Public administration research from a practitioner perspective

Public Administration Research from a Practitioner Perspective 515
Gregory Streib
Georgia State University
Bert J. Slotkin
Georgia State University
Mark Rivera
Georgia State University
Public Administration Research from a
Practitioner Perspective
Recent research has questioned both the rigor and theoretical development of public administra-
tion research. The proposed solutions have generally endorsed a more academically oriented
research agenda. Authors have discussed practitioner needs, but the focus has been on the appro-
priateness of different research methods rather than the types of knowledge needed. We seek to
contribute to this ongoing debate by comparing the knowledge needs identified by members of the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) with 15 years of research in
Public
Administration Review
. We found much published research matching the needs of ICMA mem-
bers, but it focused on a relatively narrow range of topics. We recommend incorporating a con-
cern for relevance into efforts to improve public administration research. This will help to ensure
that we build a knowledge base that makes a substantial contribution to practice.
Gregory Streib is a professor of public administration in the Andrew Young
School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. His research focuses on
local government management. He is currently working on a study examin-
ing the usefulness of government Web sites. Email:
Bert J. Slotkin is a graduate research assistant in the Andrew Young School
of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. He has worked extensively on
the development of two ICMA assessment instruments. He is currently in his
third year of law school while also completing work on his master of public
administration degree. Email:
Mark Rivera is a research associate at the Applied Research Center in the

Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. He man-
ages a multiyear assessment instrument project sponsored by the ICMA in
addition to conducting program evaluations and survey research for many
state and privately funded programs. He holds a doctorate and master’s
degree in experimental psychology from DePaul University in Chicago. Email:

In recent years, a number of authors have studied the
accumulated works of public administration scholars. This
series began with research on public management con-
ducted by Garson and Overman (1983). Since this time,
an impressive body of literature has developed that exam-
ines and debates the quality and nature of research in the
field. The work of doctoral students has received a great
deal of attention, for example. Dissertation abstracts have
been examined (Cleary 1992; McCurdy and Cleary 1984;
White 1986b), as well as the productivity of doctoral pro-
gram graduates (Brewer et al. 1999). Researchers have also
studied the research methodologies used in Public Admin-
istration Review (Perry and Kraemer 1986; Stallings and
Ferris 1988) and other public administration journals
(Houston and Delevan 1990). The topics addressed in PAR
also received scrutiny (Bingham and Bowen 1994; Watson
and Montjoy 1991).
These empirical studies renewed interest in an old de-
bate about research standards in the field (Adams 1992). A
criticism that has emerged from recent studies is that pub-
lic administration research lacks theory building and propo-
sition testing, cumulative research, and rigorous research
methods. While such critiques have offered some impor-
tant insights, they have tended to press a decidedly aca-

demic research agenda, raising questions about the future
role of practice in the field of public administration. In-
deed, some recent critics have called directly for a break
with practice. Stallings (1986), for example, advises that
doctoral research needs to rise above the “individual and
particular problems of day-to-day practical administration”
(239). Stallings and Ferris (1988) maintain that public ad-
516 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
ministration has been clinging to a practitioner focus to
justify its existence in higher education, and Houston and
Delevan (1990) argue that this behavior has hindered the
field’s intellectual development. These comments raise a
serious concern, given that practice is, in many ways, the
very soul of the field. Researchers have been drawn to pub-
lic administration since the early 1900s out of a desire to
address the problems of government and society.
Of course, this ongoing debate has not been totally one
sided. Authors such as White (1986a) and Box (1992) de-
fend practitioner-oriented research, and they have helped
clarify the types of knowledge that practicing administra-
tors need. These authors define approaches to public ad-
ministration research that contribute to a dynamic, endur-
ing knowledge base that is relevant to practitioners. One
thing their arguments lack, however, is a discussion of the
types of topics that need to be covered. We now have a
better idea of what types of research can contribute, but
we know very little about the specific knowledge needs of
practicing managers.
In this article, we examine research in public adminis-
tration from the perspective of an important group of prac-

titioners. Many researchers have considered the field from
an academic perspective, and we want to look at another
side of the story. McCurdy and Cleary (1984) make some
interesting points in defending their critique of public ad-
ministration dissertations. They contrast research in pub-
lic administration with medicine, and note that medical
practitioners “await new findings in the New England Jour-
nal of Medicine (or can be sued for malpractice if they do
not keep up)” (554). Achieving this level of relevance re-
quires both a rich body of skillfully conducted academic
research and strong linkages between academics and prac-
titioners. Understanding the current state of this linkage is
the first step toward achieving this goal.
Practices for Effective Local Government
Management
The “Practices for Effective Local Government Man-
agement,” developed by members of the International City/
County Management Association (ICMA), form the foun-
dation of this research effort. These practices represent the
best thinking of the city management profession about the
knowledge and skills required of an effective local gov-
ernment manager. ICMA has worked to support profes-
sional local government management since 1914. With
more than 8,000 administrators and assistants among its
membership, ICMA is the nation’s largest local public
management organization.
In 1991, ICMA began working with its membership to
identify the knowledge areas most critical to effective local
government management. The process involved workshops,
forums at state meetings, two national surveys, and mul-

tiple meetings of a special task force. This “Dialogue on the
Profession” led to the identification of 29 practices that were
considered essential to effective local public management.
Members expressed their approval with the final product
through survey responses and a vote held during a business
meeting at an annual conference. These 29 practices are or-
ganized into eight groups (table 1). We do not want to sug-
gest that ICMA’s practices are the last word on the knowl-
edge and skills needed to manage local government, but they
do constitute a unique resource. They give us a way to com-
pare public administration research to an authoritative
source—the collected wisdom of experienced managers. The
full text of the eight practices is available in the appendix.
We became acquainted with the practices while work-
ing on a collaborative project with ICMA. We had the op-
portunity to thoroughly discuss the development of the
practices with ICMA staff, consultants, and managers in-
volved in their development. These discussions helped us
to better understand what each practice seeks to address.
Evaluating Public Administration
Research
Articles in Public Administration Review provided the
data for our research. We sought to compare and contrast
research published in this journal with the practices for
effective local government management developed by
ICMA. Our goal was to examine the linkage between the
research published in PAR and the essential knowledge
areas identified by ICMA.
Table 1 ICMA Practices for Effective Local Government
Management

Staff effectiveness
Coaching/mentoring, team leadership, empowerment, delegating
Policy facilitation
Facilitative leadership, facilitating council effectiveness, mediation/
negotiation
Service-delivery management
Functional/operational expertise, operational planning, citizen service,
quality assurance
Strategic leadership
Initiative and risk taking, vision, creativity and innovation, technological
literacy
Democratic responsiveness
Democratic advocacy, diversity, citizen participation
Organizational planning and management
Budgeting, financial analysis, human resources management, strategic
planning
Communication
Advocacy, presentation skills, media relations interpersonal communica-
tion
Integrity
Personal integrity, professional integrity, organizational integrity
Public Administration Research from a Practitioner Perspective 517
The focus on PAR raises some questions, as it is not the
only academic journal in the field publishing articles about
local government. Not every article published in PAR is
relevant to local government managers, but it is the aca-
demic journal most likely to meet their needs. PAR’s edi-
torial philosophy indicates that it seeks to balance the aca-
demic and the practical and to “improve the effectiveness
of administration as a key part of the governance process”

(PAR 2000a). It is, among other things “a journal for prac-
titioners” (PAR 2000b). Public Administration Review is
the principal publication of the American Society for Pub-
lic Administration (ASPA), which committed itself in 1998
to “improve the effectiveness of democratic governance
by positively influencing public policy and management
and the ethical performance of public services” (ASPA
2000). ICMA seeks “the preservation of the values and
integrity of representative local government and local de-
mocracy and a dedication to the promotion of efficient and
effective management of public services.” (ICMA 2000).
We do not mean to suggest that all of these major public
administration institutions perform the same functions, but
their missions clearly overlap.
Of course, our study is not the first to examine the con-
tent of articles published in Public Administration Review.
Most empirical studies of public administration research
have focused principally on PAR, and their authors have
defended the soundness of this approach. Houston and
Delevan (1990), for example, argue that PAR is the field’s
premier journal. Public administration scholars regard it
as the journal publishing the best articles (Forrester and
Watson 1994). Of course, PAR is also the principal publi-
cation of ASPA. As Stallings and Ferris (1988) note, this
alone makes a sound argument for examining articles in
Public Administration Review. A final reason to look at
PAR is simply because many other empirical studies have
been done in a similar way. We see our study as an addi-
tional contribution to this ongoing debate, and it makes
sense to have a common reference point.

In an effort to broaden the impact of our findings, we
also conducted a limited examination of other peer-re-
viewed journals that publish local government research,
to see if their content mirrors our PAR findings. ASPA
sections sponsor many of these journals. We chose jour-
nals most likely to present research relevant to local gov-
ernment officials. This additional analysis was less struc-
tured than our study of PAR, but it does increase the value
of our research.
Methodology
Our analysis focused on refereed articles relevant to lo-
cal government management published in PAR during
1984–98. Our database included 266 articles that contrib-
uted to the enhancement of effective local government
management, as defined by ICMA Practices for Effective
Local Government Management. This represented roughly
30 percent of the 901 articles published during our study
period. The articles we omitted addressed a wide variety
of topics, including federal or state governments or agen-
cies, foreign governments, and the state of public adminis-
tration as a discipline. Our goal was to identify articles
that contributed to the development of the local public
management knowledge base, as defined by the practices.
We collected an extensive amount of data on the articles
selected for analysis. Most importantly, we counted each
meaningful effort to address an ICMA practice, closely
following the wording of the ICMA practices. To ensure
coding accuracy, we used consistent, computer-based cod-
ing and recording techniques. Our efforts produced an ex-
tensive codebook that recorded our decision criteria and

guided our decisions. This codebook began well before
we looked at articles, and it went through nearly 100 trans-
formations during the data collection. We made these
changes as our thoughts about the analysis evolved. We
reacted to things we learned that could not have been an-
ticipated when the codebook was first created. Our coding
activities went beyond simple pigeonholing and reflected
some of the themes and nuances of the actual articles. The
practices leave some room for interpretation, but we be-
lieve our classifications are consistent with both the word-
ing and the intent of each individual practice.
One of the more difficult challenges we faced in the
coding was handling articles addressing multiple practices.
We did not attempt to identify the predominant practice,
which would have been difficult to do with great preci-
sion. Instead, we made a record of each time a practice
was addressed in a meaningful way. Multiple references
to the practices were common. For example, an article deal-
ing with financial analysis, which falls under the practice
of organizational planning and management, might also
address budgeting or strategic planning.
Our analysis looks at a 15-year period, which includes
several years of PAR articles published before the devel-
opment of the practices in 1991. Thus, we examined PAR
research before, during, and after the development of the
ICMA practices. Our content analysis compares the ag-
gregated thoughts of managers, as expressed in the prac-
tices, with those presented by public administration re-
searchers in the field’s leading journal.
Findings

We studied 901 articles in Public Administration Re-
view and found 266 that addressed ICMA practices. Thirty-
nine percent (105 articles) were written specifically about
cities and counties or the council-manager form of gov-
518 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
ernment (see figure 1). An additional 10 percent focused
on both state and local government. The largest category
includes articles of general interest to the public adminis-
tration community, such as ethics, general management
tools and techniques, and management innovations. These
articles might have mentioned more than one level of gov-
ernment or none. A small number of articles did not fit
into the other categories. Most of these addressed other
forms of local government, such as special districts and
public authorities.
PAR Research and ICMA Practices
As table 1 shows, there are 29 ICMA practices orga-
nized into eight groups. A general description is provided
for each group of three or more practices. The descriptions
provide a general theme for each group, though there are
some practices that clearly fit into more than one group. In
our pool of 266 relevant articles from PAR, we found 879
direct, meaningful references to the 29 practices. Each of
the selected articles had at least one reference to an ICMA
practice, and multiple references were common. Figure 2
shows the distribution of these references.
There was a high variability in the number of ref-
erences to each of the eight practice groups. Each bar
in figure 2 shows the percentage of references that
each group received. The references to the groups

created several distinct tiers. The first tier consists
solely of organizational planning and management.
Roughly one-quarter of the 266 relevant PAR articles
made reference to these practices. This is not a great
surprise, because it includes the budgeting and hu-
man resources subfields and two popular research
subjects, financial analysis and strategic planning.
The second tier in figure 2 comprises strategic
leadership and service-delivery management. These
two groupings contain a number of popular topics,
such as innovation and technological literacy (stra-
tegic leadership), and functional/operational exper-
tise, operational planning, and citizen service (ser-
vice-delivery management). Scholars paid less
attention to democratic responsiveness, policy facilitation,
staff effectiveness, and integrity, which form a fairly uni-
form third tier. Communication forms the fourth tier; with
only 4 percent of the total references, it received substan-
tially less attention than most of the other groups.
Table 2 offers a more in-depth analysis of the references
to ICMA practices in the 266 relevant PAR articles that we
reviewed. It presents the percentage of the 879 references
made to each individual practice. Looking at the practices
within the organizational planning and management group,
we can see that strategic planning and financial analysis
received the most attention. However, strategic planning
does have a solid lock on the number one position. This
dimension accounted for 34 percent of all references to
organizational planning and management. Indeed, the stra-
tegic planning practice accounted for almost 10 percent of

the 879 references to ICMA practices from 1984 to 1998.
In table 2 we also get a closer look at strategic leader-
ship and service-delivery management, which both gen-
erated substantial interest. In the case of strategic leader-
ship, the practice of creativity and innovation stands out.
It ranks second among the 29 practices, falling just be-
hind strategic planning. Vision is at the low end of the
practices within the strategic leadership group, with only
28 references. In the case of service-delivery manage-
ment, both operational planning and citizen service re-
ceived considerable attention.
The three groups discussed above constitute what we
have called our first and second tiers. Though they received
far more attention than the remaining five groups, some
individual practices in the lower tiers generated at least
moderate levels of interest. Both citizen participation and
facilitative leadership stand out as popular practices from
lower-ranked groups. Citizen participation was the most
Figure 1 Forms of Government Addressed in Selected
PAR
Articles*
Percentage of articles addressing each category
Multiple or none
City and/or county
State and local
Council government
Other specific forms
Figure 2 References to ICMA Practice Groups in Selected Areas
Percentage of articles addressing each group
Organizational planning and

management
Strategic leadership
Service-delivery management
Democratic responsiveness
Policy facilitation
Staff effectiveness
Integrity
Communication
*Of 901 articles reviewed, this chart displays findings for 266 that were relevant to
local government management.
Public Administration Research from a Practitioner Perspective 519
frequently referenced practice from the democratic respon-
siveness group, and facilitative leadership was the most
frequently referenced practice in the policy facilitation
group. Both democratic responsiveness and policy facili-
tation fall into our third tier.
Staff effectiveness and integrity are also in the third
tier. None of the individual practices in the staff effec-
tiveness group ranked very highly against those in the
other groups, though coaching and empowerment gar-
nered some attention. The practice of organizational in-
tegrity within the integrity group approached the number
of references found in some of the higher tiers. It com-
pares favorably to the vision practice in the strategic lead-
ership group, for example. The other practices in the in-
tegrity group included professional integrity and personal
integrity, and they received substantially less attention
than organizational integrity.
The fourth tier consists only of communication. None
of the individual practices in this group accounted for even

2 percent of the total 879 references. The practices of pre-
sentation skills and media relations fall within this group,
and they received the fewest references of all 29 practices.
They were seldom mentioned in PAR during 1984–98.
We were also interested in examining how interest in
the practices changed over time. Figure 3 shows these find-
ings, with individual practices listed in the same order as
table 2. The length of the bars for each practice indicates
the number of references received during five different
three-year periods. The most striking aspect of practices
in the first tier is the high level of attention they received
from 1984 to 1986. During this period, a special issue on
emergency management was published, which placed a
heavy emphasis on local government management. Many
articles in that special issue made direct references to ICMA
practices. Strategic planning appeared frequently, for ex-
ample. These references were consistent with ICMA’s prac-
tice of strategic planning, which requires “positioning the
organization and the community for events and circum-
stances that are anticipated in the future.”
Looking across the 29 practices presented in figure 3,
only strategic planning and creativity and innovation re-
ceived a high number of references in each of the five time
Table 2 Discussion of the Practices in the Selected Articles
Percentage of
Practice groups Frequency Percentage Practices Frequency articles in Percentage
each group overall
Organizational planning and management 235 26.7 Strategic planning 79 33.6 9.0
Financial analysis 60 25.5 6.8
Budgeting 50 21.3 5.7

Human resources management 46 19.6 5.2
Strategic leadership 169 19.2 Creativity and innovation 65 38.5 7.4
Technological literacy 41 24.3 4.7
Initiative and risk taking 35 20.7 4.0
Vision 28 16.6 3.2
Service-delivery management 144 16.4 Operational planning 44 30.6 5.0
Citizen service 41 28.5 4.7
Quality assurance 30 20.8 3.4
Functional/operational expertise 29 20.1 3.3
Democratic responsiveness 78 8.9 Citizen participation 35 44.9 4.0
Democratic advocacy 25 32.1 2.8
Diversity 18 23.1 2.0
Policy facilitation 76 8.6 Facilitative leadership 33 43.4 3.8
Mediation negotiation 26 34.2 3.0
Facilitating council effectiveness 17 22.4 1.9
Staff effectiveness 74 8.4 Coaching 22 29.7 2.5
Empowerment 21 28.4 2.4
Team leadership 17 23.0 1.9
Delegating 14 18.9 1.6
Integrity 64 7.3 Organizational integrity 28 43.8 3.2
Professional integrity 21 32.8 2.4
Personal integrity 15 23.4 1.7
Communication 39 4.4 Advocacy 15 38.5 1.7
Interpersonal communication 13 33.3 1.5
Presentation skills 8 20.5 0.9
Media relations 3 7.7 0.3
Total 879 879
520 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
periods. Both of these practices were addressed frequently
in the boom years of 1984 through 1986, and they were

also popular during later periods. Articles in Public Ad-
ministration Review have consistently addressed issues
related to preparing for future situations and exploring new
approaches. There are also practices in figure 3 that de-
clined in frequency, such as budgeting and human resource
management. These areas did especially poorly from 1996
to 1998.
This most recent period, 1996–98, was an era of initia-
tive, risk taking, and citizen service. Recent years have also
seen a rising interest in citizen participation, facilitative
leadership, and empowerment. It would be a mistake to
make too much out of relatively minor shifts, but the find-
ings in figure 3 offer some reason to believe the interests
of public administration authors may have broadened over
the years.
Researching Local Government Management
We also studied the data-collection methods used in the
266 articles that were relevant to local government man-
agement. Overall, our findings were similar to those of
previous empirical researchers who have examined research
in PAR. As figure 4 shows, for example, surveys were the
most commonly used research method, but case studies
came in a close second. We also found that more sophisti-
cated forms of statistical analysis were rarely used. We did
see slight increases in the use of more advanced statistical
procedures over time, but the changes were too slight to
support claims of an upward trend. We also found that re-
Figure 3 References to Practices by Year
Number of references to each practice
Strategic planning

Financial analysis
Budgeting
Human resources management
Creativity and innovation
Technological literacy
Initiative and risk taking
Vision
Operational planning
Citizen service
Quality assurance
Functional/Operational expertise
Citizen participation
Democratic advocacy
Diversity
Facilitative leadership
Mediation/negotiation
Facilitating council effectiveness
Coaching/mentoring
Empowerment
Team leadership
Delegating
Organizational integrity
Professional integrity
Personal integrity
Advocacy
Interpersonal communication
Presentation skills
Media relations
Public Administration Research from a Practitioner Perspective 521
search was seldom cumulative and that outside funding

was rare. Only 15 percent of the articles relevant to local
government management acknowledged funding, and in
most cases funding appeared to have been provided by the
author’s own institution.
We were also interested in examining the institutional
affiliation of authors producing the 266 articles relevant
to ICMA practices. To control for coauthorship, we
counted each article once when there were multiple au-
thors from the same institution. As table 3 shows, only a
few institutions produced multiple articles relevant to
ICMA practices during the period under study. The table
displays those institutions with three or more articles
during our study period.
Looking Beyond Public Administration Review
When evaluating the articles in PAR, it is important to
consider the abundance of journals publishing articles rel-
evant to local government managers. Many of these jour-
nals are affiliated with the different interest sections of
the American Society for Public Administration. For ex-
ample, journals such as Public Budgeting and Finance,
Review of Public Personnel Administration, State and
Local Government Review, Journal of Public Adminis-
tration Research and Theory, and Public Productivity and
Management Review would seem likely sources for re-
search relevant to local government managers. There are
also some excellent refereed research journals that func-
tion independently of ASPA, including the American Re-
view of Public Administration, Urban Affairs Quarterly,
Public Administration Quarterly, and International Re-
view of Public Administration.

Our review of the broader public administration lit-
erature confirmed the argument that publications in PAR
represent a good cross-section of the field. Of course, the
individual journals varied quite a bit, with some being
far more specialized than others, but their combined im-
pact was similar to that found in PAR. There were many
articles published between 1984 and 1998 that fit the
knowledge areas identified by ICMA, but the overwhelm-
ing majority addressed the practices found in our upper
tiers. As was the case with PAR , far less attention was
paid to the democratic responsiveness, policy facilitation,
staff effectiveness, integrity, and communication groups,
which comprised 17 of the 29 practices developed by
ICMA membership.
There were notable exceptions to the rule, of course.
Overall, there were many articles published in the field of
public administration that are relevant to practice groups
in the lower tiers. American Review of Public Administra-
tion, for example, featured articles by Felbinger (1989) and
Felts and Schuman (1997) addressing the roles of local
government officials. These articles made solid contribu-
tions to the policy facilitation group. In Public Productiv-
ity and Management Review, we found many articles that
addressed issues missing from Public Administration Re-
view. One example is an article by Halachmi (1998) deal-
ing with employees over 50 that contributed to the staff
effectiveness group.
Nothing we found in journals outside of PAR changed
the overall thrust of our findings. Researchers in the field
of public administration show a strong commitment to lo-

cal government management, but their range of interests
appears substantially narrower than those of local govern-
ment managers.
Table 3 Leading Producers of
PAR
Articles Relevant to
Local Government Management
University or system Total articles
University of Southern California 15
Indiana University, University of Georgia 12
Georgia State University 11
Syracuse University 9
Arizona State University, Northern Illinois University,
University of Kansas 8
University of California at Irvine, University of North Texas 7
University of Oregon 6
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
North Carolina State, New York University 5
Auburn University, Baruch College, City of Auburn,
Cleveland State University, Columbia University,
Iowa State University, Oklahoma State University,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, University of Akron,
University of Maryland at Baltimore,
University of Central Florida, University of Denver,
University of Missouri at Columbia, University of Oklahoma,
University of Pennsylvania, University of Washington 3
Figure 4 Data-Collection Methods Used in
Selected
PAR
Articles

Survey (mail or telephone)
Interview
(individual or
group)
Archival (state
records and meta
analyses)
Case studies
522 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
Discussion
An interesting aspect of the academic field of public
administration is its nearly total lack of boundaries. This
level of freedom sets it apart from many academic disci-
plines. Public administration is a relatively small field, and
it addresses a broad array of issues. Researchers from many
different backgrounds can make valuable contributions.
While this sort of “Wild West” environment has its charm,
a number of academics have called for some sort of order.
Spurred by negative empirical findings and unflattering
comparisons with other fields, these authors have identi-
fied weaknesses in public administration research and sug-
gested some possible remedies. These previous studies were
thoughtful and insightful, and they make a good case for
vigorous efforts to improve the quality of public adminis-
tration research. We must make a distinction, however,
between research that meets accepted standards of aca-
demic rigor and research that follows a strictly academic
research agenda. Melding the best that academia can offer
with the knowledge needs of practicing managers is the
way to build a knowledge base that fulfills the traditional

promise of the public administration field.
This study compares research in the field to what local
government managers have identified as Practices for Ef-
fective Local Government Management. These practices
are very important to managers, and one of their most im-
portant purposes is guiding the development of the local
government management profession and of individual
managers. They define the things that managers need to
know to be effective, and they are the cornerstone of
ICMA’s efforts to maintain the skills and competence of
local government managers. ICMA members are required
to participate in 40 hours of additional training each year,
and the practices are intended to guide these efforts. ICMA
developed a program known as ICMA University, which
offers courses and training opportunities that fit the prac-
tices. They have also developed two assessment instruments
designed to measure knowledge and skills in the areas ad-
dressed by the practices. In every use of the practices,
ICMA membership has held to the principle that all prac-
tices are essential, though they acknowledge that the need
to apply each practice may vary according to circumstances.
Our findings from studying 15 years of Public Admin-
istration Review indicate that researchers are very com-
mitted to undertaking research that contributes to the local
public management knowledge base. However, we also
found a noteworthy disconnection between the published
research and the knowledge needs identified by ICMA
members. Some practices receive a great deal of attention,
while others are largely ignored. Our examination of other
journals suggests this finding holds true across a wide va-

riety of public administration journals.
We saw some broadening of research interests in the
years following the completion of the practices, but the
changes have been relatively slight. It would be unreason-
able to expect topics to cycle through Public Administra-
tion Review as if they were on some type of a play list;
however, our examination of 15 years of research does raise
some questions. The fact that 30 percent of the articles
published in PAR between 1984 and 1998 made a valuable
contribution in areas identified by ICMA membership is
good news, but the distribution of the topics covered ap-
pears less than ideal.
Of course, our findings cannot be accepted at face value.
Many factors could have affected these findings, apart from
the linkage between practitioners and academics. For ex-
ample, some ICMA practices are simply broader, allow-
ing them to attract more references. The wording of the
practices is certainly informal, and some dimensions cover
more linguistic and conceptual territory than others do. In
addition, it is no surprise that references have accumulated
for ICMA dimensions that overlap established public ad-
ministration subfields, such as budgeting or human resource
management. It should also be recognized that some areas
addressed by the practices are better addressed in other
fields, or are not worthy of academic inquiry. While some
of these additional factors are worthy of careful consider-
ation, they do not appear to fully explain our findings.
Our research compared the professional needs of the
field’s premier group of generalist managers with publica-
tions in the premier generalist journal, and we found a

somewhat awkward match. Local government managers
should be able to pick up several issues of Public Adminis-
tration Review and find much that is thought provoking,
informative, and useful. The journal needs to speak to the
managers in a familiar language and discuss a wide vari-
ety of topics relevant to their professional needs. Our find-
ings show some apparent gaps, both in PAR and across the
major journals in the field. We also confirmed the findings
of other researchers who have studied the rigor of public
administration research. These weaknesses appear to limit
the value of the knowledge base that public administration
researchers have developed.
What we find in the academic journals is the accumu-
lated work of many individuals and small groups. There is
no invisible hand guiding researchers to areas where their
efforts are needed most. The interests of journal editors,
boards, foundations, government grant programs, and pro-
motion and tenure standards at universities may play a role
in the choice of research topics, but these forces probably
do not outweigh individual interests in the field of public
administration. It is an eclectic field by nature, and exter-
nal funding does not play a major role in influencing the
direction of the field. Perhaps this research effort will en-
courage academics to give some additional thought to the
Public Administration Research from a Practitioner Perspective 523
possible benefits of any new research that they undertake.
There is room in public administration journals for articles
that will interest only academics, but we should also give
some thought to how researchers can better serve the needs
of practitioners.

We do not want to suggest there should be a list of ap-
proved topics for researchers, but we hope they will con-
sider the practices, along with many other worthy issues,
when contemplating a new research project. Of course,
academics should also seek to nurture productive relation-
ships with practitioners to foster new research ideas as well
as to support existing projects. Such initiatives need not
hinder efforts to improve the sophistication of public ad-
ministration research. Public administration researchers
carry some extra burdens that may not exist in other fields,
but they do not come without additional rewards. Their
work allows them to contribute to a shared knowledge base
benefiting both academics and practitioners. Such efforts
can have an impact that goes far beyond the pages of schol-
arly journals. Enhancing the linkage between academics
and practice not only reinforces the traditional strengths
of the field, but also strengthens all aspects of the public
administration enterprise.
References
Adams, Guy B. 1992. Enthralled with Modernity: The Histori-
cal Context of Knowledge and Theory Development in Pub-
lic Administration. Public Administration Review 52(4): 363–
73.
American Society for Public Administration. 2000. Strategic
Plan: Mission and Vision. Available at />stplanx.htm. Accessed February 18, 2000.
Bingham, Richard D., and William M. Bowen. 1994. Mainstream
Public Administration over Time: A Topical Content Analy-
sis of Public Administration Review. Public Administration
Review 54(2): 204–8.
Box, Richard C. 1992. An Examination of the Debate over Re-

search in Public Administration. Public Administration Re-
view 52(1): 62–9.
Brewer, Gene A., James W. Douglas, Rex L. Facer II, and
Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr. 1999. Determinants of Graduate
Research Productivity in Doctoral Programs of Public Ad-
ministration. Public Administration Review 59(5): 373–82.
Cleary, Robert E. 1992. Revisiting the Doctoral Dissertation in
Public Administration: An Examination of the Dissertations
of 1990. Public Administration Review 52(1): 55–61.
Felbinger, Claire L. 1989. Effective Local Government Man-
agement: Role Emphasis of Public Works Directors. Ameri-
can Review of Public Administration 19(2): 119–32.
Felts, Arthur A., and Robert A. Schuman. 1997. Local Govern-
ment Administrators: A Balance Wheel Breakdown. Ameri-
can Review of Public Administration 27(4): 363–76.
Forrester, John P., and Sheilah S. Watson. 1994. An Assessment
of Public Administration Journals: The Perspective of Edi-
tors and Editorial Board Members. Public Administration
Review 54(5): 474–82.
Garson, David G., and E. Samuel Overman. 1983. Public Man-
agement Research in the United States. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Halachmi, Arie. 1998. Dealing with Employees over Fifty: Re-
flections and an Introduction. Public Productivity and Man-
agement Review 22(1): 6–14.
Houston, David J., and Sybil M. Delevan. 1990. Public Admin-
istration Research: An Assessment of Journal Publications.
Public Administration Review 50(6): 674–81.
International City/County Management Association. 2000. Dec-
laration of Ideals. Available at Accessed

February 16, 2000.
McCurdy, Howard E., and Robert E. Cleary. 1984. Why Can’t
We Resolve the Research Issue in Public Administration?
Public Administration Review 44(1): 49–55.
Public Administration Review. 2000a. Our Editorial Philosophy.
Public Administration Review website. Available at http://
par.csuohio.edu/submit5.html. Accessed February 16, 2000.
———. 2000b. PAR Homepage. Available at http://
par.csuohio.edu/index.html. Accessed February 16, 2000.
Perry, James L., and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 1986. Research Meth-
odology in the Public Administration Review, 1975–1984.
Public Administration Review 46(3): 215–26.
Stallings, Robert A. 1986. Doctoral Programs in Public Admin-
istration: An Outsider’s Perspective. Public Administration
Review 46(3): 235–9.
Stallings, Robert A., and James M. Ferris. 1988. Public Admin-
istration Research: Work in PAR, 1940–1984. Public Admin-
istration Review 48(1): 580–6.
Watson, Douglas J., and Robert S. Montjoy. 1991. Research on
Local Government in Public Administration Review. Public
Administration Review 51(2): 166–70.
White, Jay D. 1986a. On the Growth of Knowledge in Public
Administration. Public Administration Review 46(1): 15–24.
———. 1986b. Dissertations in Public Administration. Public
Administration Review 46(3): 227–34.
524 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5
Appendix
ICMA Practices for Effective Local Government Management
Staff effectiveness
Promoting the development and performance of staff and employees

throughout the organization (requires knowledge of interpersonal
relations; skill in motivation techniques; ability to identify others’ develop-
mental strengths and weaknesses)
Coaching/mentoring: Providing direction, support, and feedback to
enable others to meet their full potential (requires knowledge of
feedback techniques; ability to assess performance and identify others’
developmental needs)
Team leadership: Facilitating teamwork (requires knowledge of team
relations; ability to direct and coordinate group efforts; skill in
leadership techniques)
Empowerment: Creating a work environment that encourages
responsibility and decision making in all organizational levels (requires
skill in sharing authority and removing barriers to creativity)
Delegating: Assigning responsibility to others (requires skill in defining
expectations, providing direction and support, and evaluating results)
Policy facilitation
Helping elected officials and other community actors identify, work toward,
and achieve common goals and objectives (requires knowledge of group
dynamics and political behavior; skill in communication, facilitation, and
consensus building techniques; ability to engage others in identifying
issues and outcomes)
Facilitative leadership: Building cooperation and consensus among
and within diverse groups, helping them identify common goals and
act effectively to achieve them; recognizing interdependent relation-
ships and multiple causes of community issues and anticipating the
consequences of policy decisions (requires knowledge of community
actors and their interrelationships)
Facilitating council effectiveness: Helping elected officials develop a
policy agenda that can be implemented effectively and that serves the
best interests of the community (requires knowledge of role/authority

relationships between elected and appointed officials; skill in responsi-
bly following the lead of others when appropriate; ability to communi-
cate sound information and recommendations)
Mediation/negotiation: Acting as a neutral party in the resolution of
policy disputes (requires knowledge of mediation/negotiation
principles; skill in mediation/negotiation techniques)
Service-delivery management
Ensuring that local government services are provided to citizens effectively,
efficiently, and responsively (requires knowledge of service areas and
delivery options; skill in assessing community needs, allocating resources,
and predicting the impact of service delivery decisions; ability to set
performance/productivity standards and objectives and measure results)
Functional/operational expertise: Understanding the basic principles
of service delivery in functional areas—such as public safety,
community and economic development, human and social services,
administrative services, public works
Operational planning: Anticipating future needs, organizing work
operations, and establishing timetables for work units or projects
(requires knowledge of technological advances and changing
standards; skill in identifying and understanding trends)
Citizen service: Determining citizen needs and providing responsive,
equitable services to the community (requires knowledge of information
gathering techniques)
Quality assurance: Maintaining a consistently high level of quality in
staff work, operational procedures, and service delivery (requires
knowledge of organizational processes; ability to facilitate organiza-
tional improvements)
Strategic leadership
Setting an example that urges the organization and the community toward
experimentation, change, creative problem solving, and prompt action

(requires knowledge of personal leadership style; skill in visioning, shifting
perspectives, and identifying options; ability to create an environment that
encourages initiative and innovation)
Initiative and risk taking: Demonstrating a personal orientation toward
action and accepting responsibility for the results; resisting the status
quo and removing stumbling blocks that delay progress toward goals
and objectives
Vision: Conceptualizing an ideal future state and communicating it to
the organization and the community
Creativity and innovation: Developing new ideas or practices;
applying existing ideas and practices to new situations
Technological literacy: Demonstrating an understanding of information
technology and ensuring that it is incorporated appropriately in plans
to improve service delivery; information sharing, organizational
communication, and citizen access
Democratic responsiveness
Demonstrating a commitment to democratic principles by respecting
elected officials, community interest groups, and the decision-making
process; educating citizens about local government; and acquiring
knowledge of the social, economic, and political history of the community
(requires knowledge of democratic principles, political processes, and local
government law; skill in group dynamics, communication, and facilitation;
ability to appreciate and work with diverse individuals and groups and to
follow the community’s lead in the democratic process)
Democratic advocacy: Fostering the values and integrity of representa-
tive government and local democracy through action and example;
ensuring the effective participation of local government in the
intergovernmental system (requires knowledge and skill in intergovern-
mental relations)
Diversity: Understanding and valuing the differences among individu-

als and fostering these values throughout the organization and the
community
Citizen participation: Recognizing the right of citizens to influence local
decisions and promoting active citizen involvement in local governance
Organizational planning and management
Providing for the short-term and long-term acquisition, allocation and
analysis of financial and human resources (requires knowledge and skill in
budgeting, financial analysis, human resources management, and
strategic planning)
Budgeting: Preparing and administering the budget (requires
knowledge of budgeting principles and practices, revenue sources,
projection techniques, and financial control systems; skill in communi-
cating financial information)
Financial analysis: Interpreting financial information to assess the fiscal
condition of the community, determine the cost effectiveness of
programs, and compare alternative strategies (requires knowledge of
analytical techniques and skill in applying them)
Human resources management: Ensuring that the policies and
procedures for employee hiring, promotion, performance appraisal,
and discipline are equitable, legal, and current; ensuring that human
resources are adequate to accomplish programmatic objectives
(requires knowledge of personnel practices and employee relations
law; ability to project workforce needs)
Strategic planning: Positioning the organization and the community for
events and circumstances that are anticipated in the future (requires
knowledge of long-range and strategic planning techniques; skill in
identifying trends that will affect the community; ability to analyze and
facilitate policy choices that will benefit the community in the long run)
Public Administration Research from a Practitioner Perspective 525
Communication

Facilitating the flow of ideas, information, and understandings between
and among individuals; advocating effectively in the community interest
(requires knowledge of interpersonal and group communication principles;
skill in listening, speaking, and writing; ability to persuade without
diminishing the views of others)
Advocacy: Communicating personal support for policies, programs, or
ideals that serve the best interests of the community
Presentation skills: Conveying ideas or information effectively to others
(requires knowledge of presentation techniques and options; ability to
match presentation to audience)
Media relations: Communicating information to the media in a way
that increases public understanding of local government issues and
activities and builds a positive relationship with the press (requires
knowledge of media operations and objectives)
Interpersonal communication: Exchanging verbal and nonverbal
messages with others in a way that demonstrates respect for the
individual and furthers organizational and community objectives
(requires ability to receive verbal and nonverbal cues; skill in selecting
the most effective communication method for each interchange)
Integrity
Demonstrating fairness, honesty, and ethical and legal awareness in
personal and professional relationships and activities (requires knowledge
of business and personal ethics; ability to understand issues of ethics and
integrity in specific situations)
Personal integrity: Demonstrating accountability for personal actions;
conducting personal relationships and activities fairly and honestly
Professional integrity: Conducting professional relationships and
activities fairly, honestly, legally, and in conformance with ICMA Code
of Ethics (requires knowledge of administrative ethics and specifically
the ICMA Code of Ethics)

Organizational integrity: Fostering ethical behavior throughout the
organization through personal example, management practices, and
training (requires knowledge of administrative ethics; ability to instill
accountability into operations; and ability to communicate ethical
standards and guidelines to others)