Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Since the founding of the field of public administration, scholars have struggled with questions related to the “publicness” of public organizations (Bozeman 1987). In this article, the extent of this “publicness” in organizational studies research is investigated by examining articles published in the most cited journals in the disciplines of business, management, and public administration. Specifically, the analysis seeks to determine whether research in generic management journals is actually generic or if sector-specific studies remain the norm. Previous researchers have sought to answer this question using citation analysis as a preferred method. Instead, this study turns its attention to the samples employed by the articles’ authors, enabling a deeper understanding of the current state of the organizational studies scholarship. The findings suggest that a preference for public or private samples remains, and that this preference is largely dependent on the disciplinary journal in which studies were published.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Althaus, C. (2015). What do we talk about now? Reflecting on publications in AJPA 1970–2015. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(2), 227–238. CrossRef
Andrews, R., & Esteve, M. (2015). Still like ships that pass in the night? The relationship between public administration and management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 31–60. CrossRef
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: a review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(s3), i301–i319. CrossRef
Arellano-Gault, D., Demortain, D., Rouillard, C., & Thoenig, J. (2013). Bringing public organization and organizing back in. Organization Studies, 34(2), 145–167. CrossRef
Ashworth, R., Ferlie, E., Hammerschmid, G., Moon, M. J., & Reay, T. (2013). Theorizing contemporary public management: international and comparative perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, s1): s1–s1):s17. CrossRef
Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bozeman, B. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can learn from one another: Publicness theory as a case-in-point. Organization Studies, 34(2), 169–188. CrossRef
Christensen, T. P., Lægreid, P. G. R., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth. NY: Routledge. CrossRef
Davis, G. F. (2015). What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 179–188. CrossRef
Denis, J.-L., Ferlie, E., & Van Gestel, N. (2015). Understanding hybridity in ‘avoiding theoretical stagnation: a systematic review and framework for measuring public organizations value’. Public Administration, 92(3), 273–289. CrossRef
Faulkner, N., & Kaufman, S. (2018). Avoiding theoretical stagnation: a systematic review and framework for measuring public value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(1), 69–86. CrossRef
Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 817–835. CrossRef
Henry, N. (1975). Paradigms of public administration. Public Administration Review, 35(4), 378–386. CrossRef
Joyce, P. (2016). The perils of evidence-based government: It’s a powerful tool, but sometimes it might really be better to reinvent the wheel. How academia is failing government, August 31. Governing Magazine.
Kelman, S. (2007). Public administration and organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 225–267. CrossRef
Lindquist, E. (2009). Public administration research and organization theory: Recovering alternative perspectives on public service institutions. In O. P. Dwivedi, T. A. Mau, & B. Sheldrick (Eds.), The evolving physiology of government: Canadian Public Administration in transition (pp. 40–71). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Mainzer, L. C. (1994). Public Administration in Search of a theory: The interdisciplinary delusion. Administration and Society, 26(3), 359–394. CrossRef
Meier, K. J. (2015). Proverbs and the evolution of public administration. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 15–24. CrossRef
Michael, B., & Popov, M. (2014). The failure of theory to predict the way public sector organization responds to its organizational environment and the need for a mosaic-view of organizational theory. Public Organization Review, 16(1), 55–75. CrossRef
Miller, D., Greenwood, R., & Prakash, R. (2009). What happened to organization theory? Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 273–279. CrossRef
Nesbit, R., Moulton, S., Robinson, S., Smith, C., DeHart-Davis, L., Feeney, M. K., Gazley, B., & Hou, Y. (2011). Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration: avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(s1), i13–i28. CrossRef
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2016). General government spending (indicator). https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm. Accessed 27 April 2016.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158. CrossRef
Perry, J. L. (2016). Is public administration vanishing? Public Administration Review, 76(2), 211–212. CrossRef
Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201. CrossRef
Pollitt, C. (1998). Managerialism revisited. In B. G. Peters & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Taking stock: assessing public sector reforms (pp. 44–77). Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Rainey, H. G. (2012). Organizations, politics, and public purposes: analyzing public organizations and public management. Political Science & Politics, 45(1), 9–16. CrossRef
Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36(2), 233–244. CrossRef
Rousseau, D. M. (2007). Standing out in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 849–857. CrossRef
Van de Walle, S., & van Delft, R. (2015). Publishing in public administration: issues with defining, comparing, and ranking the output of universities. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 87–107. CrossRef
Visser, M., & Van der Togt, K. (2016). Learning in public sector organizations: a theory of action approach. Public Organization Review, 16(2), 235–249. CrossRef
Vogel, R. (2014). What happened to the public organization? A bibliometric analysis of public administration and organization studies. American Review of Public Administration, 44(4), 383–408. CrossRef
Wright, B. E. (2011). Public administration as an interdisciplinary field: assessing its relationship with the fields of law, management, and political science. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 96–101. CrossRef
Zalmanovitch, Y. (2014). Don’t reinvent the wheel: the search for an identity for public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(4), 808–826. CrossRef
- Public Administration and Organizational Theory: Prescribing the Proper Dose
Alexander C. Henderson
- Springer US
Public Organization Review
A Global Journal
Print ISSN: 1566-7170
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7098
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia