange, studying abroad, and international internships. Though scholars have observed many variables related to student recruitment, retention, and success in immersion programming, much of the literature seems to suggest that quality programming features four elements:

1. Extensive pre-experience training focused on improving requisite skills, plus intercultural awareness, empathy, and capacities (Chapel, 1998; Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Ryan, 2007/2008).

2. Career-related, in-country activities, assignments, and responsibilities (Adler & Loughrin-Sacco, 2003; and see Connor et al., 1997).

3. Effective in-country mentoring and support (Feldman, Folks, & Turnley, 1999).

4. Post-experience reporting — particularly oral presentations — to foster communication and leadership skills, and to facilitate psycho-social processing (Chapel, 1998).



In essence, effective immersion programs must assist students to prepare for, participate in, and make sense of meaningful international experiences. While in-country, students should undertake research-data collection, engage in professional shadowing, or otherwise experience the public sector of another country. Because most students need time to process their experiences once they have returned home, effective post-experience reporting must be extensive and of a substantial duration when possible (e.g., 6-9 months). Final post-experience reporting should be self-facing, and should require students to confront their own cultures. Self-facing reflection often reveals the falsity of the “culturelessness” felt by many U.S. students (Devoss, Jasken, & Hayden, 2002). This realization is perhaps the most important step in their development as competent, intercultural administrators. Once a student realizes that his or her home culture is not neutral or universal, alternate forms of organizing, managing, and mediating conflict become rational options, and colleagues with different perspectives become important sources of information.

Conclusion: The Benefits of International Immersion Experiences for MPA Students

Intercultural competencies and experiences are critical for the next generation of public administrators. Their workplaces and client bases will be neither homogeneous nor static (Rogers, 2003). Public affairs professionals must be prepared to respectfully consider divergent ideas and viewpoints. Even though our students often understand that the profession is changing, they do not always connect international experience with career development. Perhaps this is because we have yet to connect the dots for them. My experiences with taking students to Central Africa and Eastern Europe have shown me that engaging students in meaningful in-country work facilitates their growth as empathetic and intellectually rigorous service providers. Crafting these immersion experiences is a monumental but immensely rewarding task — something I wish for all of my colleagues and many, many of our students to experience.

ReferencesAdler, R.K., & Loughrin-Sacco, S.J. (2003). International business internships: Preparing students for

business without borders. CenterforPublicEconomicsWorkingPapers(Discussion paper 03-02). San Diego, CA: San Diego State University Department of Economics.

Alvarez, J.D.S., & Timney, M. (2008). Incorporating social equity into the public administration curriculum. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,14(1), 51-66.

Brintnall, M. (2008). Preparing the public service for working in multiethnic democracies: An assessment and ideas for action. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,14(1), 39-50.



Chapel, W. (1998). Advising graduate students for successful international internships. BusinessCommunicationQuarterly,61(4), 92-103.

Cheney, R.S. (2001). Intercultural business communication, international students, and experiential learning. BusinessCommunicationQuarterly,64(4), 90-104.

Connor, U.M., Davis, K.W., De Rycker, T., Phillips, E.M., & Verckens, J.P. (1997). An international course in international business writing: Belgium, Finland, the United States. BusinessCommunicationQuarterly,60(4), 63-74.

Cushner, K., & Karim, A.U. (2003). Study abroad at the university level. In D. Landis & M.J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbookofinterculturaltraining (pp. 289-308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeVoss, D., Jasken, J., & Hayden, D. (2002). Teaching intracultural and intercultural communication: A critique and suggested method. JournalofBusinessandTechnicalCommunication,16(1), 69-94.

Driskill, L.P., (2007, December). Preparingengineeringstudentsforinterculturalcommunicationindevelopingcountries.Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education and Research, Melbourne, Australia.

Feldman, D.C., Folks, W.R., Turnley, W.H. (1999). Mentor-protégé diversity and its impact on international internship experiences. JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,20(5), 597-611.

Garies, E. (2005). Relativism versus universalism: Developing a personal philosophy. CommunicationTeacher,19(2), 39-43.

Goldstein, S.B., & Kim, R.I. (2006). Predictors of U.S. college students’ participation in study abroad programs: A longitudinal study. InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations,30(4), 507-521.

Hewins-Mahoney, B.E., & Williams, E. (2007). Teaching diversity in Public Administration: A missing component. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,13(1), 29-40.

Keshishian, F. (2003). Acculturation, communication, and the U.S. mass media. The experience of an Iranian immigrant. In F. E. Jandt (Ed.), Interculturalcommunication:Aglobalreader (pp. 230-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keshishian, F. (2005). A historical-materialist critique of intercultural communication instruction. CommunicationEducation,54(3), 205-222.

Kim, R.I., & Goldstein, S.B. (2005). Intercultural attitudes predict favorable study abroad expectations of U.S. college students. JournalofStudiesinInternationalEducation,9(3), 265-278.

Marcotte, C., Desroches, J., & Poupart, I. (2007). Preparing internationally minded business graduates: The role of international mobility programs. InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations, 31(6), 655- 668.

Mason, S.G. (2008). Client-oriented projects: GIS course design with the potential to serve multiple constituents. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,14(2), 241-252.

Revell, K.D. (2008). Leadership cannot be taught: Teaching leadership to MPA students. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,14(1), 91-110.



Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusionofinnovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Ryan, S. (2007/2008). Radical pedagogy: Lessons from the “Africa book” project. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,13(3/4), 487-498.

Varner, I.I. (2001). Teaching intercultural management communication: Where are we? Where do we go? BusinessCommunicationQuarterly,64(1), 99-111.

Waldner, L.S., & Hunter, D. (2008). Client-based courses: Variations in service learning. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,14(2), 219-239.

Wilkinson, L.C. (2007). A developmental approach to uses of moving pictures in intercultural education. InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations,31(1), 1-27.

Wyatt-Nichol, H., & Antwi-Boasiako, K.B. (2008). Diversity across the curriculum: Perceptions and practices. JournalofPublicAffairsEducation,14(1), 79-90.

Author’s NoteThe author wishes to thank the editor of JPAE, manuscript reviewers, and the founding members of the Rwanda Research Group for their valuable ideas and suggestions.

Sarah E. Ryan is an Assistant Professor of Communication, Adjunct Professor of African American Studies, and Research Fellow in The Sam Donaldson Center for Communication Studies at The University of Texas at El Paso. Dr. Ryan also is an affiliate faculty member in the Centre for Gender, Culture and Development Studies at the Kigali Institute of Education (Rwanda), where she teaches courses in Communication and Social Change, and Research Methods. Her research interests include citizen debate, civic participation, and access to educational opportunities for the poor in the U.S. and in Central Africa. Dr. Ryan will spend the next two years collecting data on Rwandan college students’ knowledge and attitudes about master’s degree education at home or abroad, in a project funded by the government of Norway.



Review of TheApplicationofStatistics

toPolicyAnalysisandManagement:AnIntroduction

By John Rohrbaugh: Three-Part, User-Friendly Textbook Increases

Odds of Practitioners Learning Statistical Analysis

Review by Andrea E. Mayo ArizonaStateUniversity

IntroductionTeaching statistics in public administration, policy, or management, as

opposed to other social sciences, provides a special challenge. Because public affairs is an interdisciplinary field, students often come from a variety of backgrounds within the social sciences — and from outside them, too. At the master’s level, some students may have substantial familiarity with statistical analysis, while others may be completely new to the subject. Finding appropriate materials to balance the needs of a diverse group of students and their varying levels of familiarity with statistics is a challenge faced by anyone who teaches statistics or quantitative methods in public affairs. John Rohrbaugh’s (2009) TheApplicationofStatisticstoPolicyAnalysisandManagement:AnIntroductiondraws on his 30 years of experience spent teaching statistics to graduate students in public affairs. It offers an inexpensive and more-approachable alternative to commonly used statistics textbooks, and provides public affairs students with real-world examples of how statistical analysis can be applied to policy, management, and administration. An excellent resource for beginners and practitioners, it may be too simple for those who move on to more advanced statistics.

Rohrbaugh’s focus on approachability is clear before one even begins to read. Rather than creating one large textbook, he divided it into three workbooks — two that discuss descriptive statistics and one that discusses inferential statistics. The workbooks are short (only four chapters each) and are inexpensively bound, which cuts down on students’ costs. They also lie flat. Rohrbaugh designed the books so that each lesson is displayed on two pages, which allows students to see each lesson in full when they spread open the book on a tabletop. Further, the fact that the workbooks are small and portable makes it extremely easy for

JPAE16(2):313–317


students to carry them to class, the library, work — or anywhere. The book’s design is probably its most appealing element. By redefining the substance of a statistics textbook, Rohrbaugh subtly has made the subject matter more accessible and appealing to students who might be intimidated or discouraged by statistical analysis. It is not surprising to learn that Rohrbaugh is a psychologist by training.

Although Rohrbaugh designed TheApplicationofStatisticstoPolicyAnalysisandManagement based on his experience teaching statistics to graduate students, it could be used for basic introductory statistics courses at either the undergraduate or graduate level. Professors teaching in practitioner programs likely will find Rohrbaugh’s book to be among the most appropriate statistics texts available. On the other hand, students and professors in highly quantitative master’s programs may require more rigorous preparation than Rohrbaugh’s book provides, in order to enable them to progress to advanced regression or applied econometrics courses. These students likely will find better resources in Joseph F. Healey’s Statistics:AToolforSocialResearch(2004) or Lawrence L. Giventer’s StatisticalAnalysisforPublicAdministration.

Each of Rohrbaugh’s three workbooks is subdivided into four chapters. There are overviews of the contents for each chapter, as well as a list of important terms that are discussed. Part I, the first workbook, focuses solely on univariatedescriptivestatistics, after an introduction to the study of statistics and an overview of conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement. From there, Part I continues on to distributions, central tendency, variability, and reporting statistics.

Chapter 1 opens with an interesting story about the origins of statistics and the positivist perspective on social science. It also discusses the purpose and structure of the book. The first two lessons in Chapter 2 are peppered with examples of statistics being used in the popular media. These examples provide cases that public administration students are likely to find interesting and relevant to their work. Chapter 1’s third lesson touches on validity, reliability, and unitsofanalysisandmeasurement. In two pages, Rohrbaugh in a clear and straightforward way is able to explain concepts that students often struggle to understand. His final lesson in Chapter 1 covers precision and rounding.

Chapter 2 starts with the most basicformsofdescriptivestatistics, as in categorization, frequencies, percentages, and proportions. A significant portion of the chapter covers the graphicalpresentationofthesestatistics. A shortcoming of this chapter is Rohrbaugh’s discussion of howtohand-drawpolygons, histograms and ogives. Very few students will be required to hand-draw graphs outside of the classroom; this space might have been put to better use by describing how to construct each of these graphs in Microsoft Excel or a similar program. By contrast, he offers very strong discussions of the decision-making process that researchers use when deciding how to present data, plus the common forms of graphical distortion. Chapter 2 provides a solid guide to presenting descriptive statistics in a report.

ReviewofTheApplicationofStatisticstoPolicyAnalysisandManagement


Chapters 3 and 4 discuss measures of centraltendencyandvariability. Rohrbaugh’s discussion of measures of central tendency not only define mode, median, and arithmetic mean, but also illustrate how data distributions affect their magnitudes in relation to each other and their utility for cross-time and cross-data comparisons. Chapter 4 discusses measuresofvariability, including standard deviation. In both chapters, Rohrbaugh’s graphical representation of concepts provides substantial explanatory value, and complements the narrative explanations well.

Part II, the second workbook, covers bivariatedescriptivestatistics. It begins by describing the relationships between qualitative and quantitative data. It then moves on to bivariateregression, and concludes with multipleregression. It should be noted that this workbook only addresses the descriptive nature of each of these relationships, and does not touch on issues of statistical significance, which are discussed in the third workbook.

The discussion of relationships between two variables is divided into qualitativedata (Chapter 5) and quantitativedata (Chapter 6). I believe that dividing the chapters in this way will reduce students’ apprehension and uncertainty about what tools to use, and when. On page 82 of Chapter 5, Rohrbaugh uses a decision tree to determine which measures of association to use for qualitative data. This chart is a helpful guide for anyone doing statistical work, not just introductory statistics students. Rohrbaugh’s Chapter 6 provides an excellent discussion of correlationversuscausation. Once again, his graphical representations of relationship strength and type are notable for their ability to clarify meanings for students.

Workbook II closes with a discussion of bivariateregression in Chapter 7, followed by multipleregression in Chapter 8. It is in these last two chapters that the strategy of dividing inferential and descriptive statistics seems jarring for professors and students who are already familiar with statistics. Many comparable books leave multipleregression to the last chapter (Giventer, 2008; Sirkin, 1999; Healey, 2004). And, many statistics courses also end with multipleregression. Rohrbaugh discusses it two-thirds of the way through his book, divorced from statistical significance, which is a unique approach. Of all his chapters, I found his discussion of multiple regression to be the most confusing, but perhaps this was because his take on regression is so different from the approach in other books. I personally find Sirkin’s (1999) discussion of multiple regression to be more straightforward and easier to understand.

Rohrbaugh’s third workbook discusses inferentialstatistics. He separates inferential statistics from univariate and bivariate statistics because he finds that many agencies have data on whole populations, which means many public management practitioners will not need inferential statistics as often as those in other disciplines. I’m not sure that this is a generalizable statement for the entire field. Practitioners and scholars working on program evaluation certainly



deal with samples more often than whole populations. However, the separation of inferential statistics from descriptive statistics makes it clear when inferential statistics are necessary and what they mean.

In Chapter 9, the third workbook begins by discussing the logicofsampling. It explains the difference between the population and the sample, and explains how random samples may or may not match the population. Rohrbaugh also introduces the normal curve in this chapter, along with the z-statistic. For some reason, he rounds the z-statistic to just one decimal place. Generally, scholars round the z-statistic to at least two, if not three, decimal places. While this certainly helps students to remember the critical statistical levels, it may be too imprecise for more advanced students. Additionally, he uses only the z-statistic, never the t-test for statistical significance. While this distinction may be unimportant to practitioners, the z-statistic is rarely used in inferential statistics. This is another imprecision, which shows that, while the book is useful for practitioners and those who need to understand basic statistics, it is too imprecise for those who wish to advance to more rigorous courses in statistical analysis.

Chapters 10 and 11 coverinferences with one and two samples, respectively. Both chapters are structured in the same way, with the same relevant terms. The final chapter explains confidenceintervals and the estimation of population parameters. Rohrbaugh’s strategy for calculating statistical significance is straightforward and can be done without a z-statistic table. He walks through the calculation with words rather than equations, taking much of the math out of it.

This last workbook truly illustrates who will benefit from the use of this text and who might find it too remedial. Rohrbaugh’s calculation for statistical significance begins with a decision about the level of risk of Type I Error that the student is comfortable with. From there the student basically calculates the appropriate confidence interval — using a z statistic rather than the standard t — and if the sample value falls outside of it, then the null is rejected. With this procedure, neither the t- nor the z-statistic is ever calculated. Additionally, because Rohrbaugh rounds his numbers, a z-score of 2.0 is estimated to be a 95 percent confidence interval for a two-tailed test. On the one hand, this makes it an easy calculation for practitioners and those who only require a simplistic way to judge statistical significance. For students who will be continuing on to more advanced statistics, or who already have had some statistical training, this method of calculation may seem too imprecise.

There are many consistent strong points throughout all three of the workbooks. Rohrbaugh’s exceptional use of graphics presents the material well. I already have mentioned his decision tree at the end of Chapter 5, but all four of his decision trees are really useful ways to help students decide not only how to report their data, but also which types of statistics they should be looking for when they read reports. Finally, in each chapter, Rohrbaugh presents computations of statistics in yellow break-out boxes. These boxes walk students through the calculations of statistics in a step-by-step manner that is neither



intimidating to look at nor to follow.John Rohrbaugh’s TheApplicationofStatisticstoPolicyAnalysisand

Management:AnIntroduction is a welcome addition to the statistics-for-social-science textbook market. By creating a text with the goals of accessibility and simplification in mind, he has not only made the study of statistics comprehensible to students who do not think quantitatively, but he also has re-thought the idea of what a textbook is and can be. While more quantitative programs likely will require a different textbook, any student who struggles with statistics will appreciate and be able to learn from Rohrbaugh’s approach. Further, his textbook seems to be perfectly tailored to programs that teach primarily practitioners or undergraduates. I highly recommend that professors who teach statistics in public administration consider Rohrbaugh’s text as either the main course textbook, or as a supplementary resource for students without prior training in statistical analysis.

ReferencesGiventer, L.L. (2008). Statisticalanalysisforpublicadministration (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Healey, J. F. (2005). Statistics:Atoolforsocialresearch (7th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Rohrbaugh, J. (2008). Theapplicationofstatisticstopolicyanalysisandmanagement:Anintroduction. Albany, NY: Executive Decision Services, LLC.

Sirkin, R.M. (1995). Statisticsforthesocialsciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Andrea E. Mayo is currently a Ph.D. student in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. Her primary interests include research methods, public policy analysis, the intersection of democracy and the policy process, social welfare policy, and health care policy. She has a B.A. in Sociology and Anthropology from Colgate University and a Master’s in Public Policy from Georgetown University.



Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research & Practice

CALL FOR PAPERSJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research & Practice aims to stimulate the further intellectual development of comparative policy studies and the growth of an international community of scholars in the field. It gives priority to comparative studies that:

1. Contribute to comparative theory development;

2. Present theory-based empirical research;

3. Offer comparative evaluations of research methods;

4. Derive the practice implications of theory-based research;

5. Use conceptual heuristics to interpret practice;

6. Draw lessons based on circumstances in which the domains compared have certain manipulable policy, program or institutional variables in common.

Now published five times per year from 2010, the JCPA is the only explicitly comparative journal of policy studies. It invites manuscripts that address public policy analysis and related public administration and management in this unique manner.

The JCPA encourages the submission of articles advancing comparative policy studies inpublic policy fields as diverse as immigration, health care, environmental protection,education, biotechnology, security or human rights, technology, public finance andbudgeting, administrative reform, performance measurement, and others. The Journalwelcomes proposals for Special Symposia Issues, as well as submissions to its sections onComparative Policy Innovation and Policy Statistics.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND FOUNDERIris Geva-May, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

CO-EDITORSB. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh, US

Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

FOUNDING CO-EDITORLawrence E. Lynn, University of Chicago, US (1997 - 2001)

PAST CO-EDITORJohn Ellwood, University of California at Berkeley, US (2001 - 2002)

BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Louise Comfort, University of Pittsburgh, US

COMPARATIVE POLICY STATISTICS EDITORFred Thompson, Willamette University, Oregon, US

COMPARATIVE POLICY INNOVATION EDITORSAnthony Boardman, University of British Columbia

Aidan Vining, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

HONORARY BOARD MEMBERSDuncan MacRae, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, US

Giandomenico Majone, Institute Universitaire European, ItalyJames G. March, Stanford University, US

The JCPA is supported by International Advisory and Editorial Boards

The JCPA and its activities are supported by 37 institutional members on five continents

Join the JCPA Forum: www.jcpa.ca/icpaf


The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, a leading, peer-reviewed, Canadian-American online journal, is announcing a Call for Papers for a symposium issue on Contemporary Developments in the Ethics of Innovation. Manuscripts developed from conference papers or other venues are encouraged. Papers selected for this issue would address one or more of the following themes, broadly defined. The following list is suggestive of possible germane topics, not exhaustive.

1) The ethics of innovation (particularly in public and non-profit sectors), encompassing social equity, justice, and public ethics, in substantive areas ranging from information technology innovation to policy and programmatic innovations of all sorts.

2) The ethics of collaborative networks, including processes associated (at all levels of analysis) with coalition-building, multi-sector strategic alliances and partnerships, collaborative networks, and social capital and trust-building processes.

3) Critical treatments of standard approaches to ethical analysis, with regard to their applicability to innovation in the public sector: contractualism, duty-based ethics, consequentialism, interpretive approaches to ethics, and professional ethics.

4) Critical treatments of behavioral and social science approaches to public-sector ethics: moral psychology, social psychology, pluralist political theory, public ethics.

5) The ethics of diversity and equity in the public sector and in public affairs education.

6) Treatments of specific theorists in relation to contemporary public sector issues: e.g., Rawls, Nussbaum, Buchanan, MacIntyre, Habermas, Levinas, Churchland, and issues such as identity politics, social equity, economic policy, and politics of war and peace.

7) Complexity science (complex-adaptive-system) approaches to public ethics, including (a) Mathematical and computer modeling of ethics in contexts of public sector innovation; agent-based ethics and agent-based modeling of public ethics; (b) Emergent theories or constructs of ethical behavior; emergence models of public ethics; connectionist accounts of ethics; evolutionary ethics; and network ethics.

Call for Papers

Please e-mail submissions of proposals or fully-realized studies to Mario Rivera, Senior Associate Editor, Innovation Journal, as attachments in MS Word (any version), to [email protected] by June 15, 2010.

Information for ContributorsThe Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs broadly defined, which includes the fields of policy analysis, public administration, public management, public policy, nonprofit administration, and their subfields. Advancing teaching and learning includes not only the improvement of specific courses and teaching methods, but also the improvement of public affairs program design and management. The goal of JPAE is to publish articles that are useful to those participating in the public affairs education enterprise, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. In service to this goal, articles should be clear, accessible to those in the public affairs fields and subfields, and generalizable. The new editorial team is particularly interested in articles that (1) use rigorous methods to analyze the relative effectiveness of different teaching methods, and (2) have international and/or comparative components, or consider the effect of country setting. Articles submitted for publication in JPAE should not already be published or in submission elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at conferences are welcome.

Submissions should conform to American Psychological Association (APA) style and generally meet the submission recommendations described in Appendix A of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.).

Specifically, manuscripts should:• Be typed in a standard 12-point serif font (such as Times New Roman), double- or 1-1/2-

spaced, with margins of no less than one inch on all sides,• Include one document with no author names but including a title and an abstract of around 150

words, and• Use APA-style in-text citations and references.

Authors will need to register and submit their manuscripts at http://criticalmath.com/chronos/index.php/jpae and also email a copy to [email protected]. The online submission site, CriticalMath does not currently support the Safari® web browser. We recommend using Firefox®. Articles will not be considered until authors submit a manuscript that reasonably meets APA style, particularly in regard to citations and references.

Please include “JPAE” in the subject line of all emails. Authors should expect to receive acknowledgment of receipt. If acknowledgement is not received within two weeks, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] (the email address of editorial assistant Jeffrey Callen). Articles will be given initial review by the editorial team. Articles must meet basic criteria including writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and interest to JPAE’s readers before they are submitted for external, double-blind review. If accepted for publication, manuscripts cannot be published until all authors have provided copyright transfer authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about five lines).

Because of its mission, educators may reproduce any JPAE material for classroom use and authors may reproduce their own articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce any part of JPAE in all other instances.

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA)

Jeffrey Raffel, PresidentFrances S. Berry, Vice President

Marvin Mandell, Immediate Past PresidentLaurel McFarland, Executive Director

JPAE Oversight Committee: Kathleen Beatty, Melvin Dubnick & Charles Menifield

Heather E. Campbell Editor-in-Chief Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs

Iris Geva-May, Associate Editor for International and Comparative Education Simon Fraser University Public Policy Program

Michael O’Hare, Associate Editor for the Assessment and Practice of TeachingUniversity of California, Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy

Editorial Assistant: Jeffrey C. Callen Copyeditor: Wendy Paulson Layout: Mark Kruger

BOARD OF EDITORSGuy Adams, University of Missouri, ColumbiaFrances Stokes Berry, Florida State UniversityStuart Bretschneider, Syracuse UniversityJohn Bohte, University of Wisconsin, MilwaukeeJohn M. Bryson, University of MinnesotaBeverly Bunch, University of Illinois, SpringfieldN. Joseph Cayer, Arizona State UniversityCal Clark, Auburn UniversityBarbara Crosby, University of MinnesotaRobert B. Cunningham, University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleDwight Denison, University of KentuckyAnand Desai, Ohio State UniversityJames W. Douglas, University of North Carolina at

CharlotteJo Ann G. Ewalt, Eastern Kentucky UniversityLee Friedman, University of California, BerkeleyCynthia Fukami, University of DenverNicholas Giannatasio, University of North Carolina,

PembrokeCynthia Jackson-Elmoore, Michigan State University

Meagan Jordan, University of Arkansas at Little RockEdward Kellough, University of Georgia

Kristina Lambright, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Laura Langbein, American UniversityScott Lazenby, City of Sandy, Oregon

Steven R. Maxwell, Florida Gulf Coast UniversityKristen Norman-Major, Hamline University

Michael Popejoy, Strayer UniversityDorothy Olshfski, Rutgers University, Newark

Stephen P. Osborne, University of EdinburghDavid Reingold, Indiana University

Michelle Saint-Germain, California State University,Long Beach

Patricia M. Shields, Texas State UniversityJames Svara, Arizona State University

Howard Whitton, Griffith UniversityBlue Wooldridge, Virginia Commonwealth University

Giovanni Valotti, Università BocconiDavid Van Slyke, Syracuse University

Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. Claims for missing numbers should be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publishers expect to supply missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit. Subscription Rates: Institution, $125; Individual, $50; Student, $40; Non-U.S., add $20 to applicable rate. Electronic JPAE articles can be accessed at www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. Change of Address: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old and new addresses. Please allow four weeks for the change. Postmaster: Send address changes to JPAE, National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, 1029 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517. Educators and Copy Centers: Copyright 2010 National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. All rights reserved. Educators may reproduce any material for classroom use only and authors may reproduce their articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce JPAE in all other instances. Please contact Jacqueline Lewis, NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517, phone: 202-628-8965, fax: 202-626-4978, email: [email protected]. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. JPAE is abstracted or indexed in EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Education Full Text Index. ISSN 1523-6803 (formerly 1087-7789).

CORRESPONDENTSKhalid Al-Yahya, Dubai School of GovernmentEdgar Ramirez Delacruz, Center for Research and Teaching

in Economics (CIDE), Mexico

Charlene M. L. Roach, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus

EDITOR’S COUNCILH. George Frederickson, Founding Editor, University of Kansas,

Danny L. Balfour, Grand Valley State UniversityMarc Holzer, Rutgers University

Edward T. Jennings, University of KentuckyJames L. Perry, Indiana University, Bloomington

Mario A. Rivera, University of New Mexico

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517

202-628-8965 fax 202-626-4978 www.naspaa.org

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). Founded in 1970, NASPAA serves as a national and international resource for the promotion of excellence in education for the public service. Its institutional membership includes more than 250 university programs in the United States in public administration, policy, and management. It accomplishes its purposes through direct services to its member institutions and by

• Developing and administering appropriate standards for educational programs in public affairs through its Executive Council and its Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation;

• Representing to governments and other institutions the objectives and needs of education for public affairs and administration;

• Encouraging curriculum development and innovation and providing a forum for publication and discussion of education scholarship, practices, and issues;

• Undertaking surveys that provide members and the public with information on key educational issues; • Meeting with employers to promote internship and employment opportunities for students and graduates; • Undertaking joint educational projects with practitioner professional organizations; and • Collaborating with institutes and schools of public administration in other countries through conferences,

consortia, and joint projects.

NASPAA provides opportunities for international engagement for NASPAA members, placing a global emphasis on educational quality and quality assurance through a series of networked international initiatives, in particular the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee), the Inter-American Network of Public Administration Education (INPAE), and the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA). It is also involved locally; for instance, directing the Small Communities Outreach Project for Environmental Issues, which networks public affairs schools and local governments around environmental regulation policy issues, with support from the Environmental Protection Agency.

NASPAA’s twofold mission is to ensure excellence in education and training for public service and to promote the ideal of public service. Consistent with NASPAA’s mission, JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs, defined to include the fields of policy analysis, public administration, public management, and public policy. Published quarterly by NASPAA, the journal features commentaries, announcements, symposia, book reviews, and peer-reviewed scholarly articles on pedagogical, curricular, and accreditation issues pertaining to public affairs education.

JPAE was founded in 1995 by a consortium from the University of Kansas and the University of Akron and was originally published as the Journal of Public Administration Education. H. George Frederickson was the journal’s founding editor. In addition to serving as NASPAA’s journal of record, JPAE is affiliated with the Section on Public Administration Education of the American Society for Public Administration.


Journal of Public Affairs E

ducationVol. 16, N

o. 2 Spring 2010

Flagship Journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration

JPAEJOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION

JPAE’s 15th Anniversary: Reflections on the Journal of Public Affairs Education at 15James L. Perry

Sharon H. Mastracci, Meredith A. Newman & Mary E. GuyEmotional Labor: Why and How to Teach It

Stan Barrett, Nadia Rubaii-Barrett & John PelowskiPreparing for and Responding to Student Incivilities: Starting the Dialogue in Public Affairs Education

Sheila Suess Kennedy & Deanna MalatestaSafeguarding the Public Trust: Can Administrative Ethics Be Taught?

Jeffrey L. Brudney & J. Michael MartinezTeaching Administrative Ethics in Nonprofit Management: Recommendations to Improve Degrees, Certificates, and Concentration Programs

Kathryn E. Newcomer & Heather AllenPublic Service Education: Adding Value in the Public Interest

Bruno BrouckerKnowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management: Transfer-Inhibiting and Transfer-Enhancing Factors in the Belgian Public Sector

Göktuğ Morçöl & Nadezda P. IvanovaMethods Taught In Public Policy Programs: Are Quantitative Methods Still Prevalent?

Rita Ormsby & Daniel W. WilliamsInformation Literacy in Public Affairs Curriculum

Sarah E. RyanConversation Starter

Andrea E. MayoBook Review

JPAE - Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and ... · • Encouraging curriculum...

Documents

Transcript of JPAE - Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and ... · • Encouraging curriculum...