annotated bibliography
aicha1990
JPAE_19_03_Final.pdf
NASPAA – The Global Standard in Public Service Education 1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517
The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the journal of NASPAA, the membership association of graduate education programs in public policy, public affairs, public administration, and public & nonprofi t management. NASPAA’s 280 member schools are located across the U.S. and around the globe.
NASPAA is the global standard in public service education. Its Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation is the recognized accreditor of master’s degree programs in the fi eld.
NASPAA has been a national and international resource since 1970, by ensuring excellence in education and training for public service, and by promoting the ideal of public service. It accomplishes its mission through direct services to its member institutions and by
Developing standards for master’s programs in public affairs, and representing the objectives and needs of education in public affairs;
Encouraging curriculum development and innovation and providing a forum for publication and discussion of education scholarship, practices, and issues;
Building the authoritative source of data on public affairs education;
Promoting public sector internship and employment opportunities for students and graduates;
Partnering with practitioner professional organizations;
Engaging globally with national and regional organizations involved with public affairs education.
JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs, defi ned to include the fi elds of public policy analysis, public administration, and public management. Published quarterly by NASPAA, the journal features peer-reviewed scholarly articles on pedagogical, curricular, and accreditation issues pertaining to public affairs education commentaries, as well as symposia and book reviews.
Founded in 1995, JPAE was originally published as the Journal of Public Administration Education. H. George Frederickson was the journal’s founding editor. The journal is hosted and edited by the Hamline University School of Business, a NASPAA member school, selected through a competitive process. In addition to serving as NASPAA’s journal of record, JPAE is affi liated with the Section on Public Administration Education of the American Society for Public Administration.
JOURN AL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION
V O
LU M
E 19 N O
. 3 S
U M
M ER
2013
JPAE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUC ATION
VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3
SUM M ER 2013 ! e journal of NASPAA " ! e Global Standard in Public Service Education
JPAE 19_03 053113 cover.indd 1 6/21/13 4:38 PM
Laura Langbein, American University Scott Lazenby, City of Sandy, Oregon
Deanna Malatesta, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Steven R. Maxwell, Florida Gulf Coast University Barbara McCabe, University of Texas
Juliet Musso, University of Southern California Michael O’Hare, University of California, Berkeley Michael Popejoy, Florida International University
David Powell, California State University, Long Beach David Reingold, Indiana University
Dahlia Remler, Baruch College CUNY R. Karl Rethemeyer, University at Albany SUNY
Michelle Saint-Germain, California State University, Long Beach Jodi Sandfort, University of Minnesota
Robert A. Schuhmann, University of Wyoming Patricia M. Shields, Texas State University Robert Smith, Kennesaw State University
Jessica Sowa, University of Colorado Kendra Stewart, University of Charleston
Giovanni Valotti, Università Bocconi David Van Slyke, Syracuse University
Karel Van der Molen, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Howard Whitton, Griffi th University
Blue Wooldridge, Virginia Commonwealth University Firuz Demir Yasamıs, American University in the Emirates
Information for Contributors
The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the journal of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs broadly defi ned, which includes the fi elds of policy analysis, public administration, public management, public policy, nonprofi t administration, and their subfi elds. Advancing teaching and learning includes not only the improvement of specifi c 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 throughout the world. In service to this goal, articles should be clear, accessible to those in the public affairs fi elds and subfi elds, and generalizable. The editors are 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 must not already be published or in submission elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at conferences are welcome.
Generally, manuscripts should conform to the JPAE style sheet available at www.naspaa.org/JPAE/ stylesheet.pdf. Specifi cally, they should:
with margins of no less than one inch on all sides.
found at www.apastyle.org/.
to allow for anonymous peer review.
Submissions should be made online at www.edmgr.com/jpae. At the site, you will be instructed to create an account if you have not already done so or to log in under your existing account.
Submitting authors will be asked for contact information, names of any additional authors, up to three
Additional instructions for registration in this system and submission of manuscripts can be found at www.edmgr.com/jpae or the JPAE website at www.naspaa.org/jpae. Authors should expect to receive acknowledgment of receipt of the manuscript and can follow its progress through the review process at www.edmgr.com/jpae.
All articles are given an initial review by the editorial team. Articles must meet basic criteria including writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and interest to JPAE readers before they are submitted for external, double-blind peer review. If accepted for publication, manuscripts cannot be published until they conform to APA style and all of the authors have provided copyright transfer authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about 5 lines).
Any questions about the manuscript submission, review, and publication process can be addressed to the editorial team at [email protected].
Because of its mission, the Journal of Public Affairs Education allows educators to 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.
NASPAA The Global Standard in Public Service Education
Jack Knott, President Ethel Hill Williams, Vice President
Laurel McFarland, Executive Director
JPAE Oversight Committee: Jonathan Anderson, Amy Donahue, Andrew Ewoh, Greg Lindseye
David Schultz, Editor in Chief, Hamline University Kristen Norman-Major, Managing Editor, Hamline University
Iris Geva-May, Associate Editor for International and Comparative Education, Simon Fraser University Lisa Dejoras, Editorial Assistant, Hamline University
Copy Editor: Chris Thillen Layout and Cover Design: Val Escher
The Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by NASPAA, the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Admini- stration. 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: accessed at www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. Change of Address: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old
Educators may reproduce any material for classroom use only, without fee, and authors may reproduce their articles without written
minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,
Muhittin Acar, Hacettepe University, Turkey Mohamad Alkadry, Florida International University Burt Barnow, George Washington University Peter J. Bergerson, Florida Gulf Coast University Rajade Berry-James, North Carolina State University John Bohte, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Espiridion Borrego, University of Texas Pan American John M. Bryson, University of Minnesota Lysa Burnier, Ohio University N. Joseph Cayer, Arizona State University Heather Campbell, Claremont Graduate University Barbara Crosby, University of Minnesota Robert B. Cunningham, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Dwight Denison, University of Kentucky Anand Desai, Ohio State University James W. Douglas, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Robert Durant, American University Jo Ann G. Ewalt, Eastern Kentucky University Susan Gooden, Virginia Commonwealth University Cynthia Jackson-Elmoore, Michigan State University Meagan Jordan Edward Kellough, University of Georgia Don Kettl, University of Maryland, College Park John Kiefer, University of New Orleans William Earle Klay, Florida State University Chris Koliba, University of Vermont Kristina Lambright, Binghamton University, State University of New York
BOARD OF EDITORS
Khalid Al-Yahya, Dubai School of Government Edgar Ramirez Delacruz Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico
Charlene M. L. Roach, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus
CORRESPONDENTS
H. George Frederickson, Founding Editor, University of Kansas Danny L. Balfour, Grand Valley State University Marc Holzer Edward T. Jennings, University of Kentucky
James L. Perry, Indiana University, Bloomington Mario A. Rivera, University of New Mexico
Heather E. Campbell, Claremont Graduate University
EDITOR’S COUNCIL
JPAE 19_03 053113 cover.indd 2 6/21/13 4:38 PM
Journal of Public Affairs Education
Summer 2013 Volume 19, No. 3
FROM THE EDITOR—TEACHING PUBLIC AFFAIRS IN HERACLITUS’ WORLD David Schultz .............................................................................................................. ii
FROM THE GUEST EDITORS—TEACHING IN TODAY’S GLOBAL CLASSROOM: POLICY ANALYSIS IN CROSS-NATIONAL SETTINGS Douglas J. Besharov and Jennifer Oser ....................................................................... 381
APPAM SYMPOSIUM Teaching Public Policy: Linking Policy and Politics Lawrence M. Mead ....................................................................................................389
Practice Makes Perfect: Teaching Policy Analysis Through Integrated Client-Based Projects Rachel Meltzer ..........................................................................................................405
Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings: A System Approach Claudia Scott ............................................................................................................433
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis and Improving Public Policy Content Online Donna Lind Infeld and William C. Adams .................................................................445
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators” in Different National Settings Jennifer Oser, Alma Gadot-Perez, and Itzhak Galnoor .................................................461
ARTICLES OF CURRENT INTEREST Organizational Change Skill Acquisition and Change Agency Preparedness in U.S. NASPAA-Accredited MPA Programs Helisse Levine, Nicole J. Christian, and Beverly P. Lyons ..............................................479
Connecting Good Governance Principles to the Public Affairs Curriculum: The Case of Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration Peter Fuseini Haruna and Lawrence Akanweke Kannae ..............................................493
Teaching Grammar and Editing in Public Administration: Lessons Learned From Early Offerings of an Undergraduate Administrative Writing Course Claire Connolly Knox ................................................................................................515
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross-Disciplinary Graduate Programs G. L. A. Harris and Dannelle D. Stevens ....................................................................537
Achieving the Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning: The Nonprofit Perspective Beth Gazley, Teresa A. Bennett, and Laura Littlepage ...................................................559
BOOK REVIEWS Review of Crisis, Disaster, and Risk by Kyle Farmbry Jack Krauskopf ...........................................................................................................581
Cover design by Val Escher. Cover design property of NASPAA. Cover photo: The University of Maryland School of Public Policy is located in Van Munching Hall on the College Park campus.
ii Journal of Public Affairs Education
FROM THE EDITOR—
Teaching Public Affairs in Heraclitus’ World
The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus talked of a world of constant change. He would have been a great teacher and public administrator.
The best teachers are those who constantly innovate, experiment, and under- stand that as the world changes, so too must what they teach and how they teach it. Similarly, the best public administrators are those who recognize that govern- ment must evolve and respond to changing demands and challenges. These chal- lenges may be demographic, economic, political, or perhaps even events such as natural disasters or wars. Governments—to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln—if they are to be by the people, for the people, and of the people, need to be of the people today and not of those long since dead.
Globalization, emergency preparedness, and cross-sector service delivery are perhaps the three most significant ways in which government and public affairs have changed. Globalization has altered the concept of space in public affairs. No longer are local governments isolated entities; instead they, along with nation- states, are linked to one another through trade, banking, and shared concerns. Isolationism is essentially dead. Moreover, this interconnectedness means the rise of global institutions—international corporations, NGOs, and governance structures such as the WTO, the EU, and the IMF—that supplement and often supplant traditional governments.
Emergency response and preparedness have changed how governments operate. It is trite to say now that 9/11 changed everything, but it did. The response to terrorism, both immediate in terms of the emergencies it wrought in New York and Washington, D.C., and then in England and Spain, as well as over the longer term—means that governments are increasingly confronting problems born of security issues. The recent bombings at the Boston Marathon point to this continued concern. But other problems, such as Superstorm Sandy, also have transformed public administration in the sense that emergency preparedness and response are major concerns for all levels of government. Finally, service delivery is no longer the sole province of governments. The rise of contracting out, priva- tization, and public-private or public-nonprofit partnerships has blurred the lines demarking the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. All sectors seem to assume responsibility for service delivery, and traditional public administrators more often than not are now contract managers.
These three trends challenge public administration. But couple them with global austerity, and the result is that governments are operating in a new envi- ronment. This means public administrators must evolve, and so must what is considered to be public affairs and how and what is taught in schools. The
Journal of Public Affairs Education iii
FROM THE EDITOR
concept of change is front and center at NASPAA and JPAE. First, it comes with a new name for NASPAA—the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration—to reflect the global and international focus of the organization as well a broadening of the mandate to address not just public administration, but public policy. As NASPAA has changed, so too does JPAE. While continuing to publish quality scholarship about public affairs teaching in the United States, we also increasingly will seek to incorporate and address teaching issues that include policy issues, and to do both within international, global, and comparative contexts. These changes will make JPAE a better journal with broader audience appeal.
The Summer 2013 issue of JPAE showcases this broader mandate. It begins with a symposium edited by Douglas J. Besharov and Jennifer Oser that brings together articles drawn from a conference hosted by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM). APPAM held a two-day teaching workshop (November 2–3, 2011) in association with the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. In their welcome to the workshop, “Teaching in Today’s Classroom: Policy Analysis, Statistics and Technology in Cross-National Settings,” Besharov and Oser rightly point out that the United States is not the only stage where policy analysis and research take place. Across the globe there are demands to improve service delivery and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of program delivery. In their symposium introduction, the guest editors overview many of the trends and issues surrounding the teaching of policy analysis and research in an international or comparative context.
The guest editors also introduce the articles contained in the symposium: They include “Teaching Public Policy in the Universities,” by Lawrence Mead; “Practice Makes Perfect: Teaching Policy Analysis Through Integrated Client-Based Projects,” by Rachel Meltzer; “Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings: A System Approach,” by Claudia Scott; “Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis and Improving Public Policy Content Online,” by Donna Infeld and William C. Adams; and “Developing Policy Analysis ‘Flight Simulators’ in Different National Settings,” by Jennifer Oser, Itzhak Galnoor, and Alma Gadot-Perez. Each of these articles highlights important trends or issues affecting cross-cultural and global education. All of the articles are stimulating contributions to the broader mission of JPAE to broaden its horizons to include a more global international perspective that also now includes policy analysis.
Beyond the APPAM symposium, this issue also features a wide range of compelling articles. Global political and economic changes since the beginning of the millennium demonstrate that we live in Heraclitus’ world of flux. Public managers need to know how navigate and realign their organizations to be successful in this world, but are NASPAA-accredited schools doing a good job of training students for this task? This is the subject of “Organizational Change Skill Acquisition and Change Agency Preparedness in U.S. NASPAA-Accredited MPA Programs,” by Helisse Levine, Nicole J. Christian, and Beverly P. Lyons.
iv Journal of Public Affairs Education
FROM THE EDITOR
They interviewed public administrators in the New York metropolitan area to identify the skills managers need to be successful leaders of change; then they surveyed NASPAA-accredited MPA programs to see how well they taught these skills. The authors found that barely a quarter of the programs emphasized these skills in their curricula. Their piece concludes with recommendations and obser- vations about what public administration programs should be teaching when it comes to organizational change.
African countries in the past suffered from an array of maladies, including corruption and weak public administration structures. Yet in recent years, many countries have strengthened governance as democracy has improved. Among those countries is Ghana. Peter Fuseini Haruna and Lawrence Akanweke Kannae offer a terrific study of this sub-Saharan country in “Connecting Good Governance Principles to the Public Affairs Curriculum: The Case of Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration.” They describe the role of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), examining how its curriculum integrates unique local and regional conditions with good governance principles advocated by several international entities.
Being able to communicate clearly and concisely is critical to any career, including one in public affairs. But sadly, many people are deficient in this skill. Attention often then is turned to asking why Johnny and Jane cannot write. Claire Connolly Knox explores a specific facet of this question in “Teaching Grammar and Editing in Public Administration: Lessons Learned From Early Offerings of an Undergraduate Administrative Writing Course.” After noting that a career in public administration often requires good technical commun- ication skills, the author then reports on survey results finding that few public affairs programs require undergraduates to take such a course. Knox then describes her experiment with a newly created administrative/technical writing class.
We all know that students benefit from frequent feedback from professors. But what about feedback from students to professors? Generally, student evaluations of teaching take place at the end of the semester, so professors have information on how they did—but certainly not in time to correct any problems during the semester. What if professors received feedback during the term? This is the subject of “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross-Disciplinary Graduate Programs,” by G. L. A. Harris and Dannelle D. Stevens. In this article, the authors report on the effects on classroom instruction of using a midterm student feedback (MSF) survey in the graduate classes of two faculty. They gathered data from 122 students over two years for three courses in six classes. They found that the MSF did help improve student learning and outcomes as a result of teaching adjust- ments. They also found that midterm assessments mitigated the often biased or skewed responses that occur at the end of the term, when students sometimes use final evaluations to vent frustrations. Thus implementation of an MSF might help improve the validity of final evaluations.
Universities are experimenting with various high-impact learning exercises that include service learning, internships, and other field placement and community
Journal of Public Affairs Education v
FROM THE EDITOR
engagement programs. These programs are supposed to benefit students in several ways, but what value do such learning strategies have for the community partners? In “Achieving the Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning: The Nonprofit Perspective,” Beth Gazley, Teresa Bennett, and Laura Littlepage examine this question. Their piece is part of a larger study exploring the willingness of community partners to work with schools to develop meaningful learning activities that will benefit both students and their own organizations. The authors focus on the capacity of community organizations to supervise students and construct programs that serve many goals. They report on what works and what needs to happen to make these experimental learning activities more valuable for all.
This issue of JPAE concludes with Jack Krauskopf ’s review of Crisis, Disaster, and Risk, by Kyle Farmbry. This book is about disasters—and how society and public institutions prepare for and respond to them. Krauskopf describes it as a good and thoughtful book that teaches us how government can learn from diversity.
These articles, the name change, the addition of public policy, and the new environment for the practice and teaching of public affairs all testify to the fact that we live in a world in flux: A world the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus would have embraced.
Two final notes. First, as with every issue, I will ask, have you authored or edited a new or revised book or read a new book that you think should be reviewed in JPAE? We are looking for books of interest to our readers. If you know of such a book, contact me. If I agree it is appropriate for JPAE, we will arrange to secure a copy for you to review.
Second, I too am making a change. Come September, I am moving from the Hamline School of Business to the Political Science Department. This does not mean any changes for JPAE or me as editor in chief. I will again be instructing undergraduates, garnering a new perspective on teaching. I look forward to the opportunity.
— David Schultz Editor in Chief Hamline University [email protected]
David Schultz is Hamline University professor in the School of Business and School of Law. Professor Schultz is a two-time Fulbright Scholar and the author of more than 25 books and 90+ articles on various aspects of American politics, election law, and the media and politics. He is regularly interviewed and quoted on these subjects in the local, national, and international media, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist, and National Public Radio. His most recent book, American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Research, was published in 2012 by Palgrave Macmillan.
vi Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 381
Teaching in Today’s Global Classroom: Policy Analysis
in Cross-National Settings
Douglas J. Besharov School of Public Policy, University of Maryland
Jennifer Oser Annenberg School for Communication,
University of Pennsylvania
Although the center of gravity of policy research and analysis remains in the United States, the rest of the world is rapidly catching up. The same is true for teaching policy analysis and evaluation, which has become a global enterprise. New schools of public policy, or at least new public policy programs, have been established around the world and many more are coming. Although grounded in their home country’s political and programmatic context, these educational programs have much in common, including similar curricula that focus on quantitative methods, program evaluation, and systematic policy analysis. The teaching materials are frequently the same, and in most places, instruction is in English.
The promise of such efforts is great. To the extent that systematic approaches to policy analysis and evaluation lead to better government and private-sector decisions, the result can be better lives for tens of millions of people. One need not look any further than the unprecedented successes when modern analytic tools were applied to the age-old problems of poverty, malnutrition, and poor health in developing countries.
The challenges, however, are many. Around the world, political institutions vary dramatically, so that focusing narrowly on a home country’s political system will not address the needs of students planning to work elsewhere. Teaching about how the committee structure of the U.S. Congress fragments and often stymies decision making, for example, may help students who wish to specialize in U.S. policy, but it is of limited use to students specializing in other political systems. Further, in political systems with less freedom and democracy, it can be
JPAE 19 (3), 381–387
382 Journal of Public Affairs Education
unacceptable (and dangerous) to honestly evaluate current government policy practices. In such cases, templates of policy analysis that emphasize frank critiquing of policies and programs may require substantial modification.
At an interpersonal level, having students from diverse cultural backgrounds in the same classroom requires heightened sensitivity to differing cultural and be- havioral norms. In the United States, for example, students are typically encouraged to be active participants in a classroom discussion, if not debate. In other nations, though, the cultural norm may be to listen and accept what the instructor says.
The result is a growing body of literature on the internationalization of policy instruction—but usually from the fairly narrow perspective of its implications for or in relation to American instructional programs. Over a decade ago, for example, an article in this journal proposed an agenda for strengthening the teaching of public affairs from an international and comparative perspective—to decrease American parochialism and to better understand the United States in context (Klingner & Washington, 2000). In a similar vein, a review of the international activities of American public policy schools at the turn of the century adopted a distinctly American perspective to international outreach and curriculum transform- ation (Devereux & Durning, 2001). Given a general American-centric orientation in policy research and instruction, it is hardly surprising that a main trend identified in a recent systematic review of emerging global Masters of Public Policy programs was an attempt to use normative policy analysis approaches precisely as developed in the United States (Geva-May, Nasi, Turrini, & Scott, 2008).
Recognizing and lamenting this U.S.-oriented bias following a previous APPAM teaching workshop, Fritzen (2008, p. 212) noted, “We in the emerging programs are drawing from the same (often too well-worn) bag of pedagogical tricks,” even though the existing tricks do not necessarily match the changing landscape of worldwide programs of instruction.
To encourage a more global (and modernized) perspective on policy instruction, the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) held a two-day teaching workshop (November 2–3, 2011) in association with the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. The workshop, titled “Teaching in Today’s Classroom: Policy Analysis, Statistics and Technology in Cross-National Settings,” built on APPAM’s prior experience of holding periodic teaching workshops that aim to bring together scholars, instructors, and practitioners to share ideas and resources on policy education that are then communicated to a broader audience (Reingold & O’Hare 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). The workshop featured papers by a diverse group of teachers from around the globe and with expertise in a wide range of subject fields.
Workshop panels explored various topics relevant to today’s increasingly global classrooms. A panel on “Teaching Policy Analysis” included questions of how to incorporate program design principles into the policy curriculum. An international focus was introduced in a panel on “Teaching in Cross-National Classrooms,” which covered topics relevant to non-U.S. classrooms as well as in
D. J. Besharov & J. Oser
Journal of Public Affairs Education 383
American policy programs where student bodies are generally becoming more international in makeup. (Topics covered in this panel included cross-cultural lessons from teaching as a Fulbright Scholar in China, reflections on teaching American students about cross-national governance systems, and insights on adapting American pedagogies for instruction in European policy programs.) A panel on “Using Technology In and Out of the Classroom” included a three- dimensional visualization of curriculum as a tool for quality assessment, student use of web-based platforms (such as Weebly) to publish their policy research and their professional portfolio online, and the use of simulation software for policy modeling. A panel on “Teaching Microeconomics and Statistics” tackled the perennial challenge of teaching these subjects effectively in a compressed professional master’s degree, including a review of pedagogies for promoting active learning in the class- room and a comparison of students’ academic statistical software usage versus employer expectations. Finally, a panel on “Teaching Large Classes in Policy Schools” reviewed lessons learned on how to cover a large amount of material effectively in introductory classes, as well as insights from implementing team-based learning methods in large classrooms.
A select group of five of the papers presented at the workshop are included in this symposium. (All the papers can be found at www.umdcipe.org/conferences/ Classroom/agenda_and_abstracts.html.)
In “Teaching Public Policy: Linking Policy and Politics,” Lawrence Mead of New York University argues for a better integration of policy and political analysis in contemporary policy research and instruction. Drawing on his experience of teaching courses for undergraduate and graduate students, Mead suggests how to model policy instruction more closely on the “actual process of statecraft.” As an example of how policy can influence politics, he discusses how the desire to balance the budget led to procedural changes in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. Conversely, to highlight how politics may influence policy, he describes how, over time, welfare reform became focused on putting welfare mothers to work, instead of on other less popular goals such as encouraging marriage.
In this effort to link policy and politics, Mead places public policy as an academic discipline in clear historical and scholastic context. He sketches the normative versus empirical dimensions of political science and economics, and he connects contemporary policy teaching to its disciplinary roots in the academy. One origin is Aristotle’s discussion of politics as the master science, meaning the pursuit by which a community might achieve the good life. Through his reflections on public policy as an academic discipline, Mead encourages the readers to go beyond the narrowness and scholasticism of so much contemporary policy instruction.
The connection of policy students to clients is an important part of this policy/ politics linkage, according to Rachel Meltzer of the New School’s Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy. In “Practice Makes Perfect: Teaching Policy Analysis through Integrated Client-Based Projects,” she provides an overview of the client orientation of American graduate policy analysis programs,
Teaching in Today’s Global Classroom
384 Journal of Public Affairs Education
concluding that client-oriented courses are often relegated to a single capstone course at the end of the degree. In other words, they tend not to incorporate a client- oriented approach that integrates client-based projects throughout the curriculum.
Following an overview of the “state of the art” in client-oriented instruction, Meltzer illustrates the multiple advantages of a highly client-based approach through an in-depth description of the Milano School’s integrated program. In it, students gain experience in ongoing and diverse settings for practicing the art and craft of real-time policy analysis, learn how to build evidence-based arguments for a range of policy topics, and hone their skills in effectively communicating their analysis both in writing and in oral presentations. We learn how a synergy is created between the instructional benefit for students, the needs of outside clients, and the graduate program’s reputation for excellence among policy analysts and students.
In “Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings: A System Approach,” Claudia Scott of Victoria University of Wellington and The Australia and New Zealand School of Government adds two new dimensions to considering the role of clients in policy instruction. First, Scott’s “system approach” argues that although the dominant orientation in the literature is toward a single client, in practice policy analysts and leaders must consider multiple actors and institutions in order to foster effective policy design. Being cross-national, the course is situated in an executive degree program in the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Neither government follows the American tradition of the role of policy profes- sionals; rather, they follow the Westminster tradition of policy development by a professional service, offering “free and frank” apolitical advice to government.
Given the executive students’ experience as government workers, one of the instructional challenges Scott notes is the need to expose and inspire them to comprehend the broader system in which they can operate effectively—a system beyond the familiar walls of government institutions and relationships. For example, Scott assigns participants the task of completing a policy outcomes matrix in which they are required to include at least one private sector or community sector option among the variety of options that they design and evaluate. In the process of describing her experience in teaching a system approach, Scott reviews a range of tools and methods that can be used to enhance students’ policy analysis skills, including systems mapping, causal mapping, intervention logic, reverse brainstorming, and targeted coaching methods.
A global challenge but also an opportunity in contemporary policy teaching is integrating online resources into classroom instruction. Examples of this integration range from using online courses (e.g., “Coursera”), website construction tools, and a vast range of informational material that is available online. In “Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis and Improving Public Policy Content Online,” Donna Lind Infeld and William C. Adams of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at George Washington University describe how to conduct an integrated online research
D. J. Besharov & J. Oser
Journal of Public Affairs Education 385
and writing assignment. As a dynamic and demanding classroom assignment, they have students edit a Wikipedia entry based on their own policy research paper. Infeld and Adams challenge us to embrace technology and online resources creatively—in ways that support student research, analysis, and teamwork skills beyond classroom walls.
Although online resources in English have a global impact, one of the instruc- tional challenges ahead will be the ongoing development of contextually sensitive pedagogical materials for different cross-national settings. In “Developing Policy Analysis ‘Flight Simulators’ in Different National Settings,” Jennifer Oser, Alma Gadot-Perez, and Itzhak Galnoor review their experience in creating a series of original instructional case studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Federmann School of Public Policy and Government in Israel. Building on Stokes’s (1986) classic analogy of the case method, combined with policy workshops as a “flight simulator,” the authors mine their experience to discuss generalizable lessons for creating policy flight simulators in different cross-national settings. For example, the article identifies the added value of identifying “foundational issues” in a given national context, and front-loading case studies on these topics. In Israel, for example, the topic of values as a basis for policy making (examined through an original case study on efforts to institute a stock market tax) was identified as a foundational issue that merits early attention in a course so that subsequent case studies and analyses can easily reference this topic.
Oser and colleagues include a “Political Strategy Appendix” exercise to accompany policy papers as an example of how contextual pedagogy may lead to an enrichment of materials for policy instruction both within and beyond U.S. borders. The “Flight Simulator” discussion of adapting policy instruction materials in different institutional and political settings comes full circle back to Mead’s contribution: to meaningfully link policy and politics, a global era of policy instruction must increasingly strive to home in on how this linkage may differ in varied national contexts.
These papers, and, for that matter, the entire APPAM workshop, only scratch the surface of what is needed for globalized public policy education in a truly cross-national context. In disciplines like public policy and public affairs, which rely on stages and systems as useful heuristics, adaptation of these heuristics to complex and varied contexts is the key to making this global expansion a meaningful one.
In the longer term, it seems sure that evolving technological capacities will come into play. Many universities throughout the world, for example, are already creating Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which are enrolling tens of thousands of students from around the world for online courses via the Web. With Web-based technologies, will it still be necessary for students (and teachers) to travel thousands of miles to learn (and teach) in the same room? Probably not.
We hope that the articles in this symposium spark further innovation and creativity in the years to come.
Teaching in Today’s Global Classroom
386 Journal of Public Affairs Education
REFERENCES Devereux, E. A., & Durning, D. (2001). Going global? International activities by U.S. schools of
public policy and management to transform public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4), 241–260.
Fritzen, S. A. (2008). Public policy education goes global: A multi-dimensional challenge. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 205–214.
Geva-May, I., Nasi, G., Turrini, A., & Scott, C. (2008). MPP Programs emerging around the world. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 187–204.
Klingner, D. E., & Washington, C. W. (2000). Through the Looking Glass: The benefits of an international and comparative perspective on teaching public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 6(1), 35–44.
Reingold, D., & O’Hare, M. (Eds.). (2008a). Curriculum and case notes [Special section]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 171–214.
Reingold, D., & O’Hare, M. (Eds.). (2008b). Curriculum and case notes [Special section]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(2), 416–448.
Reingold, D., & O’Hare, M. (Eds.). (2008c). Curriculum and case notes [Special section]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(3), 616–686.
Reingold, D., & O’Hare, M. (Eds.). (2008d). Curriculum and case notes [Special section]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 976–1049.
Stokes, D. E. (1986). Political and organizational analysis in the policy curriculum. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(1), 45–55.
D. J. Besharov & J. Oser
Journal of Public Affairs Education 387
Douglas J. Besharov is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, where he teaches courses on poverty, welfare, children and families, policy analysis, program evaluation, and performance management. He is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he leads a program on international policy exchanges. Between 1985 and 2009, he was also a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. Between 1975 and 1979, he was the first director of the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. In 2008, he was president of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) and is currently APPAM’s International Conference Coordinator. He is also director of the University’s Welfare Reform Academy and the Center for International Policy Exchanges. Among his 18 books is Recognizing Child Abuse: A Guide for the Concerned, a book designed to help professionals and laypersons identify and report suspected child abuse. He has written over 250 articles, and has contributed to the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
Jennifer Oser earned her PhD at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Federmann School of Public Policy and Government. She is currently a postdoctoral visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior postdoctoral researcher on a European Research Council project on Democratic Linkages between Citizens and the State. Her fields of research include social policy, political participation, and participatory inequality, and she has taught in courses on policy analysis and organizing at Harvard University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the University of Pennsylvania. E-mail: [email protected].
Teaching in Today’s Global Classroom
388 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 389JPAE 19 (3), 389–403
Teaching Public Policy: Linking Policy and Politics
Lawrence M. Mead New York University
ABSTRACT Policy makers constantly struggle to reconcile policy and politics—to square what they want to do on the merits with what consent requires. Academic research and teaching on public policy, however, have typically separated policy argument from political analysis. Some authors recommend solutions to public problems, whereas others examine the politics of actual policies. I propose a combined conception of policy research and teaching that joins policy analysis and political analysis. This approach links elements of economics and political science to approximate the actual process of statecraft. I also describe how I built courses on public policy for undergraduates and graduate students using this conception and the implications for pedagogy. Unfortunately, academic trends are against such breadth. Research on policy is becoming more specialized and methodological, remote from actual government. Involvement in policy making, however, may draw some scholars toward research and teaching that combines policy and political perspectives.
Keywords: policy analysis, political analysis, economics, political science
The study of public policy has the potential both to improve policy and teach us more about government itself. Aristotle alluded to both potentials when he treated politics as the master science—the pursuit by which a community might achieve the good life (Aristotle, 1962). Leaders were to use governance to realize the good society, but to achieve that they must seriously study the workings of government and politics. In principle, the science of policy and the science of politics were one and the same.
As it has recently developed in America, however, the professional study of policy and the study of politics have diverged. Bringing them back together is the main challenge faced in teaching public policy in the universities. In this paper, I describe why the estrangement has occurred, how it could be overcome, and how to cope with it in the teaching of public policy. The chief obstacle to change is academic over-specialization. I speak on the basis of personal experience teaching in several policy programs,1 and I often illustrate from the policy field I know best —welfare reform.
390 Journal of Public Affairs Education
THE SEPARATION OF POLICY AND POLITICS Political leaders constantly struggle to reconcile policy and politics. That is,
they must somehow square what they want to do with what the political system will allow them to do. What they think is desirable “on the merits” must be reconciled with what they can get accepted by other politicians and then implemented by administrators. Squaring that circle is what statecraft is all about. The past leaders we honor are those who, despite these constraints, managed to institute some major new policy or program, or to surmount some great crisis such as war or depression.
Public policy as an academic field arose in the 1960s because of widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of government, especially at the national level. Washington seemed to cope poorly with recurrent challenges such as military procure- ment and the regulation of the economy, while the domestic budget was riddled with subsidies that seemed unjustified. Economists wielding new analytic tools believed that they could do better, and the national planning offices hired them. Ever since, policy analysis rooted in economics has become a common language for policy argument in Washington (Radin, 1997). Programs to teach these skills arose at leading universities, and today the faculties of those schools comprise much of the membership of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, the leading organization of policy scholars.
As they have developed, however, these programs seldom teach statecraft as officeholders experience it, with policy and politics in constant tension. Rather, research and teaching in the two subjects are largely separate. Policy analysis, or the study of what government should do about public problems, is done and taught mostly by economists; the subjects here include microeconomics and statistics. Studies about politics are done and taught largely by political scientists; the subjects here include the legislative process, implementation, and administration. The first group focuses largely on policy, the second mostly on politics, and neither says much about the other. Thus, ironically, economics tells government what to do while ignoring it, while political science does focus on government but will not tell it what to do. Neither achieves that union of policy and politics that Aristotle imagined.
Each side makes assumptions that effectively exclude the other subject. When discussing policy argument, economists often make the “Model 1” assumption (Allison, 1971), the idea that government consists of a single decision maker, thus eliminating politics as a constraint. That leader’s problem is then entirely one of choice rather than power. Political scientists, for their part, usually disclaim any authority to say what policy should be. To do that would be to second-guess the democratic political process, which they refuse to do. So rather than reason about policy independent of politics, they often assume that the outcome of a democratic process is by definition optimal (Nelson, 1977). In practice, each discipline admits the need for the other. Economists, after dominating the early curricula of the policy schools, came to accept the need for more courses about politics and implementation, because these subjects were so important in the real world.
L. M. Mead
Journal of Public Affairs Education 391
But in theory, policy and politics are still approached differently and usually taught by different scholars.
Some will say that policy analysis and political analysis are not really separate. Don’t texts in public policy cover both? True, general texts about policy say some- thing about both subjects, but the relative emphasis differs sharply depending on authorship.2 Texts written by economists focus mostly on how to optimize policy using such tools as cost-benefit analysis or program evaluation. The policy process is treated as secondary, to be modeled with other economic concepts such as rational choice or the Arrow paradox (e.g., Munger, 2000; Wheelan, 2011). Conversely, texts written by political scientists chiefly describe the evolution of policy in areas such as economic management, education, or social welfare. Policy analysis either gets limited attention or is treated as part of the policy process (e.g., Cochran et al., 2011; Dye, 2011).3 Texts focused on just analysis or just process are, of course, even more specialized.
The separation of policy and politics weakens the public policy field. Arguments for best policy that ignore institutional constraints are often stillborn: Congress ignores them, or the bureaucracy cannot implement them. That, for instance, was the fate of the early proposals for welfare reform that economists drafted in the 1960s and 1970s. These plans would have guaranteed all poor a minimum income. However, Congress focused instead on getting welfare recipients to work, and this was the goal that dominated welfare reform in the 1980s and 1990s. One reason many economists opposed enforcing work in welfare was that they did not appre- ciate how popular this was, and they knew little about how work programs operate. Work-based reform succeeded because it cut with the grain of the institutions, as the earlier proposals had not (Mead, 2005a, 2005b).
Equally, research on the politics of policy lacks a wide audience because it usually makes no argument for best policy. Few other than academic specialists will be interested in the political analysis of issues unless it is linked to some serious proposal for change. Only then are policy and politics joined in the way that successful statecraft requires. Only then does the researcher sit in the same seat as the policy maker, seeking to reconcile the optimal with the politic.
POLICY AND POLITICS: A COMBINED APPROACH Far better would be a combined approach to public policy research and
teaching that brings policy and politics together. Scholars should first argue how to solve a public problem “on the merits,” that is, on a policy analytic basis and without concessions to politics. They should then go on to discuss impediments that might arise from the legislative or administrative process, and how these might be handled. In fact, they should forecast the tension between policy argument and politics that policy makers would face if they espoused these proposals in office (Mead, 1995).
But are not policy and politics separate subjects? I think not, and here is why. Policy and politics each provides a critical perspective on the other. When we talk
Teaching Public Policy
392 Journal of Public Affairs Education
about any policy issue, we may discuss either the merits or the politics of what to do. These subjects can seem to be distinct, but they are really different facets of the same problem (Mead, 1983, 1985). Consider the following model:
Policy Politics
In analyzing policy, one makes an argument for a preferred course of action initially on the merits, without attention to the politics. But having done that, one should go on to consider whether the political system can approve and implement such a policy. Those factors begin as elements of policy analytic arguments for or against various options, but they also generate a different perspective. If government cannot “do the right thing,” as is often the case, that may suggest that the political process be changed, so that outcomes improve.
As one example, changes in congressional procedure were essential to the bal- ancing of the budget that was achieved—all too briefly—in the late 1990s. In the 1980s, partisan disagreements made it difficult to agree on spending cuts or tax increases to cut the deficit. But because public pressure to reduce the red ink was strong, the parties finally did agree on procedures that at least forced spending and revenues into better alignment. Under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, limits were placed on discretionary spending, and changes in entitlements or taxes required offsets so that the deficit did not expand. Here policy analysis provides arguments to change politics.
Equally, political analysis can provide perspective on policy. Goals that are sufficiently difficult to achieve politically may finally call policy argument into question. If there is no way to do what we want, then we must choose something more feasible. Aaron Wildavsky argued that we often do not choose ends and then go looking for means, as classical economic policy analysis supposes. Rather, we first see what things government can do and then choose our ends from among them (Wildavsky, 1979). So political analysis reshapes policy analysis:
Policy Politics
As one example, welfare reform focused on putting welfare mothers to work because evaluations showed that this was something government could achieve. Another goal that reform might have had—restoring marriage so that fewer families became headed by females—was deemphasized because it was much less popular than enforcing work, and programs able to achieve it had not appeared. Rhetorically, welfare reformers lauded marriage as the solution to poverty, but they made no serious attempt to enforce it as they did work. Government could handle the work goal, whereas marriage was beyond it.
Academically, the study of policy and the study of politics can seem like ships passing in the night. But in the actual practice of government, they are as closely tied as brothers. It is too simple to say that a policy argument succeeds or not, or that the politics prefers one option or another. Either studied in isolation misses the crucial interaction between them. Policy argument and actual politics are not separate but merged in a high-level systems analysis. Faced with any serious
L. M. Mead
Journal of Public Affairs Education 393
problem, policy makers keep trying out various courses of action to see what works but also what has support. Whatever they do has to be justifiable to them on the merits, but it also has to be persuasive to other actors. Statecraft requires that policy satisfy both priorities.
Note that the political side of policy reasoning extends beyond the legislative arena to include implementation. Bureaucracy and federalism are among the constraints on what policy makers may choose to do. In recent decades, public administration has often been a forgotten subject in political science (Frederickson, 1999). One good effect of linking policy and political analysis more closely is to restore administration as a central subject of policy research.
The history of any policy area shows a constant jockeying between innovative ideas and a search for consent, between ends and means. In the welfare area, policy making went through several stages of controversy, enactment, implementation, and renewed controversy from the 1960s through the 1990s, each cycle generating the issues for the next (Mead, 2002). Policy and the politics must be made consistent, and only when they are does the ferment cease. That is the process that public policy research and teaching should seek to capture, and only the combined con- ception can do it.
Another way to put this is that policies are not really chosen in isolation from the institutions, as orthodox policy analysis assumes. Rather, options and the arrangements for them must be chosen together. To be effective, programs must have a persuasive rationale and be embedded in a supportive legislative and admin- istrative setting (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009). In choosing some new policy, one also chooses a regime for that program, and perhaps others. That is especially true of major structural changes. Reforms in bureaucratic organization or in intergovern- mental relations, for instance, will affect policies in many areas. Such restructuring amounts to “metapolicymaking” (Dror, 1968; Gormley, 1987).
Even where texts in public policy devote attention to both policy analysis and political analysis, they fail to capture the intimate connection between them. The two subjects appear as separate worlds, when they are really two sides of the same coin. The texts do not consider that political constraints should really be part of policy argument or that the policy-making process can sharply limit what best policy means. And in research on public policy, there is even less sense of policy and politics shaping and reshaping each other. Typically, the usual division prevails where economists recommend best policy while political scientists explain what government actually does. In class, I use as exemplars the few authors who manage to reason in both ways (see below), but they are rare.
DIMENSIONS OF POLICY AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS To encompass both policy and politics, scholars of public policy can draw on
the complexity of their own disciplines, which is greater than many perceive. Both economics and political science have normative elements that support arguments for policies on the merits, and each has descriptive or “positive” elements that help
Teaching Public Policy
394 Journal of Public Affairs Education
to describe actual policy making. In each discipline, even the constructs that scholars take to be positive also have evaluative overtones. For example, economists use the construct of the competitive market to analyze the private sector, but that model also states an ideal that actual markets never perfectly achieve. Similarly, political scientists assume that countries with elected governments are democratic, but democracy is also an ideal that actual politics only approaches. Many of the ideas in social science are “ideal types” in Max Weber’s sense—conceptions that are simultaneously real and ideal. This normative content is underappreciated in today’s academe (MacRae, 1976).
Figure 1 displays the normative and empirical dimensions of political science and economics. Like social science in general, each discipline seeks to account for reality, but each also states a social ideal. The deepest difference between the two is that economics conceives of action in terms of individuals who optimize their utilities, while political science focuses chiefly on collective action aimed at a social good. That difference has endured even as economic or “rational choice” models of behavior have become prominent in political science, as in other social sciences (Stone, 2002).
Figure 1. Dimensions of Policy and Political Analysis
Normative
Politics
Descriptive
C ol
le ct
iv e
ac ti
on /i
n fl
u en
ce
In dividu
al action /op
tim ization
Po l i t i c a l A r g u m e n t
Orthodox political science Public administration
Positive economics
Policy
Welfare economy Economic policy analysis
Political theory Ethics
P o
li ti
ca l
S ci
en ce
E co
n o
m ics
S o c i a l S c i e n c e
L. M. Mead
Journal of Public Affairs Education 395
The combined conception, covering both policy and the politics of issues, draws mostly on the normative side of economics and the descriptive side of polit- ical science. These two poles, which are linked in Figure 1, form the chief basis for a combined study of public policy. These are the dimensions that, when yoked together, come the closest to capturing the actual process of statecraft—the struggle to square the optimal with the politic. Of course there will be issues where values other than economic maximization will state the goals of policy, and here political theory is of use. And there will be issues where the relevant behavior is market- oriented, and here the positive side of economics will come into play.
However, in general, public policy research should be based on economic policy analysis linked to the political science of policy making. The most convincing research will combine a persuasive argument for dealing with some important issue with a thorough discussion of the institutional context. The combined approach teaches us something about the issue, and it is also a contribution to the science of govern- ment. Analyzing policy-making capacity against the ideal of some desired policy teaches us something new about the nature and potential of our regime. Again to cite welfare, the difficulty of enforcing work in welfare highlighted the fixation of American political culture on freedom rather than order as a central value (Mead, 1986). The states that performed best at reform were those, like Wisconsin, where a moralistic culture made them able to enforce good behavior despite our freedom- loving politics (Mead, 2004).
TEACHING UNDERGRADUATES In teaching public policy to undergraduates, I follow this combined approach.
I first describe the policy process, because first-level courses on American govern- ment typically focus on this. The subjects here include the legislative process in Congress but also bureaucracy and intergovernmental relations. I then discuss policy analysis, beginning with the economic theory of government’s functions (based on the idea of market failure) and move on to the logic of choice—the idea of posing a policy problem, defining options for solving it, forecasting the consequences of each, and choosing the best. I cover budgeting because it combines elements of policy argument and process in a dramatic fashion. Lastly, I cover selected topics in federal domestic policy, such as education or health care, showing in each case how policy argument and political conditions have interacted to shape current programs.
On entering a course like this, undergraduates typically know more about politics than policy. Their earlier coursework in American government typically centered on elections and the policy-making process, not on policy outcomes. They have also been schooled in a cynical view of government by the media and the Web. Journalists typically interpret officeholders’ behavior as a search for personal political advantage. To teach the combined conception, then, one must convince students that many decisions in Washington aren’t political in this crass
Teaching Public Policy
396 Journal of Public Affairs Education
sense. Our leaders do not always do what serves immediate interests, but what they genuinely believe is right on the merits. That their stances are sincere may not be apparent, especially in recent decades when the political parties have become more polarized, leading to recent impasses over the budget deficit and the national debt.
However, as close observers of national politics know, arguments on the merits still carry considerable weight inside the Beltway. Policy-making demands moral arguments, not just appeals to self-interest (Kelman, 1987). Even if party ideo- logy sets the broad outlines of initiatives, some programs grow and flourish because a practical case can be made for them, rather than because they are orthodox ideologically. Examples in social policy include the expansion of early childhood programming and welfare work programs; in each case, positive evaluation findings suggested that clients gained in employment and income, among other good out- comes. Other programs were abolished or cut back because they did not evaluate well—such as the public jobs programs of the 1970s or voluntary training programs for adult workers. The movement in the 1970s and 1980s to deregulate the airlines and several other industries was led by economists who argued for decontrol on the merits. That idea triumphed despite the opposition of airline companies and labor unions (Breyer, 1982; Derthick & Quirk, 1985).
The current partisan polarization in Washington does not make policy making more political in the cynical sense of promoting payoffs to favored interests. In fact, due to the deficit and debt, pork barrel spending has been squeezed. Rather, the parties represent opposed visions for government that they pursue even at the expense of gridlock (Mann & Ornstein, 2006, 2012). Both sides are principled. Both give general rationales for these views. The long-term trend is toward a more intellectual politics where ideas matter more and material interests less (Landy and Levin, 1995; Wilson 1995, 2003).
The centerpiece of my undergraduate course is a special project where I chal- lenge the class to solve some major national problem, such as Social Security reform or illegal immigration. Broken up into small groups, the students must go through the logic of choice— defining the problem, setting out options for addressing it, then arguing for their preference on the merits. They must then go on to address political and bureaucratic constraints, adjusting their plan to take account of them. In these steps, they make use of skills and concepts learned earlier in the course. Finally, they must communicate all this in a 30-minute presentation to the class. The exercise is demanding, but students say that it teaches them more about actual policy making than anything else in the course. It brings home to them the dilemmas faced in actual policy making.
TEACHING GRADUATE STUDENTS My graduate seminar on public policy serves Masters students in political science
and PhD students in public policy. Like the undergraduate course, it follows the combined approach but is more theoretical and academic in tone. Here I begin with policy analysis because the assumptions of orthodox economic analysis also
L. M. Mead
Journal of Public Affairs Education 397
are used in some of the theories of the policy process that follow. I also give more emphasis to debates among experts. On policy analysis, I contrast the orthodox treatments of economists such as Munger (2000) or Weimer and Vining (1999) with the criticism of Stone (2002), which comes out of political theory. On political process, I contrast interpretations that use rational choice assumptions, such as those of Olson (1971) or Moe (1984), with interpretations that assert a more complex psychology, such as those of Simon (1976) or Wilson (1995).
As so often happens in social science, theories differ mainly because of the divergent assumptions they make about human nature. One reason why Allison (1971) is so useful in teaching is that he applies different assumptions to the same case study—the Cuban missile crisis—and shows the difference this makes in one’s views of events. To assume that officials calculate what to do as individual optimi- zers leads to quite different expectations about policy making than if they are thought to follow bureaucratic routines or engage in internal power struggles.
Students’ resistance to the combined conception is quite different at the graduate level compared to the undergraduate. Many graduate students are working in govern- ment or nonprofit organizations where they already deal with policy professionally. They are often well versed in the arguments for or against the programs in which they are involved. But because they are relatively junior, they usually know less about the politics of these programs than senior officials who are more engaged in legislative or funding decisions. Or they may not accept that political or admini– strative constraints should set the limits on these programs that they do. The idea of trading off policy against political considerations is new.
The second half of the course features examples of research that illustrate the combined approach. The list is short, just because economics and political science treatment of issues have so often been separated. Among the authors I have assigned are Bok (2001) on government performance, Kosar (2005) on federal educational standards, Schick (2007) on federal budgeting, Tough (2008) on the Harlem Children’s Zone, and Whitman (2008) on charter schools. I also have assigned some of my own research when it was in draft (Mead, 2004, 2011). If practicable, I invite the authors of these studies to visit the class to explain how they did their research and answer questions. Often, what the authors discuss is the same tension between policy innovation and institutional constraint that pervades statecraft. Their accounts bring that process alive, and students are strongly appreciative.
Finally, students write papers on topics of their choice where they try to inte- grate policy and political analysis. Typically, they choose an issue they already know something about. Often, this is something in housing or health, because many students work in these fields in New York. But now they have to argue for their preferred course of action using both policy and political arguments, something they usually have never done before. Typically, they find it more difficult to get information on the politics of an issue than on the merits, where evaluations and academic studies are often available. Legislative hearings are often an excellent source, because these tend to bring out a variety of arguments for and against
Teaching Public Policy
398 Journal of Public Affairs Education
proposals, both on the merits and politically. Given the other demands of the course —which also includes midterm and final examinations—I do not expect these papers to be exhaustive. However, for some students they have become the germ of their eventual MA theses or doctoral dissertations.
EFFECTS ON PEDAGOGY Programs of study in public policy should ideally reflect the combined concep-
tion. First-level courses should explicitly relate policy and political analysis, as in my courses. Not every course needs to do this. Upper-level courses might focus only on more advanced subjects in either policy analysis or institutions, such as cost-benefit analysis or public management. In existing policy programs, many courses already are specialized like this. To keep them is also realistic, in that many faculty members teaching these courses are already committed to economic or political approaches to their subjects.
An explicit linkage of policy and political reasoning, however, should return at the end of a program. Two ways to do this are to require a seminar for advanced students or a “capstone” project that students perform for outside clients. In the seminar, students should choose subjects for papers that require some trade-off between optimal outcomes and what the institutions can deliver, as in the last section of my graduate course. In capstone projects, students address some problem faced by a public or nonprofit agency, and in presenting options they will quite naturally have to blend substantive with political considerations. In these efforts, students would apply skills in policy or political argument that they have devel- oped in earlier coursework.
By stressing the combined idea at the beginning and end of policy study, programs can be more integrated, giving students a better overview of the purpose and use of what they are learning. Instructors teaching the integrated courses should endorse that emphasis. Less change needs to be expected of faculty members teaching more specialized courses.
OBSTACLES IN ACADEME The main strength of this conception of public policy research is also its main
weakness—breadth. The idea of bringing policy and political analysis closer to- gether does make the academic study of policy making more realistic and useful in the real world. Such study is more likely to gain influence and contribute to the understanding of both policy and government.
However, it presumes that scholars can be proficient in both policy and political argument. They have to know something about the concepts and methods of each, which is a tall order. Moreover, in this conception, to know the institutional con- text of policy is so important that experience in government is also highly desirable. It is only by working in some policy area in or around government that one learns the program structure in that area in depth. A limitation of many of today’s policy scholars is that they have no government experience, nor does their research—
L. M. Mead
Journal of Public Affairs Education 399
done largely on computers—bring them into contact with the actual government programs. Unusually, most of my own ideas for welfare reform came out of my own experience working in the federal government and then doing field research on welfare work programs in the 1970s.
So to do the sort of policy research I recommend, one really needs three educations—in policy analysis, in political analysis, and in government. That is so demanding that, perhaps, only fairly senior scholars will be able to do it. They will have learned one academic subject in graduate school, perhaps another on the job, and picked up government experience along the way. To seek such breadth is quite contrary to standard academic incentives. Junior academics typically have to specialize early in order to get through graduate school quickly and generate the publications needed to get an academic appointment and then tenure. Most such scholars will emerge too specialized to bring policy and politics together as I recommend. It is no accident that, among the authors mentioned above as having done combined policy research, none is an economist and only Kosar and Schick are political scientists. Two—Tough and Whitman— are journalists, and Bok was trained as a lawyer. Those backgrounds freed them to write more comprehensively about their issues than is now usually possible in academe.
Of course some economists and other academics serve for short periods as poli- tical appointees in government. Recent examples from the Obama administration include the economists Christina Romer or Lawrence Summers. But this experience promotes the combined conception only if scholars then build policy issues into their academic work. One case where service in Washington clearly promoted effec- tive policy research is Steven Kelman’s work on government procurement (Kelman, 1990, 2005). Both before and after their time in office, however, many professors continue to pursue academic subjects that have little connection to government.
Unfortunately, academic trends are toward more specialization rather than less. When the ambition to solve public problems with academic methods first arose in the postwar era, Harold Lasswell advocated a form of “policy sciences” in which scholars from various disciplines would adopt a “problem orientation” and advise government about its challenges (Lerner & Lasswell, 1951). But the concept was too amorphous to permit the rigor that academia was coming to demand, so it never caught on. Economics and political science went their separate ways, each operating on different assumptions. Although it is still possible to see the two disci- plines as complementary, as I have suggested, to do this has become unorthodox in academe.
In recent decades, both disciplines have become still more fragmented and ingrown—what I call scholastic. They focus on academic specialties rather than making broad arguments about public problems. Economics has become noted for complex mathematical modeling. In political science, scholars pursue ever- narrower subjects, with much more attention to methodology and the academic literature than they did a generation ago. They are writing mostly for other spec- ialists like themselves, not for political science in general, let alone policy makers
Teaching Public Policy
400 Journal of Public Affairs Education
or the public. Their goal is to construct models that are sophisticated, and of which an exact account can be given, whether or not they are realistic. That usually requires that the evidence consulted be narrowed and simplified, often to a single database. The focus on rigor has leached much of the realism and empirical content out of research (Mead, 2010).
“Policy” research by economists today typically involves statistical analysis of some database about social and economic conditions. In view of the findings, analysts then recommend some change in public policy. But the research is usually all about the conditions, not the policies. There is seldom much governmental content— meaning concrete information about government’s existing programs. Insight into how these programs work and how they might work better is scant. In fact, most “policy” research is no longer about government at all, but about society. Hence, policy makers are unlikely to give it much notice.
Especially, there is little institutional content—little sense of the political and administrative structures that in fact embody what public policy means in the real world. Largely, “policy” means some input to a model on a computer screen. Researchers seldom leave their computers to apprehend what a program means in its actual setting. To do that requires doing documentary research or field inter- viewing—what I call laying hands on the institutions. Such methods are realistic and robust. They are essential for building convincing arguments for programs, as the combined conception imagines. But they lack the precision and rigor possible with statistical models, so they have less standing in academe (Mead, 2005b).
Among political scientists, scholasticism has debased governmental content in a different way. Political scientists who specialize in “public policy” are actually little different from others who ignore policy. They study some dimension of the policy-making process, but not policy itself. Their ambition is to model that process as rigorously as possible, but they usually have nothing to say about the merits of policy, which is the outcome (e.g., Goggin, Bowman, Lester, & O’Toole, 1990; Sabatier, 1999). Research like this says too little about government performance to interest policy makers (Rogers, 1989; Palumbo, 1992). Political science, thus, is even further away from supporting serious policy arguments than it used to be. The promise of a discipline that could capture the process of statecraft has been lost.
CONCLUSION A combined form of research, linking policy and political analysis, should be
the basis of university education in public policy. That approach conveys to students more of the actual nature of policy making than narrower, disciplinary perspectives. However, scholastic trends in the key disciplines discourage the breadth that this sort of reasoning requires. That may mean simply that little such work is done. Few scholars today may have the ability or the desire to do it.
A more hopeful outcome would be for policy research itself to counter trends toward narrowness in academe. Despite scholasticism, policy problems remain compelling to many academics. Some serve in government out of their desire to
L. M. Mead
Journal of Public Affairs Education 401
address these issues. Although many who do so are little affected as scholars, that experience does tend to promote broader interests. Policy problems in their nature are many-sided. They demand attention from more perspectives than the more artificial questions nurtured in academe. The hope is that, after grappling with statecraft, scholars will take a broader agenda back to the university. Thus the hope for a master science endures.
FOOTNOTES 1 These programs included the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, the Woodrow Wilson
School at Princeton, and the La Follette Institute at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. At New York University, I teach in the Politics Department but draw many students from the Wagner School, NYU’s policy program. I have found the difficulties in combining policy and political studies to be essentially the same in all these schools.
2 This informal survey is based on general texts in public policy that I know personally—that is, those purporting to cover the whole subject, rather than just policy analysis or just the policy- making process.
3 I have found only one general text that gives policy and process something like equal weight— Kraft and Furlong, 2013.
REFERENCES
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. New York, NY: Norton.
Aristotle. Politics (trans. Earnest Barker, 1962). New York, NY: Oxford.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bok, D. (2001). The trouble with government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Breyer, S. (1982). Regulation and its reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., Cayer, N. J., McKenzie, M., and Peck, L. R. (2012). American public policy: An introduction. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Derthick, M., & Quirk, P. J. (1985). The politics of deregulation. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Dror, Y. (1968). Public policymaking reexamined. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing.
Dye, T. R. (2011). Understanding public policy (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Longman.
Frederickson, H. G. (1999). The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32(4), 701–711.
Goggin, M., Bowman, A. O’M., Lester, J. P., & O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Teaching Public Policy
402 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Gormley, W. T., Jr. (1987). Institutional policy analysis: A critical review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(2), 153–169.
Kelman, S. (1987). Making public policy: A hopeful view of American government. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kelman, S. (1990). Procurement and public management: The fear of discretion and the quality of government performance. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in government. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Kosar, K. R. (2005) Failing grades: The federal politics of education standards. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner.
Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2013). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (4th ed.) Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Landy, M. K., & Levin, M. A. (Eds.). (1995). The new politics of public policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lerner, D., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
MacRae, D., Jr. (1976). The social function of social science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2006). The broken branch: How Congress is failing America and how to get it back on track. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N.J. (2012). It’s even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mead, L. M. (1983). A meaning for “public policy.” Policy Studies Journal, 12(2), 247–250.
———. (1985). Policy studies and political science. Policy Studies Review, 5(2), 319–335.
———. (1986). Beyond entitlement: The social obligations of citizenship. New York, NY: Free Press.
———. (1995). Public policy: Vision, potential, limits. Policy Currents, 5, 1–4.
———. (2002). Welfare reform: Recent policy and politics. Review of Policy Research, 19(1), 204–237.
———. (2004). Government matters: Welfare reform in Wisconsin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. (2005a). Research and welfare reform. Review of Policy Research, 22(3), 401–421.
———. (2005b). Policy research: The field dimension. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 35–57.
———. (2010). Scholasticism in political science. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 453–464.
———. (2011). Expanding work programs for poor men. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.
Munger, M. C. (2000). Analyzing policy: Choices, conflicts, and practices. New York, NY: Norton.
L. M. Mead
Journal of Public Affairs Education 403
Nelson, R. R. (1977). The moon and the ghetto. New York, NY: Norton.
Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Palumbo, D. J. (1992). Bucking the tide: Policy studies in political science, 1978–1988. In W. N. Dunn & R. M. Kelly (Eds.), Policy studies review annual: Advances in policy studies since 1950 (Vol. 10, pp. 59–80). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Radin, B. A. (1997). Presidential address: The evolution of the policy analysis field: From conversation to conversations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(2), 204–218.
Rogers, J. M. (1989). Social science disciplines and policy research: The case of political science. Policy Studies Review, 9(1), 13–28.
Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Schick, A. (2007). The federal budget: Politics, policy, process (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
Tough, P. (2008). Whatever it takes: Geoffrey Canada’s quest to change Harlem and America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1999). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wheelan, C. (2011). Introduction to public policy. New York, NY: Norton.
Whitman, D. (2008). Sweating the small stuff: Inner-city schools and the new paternalism Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Wilson, J. Q. (1995). Political organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. (2003). Reflections on the political context. In H. J. Aaron, J. M. Lindsay, & P. S. Nivola (Eds.), Agenda for the nation (pp. 527–549). Washington, DC: Brookings.
Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Lawrence M. Mead is professor of politics and public policy at New York University. He is an expert on the problems of poverty and welfare in the United States. Among academics, he was the principal exponent of work requirements in welfare, the approach that now dominates national policy. He is a leading scholar of the politics and implementation of welfare reform and also of work programs for men.
Teaching Public Policy
404 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 405
Practice Makes Perfect: Teaching Policy Analysis Through Integrated
Client-Based Projects
Rachel Meltzer Milano School of International Affairs,
Management, and Urban Policy at The New School
ABSTRACT The role of the client in policy analysis has been shifting in the professional field and in academia. In this paper, I reflect on the client orientation of graduate studies in policy analysis. I propose a framework for teaching policy analysis that relies on theoretical foundations but also uses integrated practical application and client-oriented learning throughout the master’s curriculum. I then illustrate the framework’s application through a sample of highly client-integrated graduate programs in public affairs, focusing particularly on the policy analysis curriculum at The New School’s Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy. Evidence suggests that an integrated and continuous client-based approach is the exception; most schools with a client component relegate it to a single capstone at the end of the degree, and few publicize the client work as central to the program. Through a continuous client-based approach, students get repeated practice at real-time policy analysis, learn how to adeptly construct an evidence- based and coherent argument for a variety of issues, and explore ways to confidently communicate their analysis and recommendations succinctly and persuasively in written and verbal form. The integrated client-based curriculum creates value not only for the students, but for the outside clients and the school overall.
Keywords: policy analysis, client-based curriculum, theory and practice
The role of the client in policy analysis has changed dramatically over the past few decades. Some propose that this is due to a shift away from “top-rung” and centralized decision-making power toward a more horizontal and dispersed bargain- ing process where client interests are less obvious (Radin, 2012). Other perspectives suggest that it is directly linked to the nature of graduate training in the field, which
JPAE 19 (3),405–431
406 Journal of Public Affairs Education
has moved away from emphasizing the centrality of the client. Weimer and Vining (2011) distinguish between policy research and policy analysis, where traditionally the latter stresses the importance of client interests and decision-making power (see also Behn, 1985; Weimer, 2012). Behn asserts, “If you do not have a client, you are not doing policy analysis” (1985, p. 428). According to Radin (2012), this distinction has become less and less clear, and it is in no small part due to the pedagogical and research activities at universities. The intent of this paper is not to explain (or verify) the shift away from client-based approaches, but I raise it as an important point of reference for the analysis that follows. Although client- based projects are not new to (nor are they entirely absent from) graduate policy programs, the intensity of their application is variable and increasingly relegated to single capstone experiences. What is the role of the client in policy graduate studies, and how can a school integrate the client effectively into the core curriculum? A number of public affairs programs in the United States have made more dynamic and central the role of client-based work in their curricula, and here I showcase these approaches with the hopes of informing policy studies more broadly.
In this paper, I propose a framework for teaching policy analysis that relies on theoretical foundations, but continuously integrates practical application and client-oriented learning. I then illustrate the framework’s application through the policy analysis curricula at a sample of highly client-integrated policy graduate programs. I present a case study of one particular program at The New School’s Milano School for International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy (herein referred to as Milano). Although to slightly different degrees, these integrated programs require students to take a sequence of two or three courses that repeatedly ask them to apply and develop timely and robust policy analysis in both “live” and simulated client-based scenarios. These scenarios vary in their time intensity, topic area, and individual versus collective responsibility. At Milano, in particular, the analytical application is rooted in formal theoretical foundations. Based on a survey of policy analysis offerings at graduate programs in public affairs across the country, the integrated and continuous client-based approach seems to be the exception; most schools with a client component incorporate it into a single capstone event at the end of the degree, and few publicize the client work as central to the program.
The views and observations presented in this paper emerge primarily out of my personal experience in teaching and reflecting on a long-standing client-based curriculum at Milano. I also collect information on public affairs graduate programs across the United States and draw on survey data and anecdotes from students and clients involved in the Milano curriculum. In sum, I make the case that an effective policy analysis curriculum relies on a combination of critical and found- ational theory, repeated application of theory to practice, time-sensitive contexts, and both team and individual client-based work. Together, this coursework provides students with a rigorous analytical framework for tackling complex policy and management issues (of any topic) pertaining to the public and nonprofit sectors.
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 407
Further, students learn how to communicate their analysis and recommendations clearly, succinctly, and persuasively in written and verbal form. Students can find internships and full-time positions, thanks to their contacts from the client-based work and to the quality memos and reports they produce for their job market port- folios. In addition, an integrated client-based pedagogical approach creates value for the students as well as for outside clients and the school overall.
WHAT SHOULD A THEORY-PRACTICE CURRICULUM LOOK LIKE? Weimer and Vining define policy analysis as “client-oriented advice relevant
to public decisions and informed by social values” (2011, p. 24). The question at hand is driven by a client, rather than inspired by the analyst or researcher; and policy analysis, unlike policy research, is characterized by time and resource constraints (Weimer & Vining, 2011). This approach is consistent with Flyvbjerg’s praxis- oriented (rather than theory-focused) phronetic model of social science, where the analyst’s task is problem driven and informs public deliberation and decision making (2005). Here, I adapt these descriptions to consider policy analysis more broadly as a technical decision-making tool that guides the assessment of various options in the face of social, institutional, and economic constraints. This tool can be implemented in the public sphere, but it is also transferrable to private settings such as organizations. In general, a policy analysis framework should rely on evidence (whether it be quantitative or qualitative, large scale or anecdotal) to make reasoned choices across a range of options.
Core competencies for a graduate degree in policy analysis can be categorized into two areas: topical and technical. Students should leave a graduate program with a strong grasp of a particular policy area and a solid foundation of analytical skills. Any policy analysis curriculum falls into the latter area—it is a process through which students learn decision-making tools and master how to use them in actual policy-making settings. And the nature of these settings is somewhat irrelevant; that is, policy making can occur in government (at any level), informally among local communities, and even in private organizations. In fact, the less attached the technical skills are to the context, the more generalizable the method to various policy issues.
If the primary goal of a policy analysis curriculum is to teach students how to analyze policy issues systematically and rigorously (in essence, the decision- making model), the (close) secondary goal is to teach them how to present their analysis and recommendations. The rigor and completeness of the analysis does little good if analysts cannot present their process and results clearly, concisely, and confidently. Moreover, it is not merely the quality of the results, but the quantity of time or space it takes to explain them. The reality of policy analysis and real-time decision making is that it often does not allow for much time (or other resources). Therefore, students should be instructed on how to present their analysis within very real and binding constraints, whether they be resource- based or information-based.
Practice Makes Perfect
408 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Strong Theoretical Foundations Even though policy analysis is very much an applied tool, it is rooted in theories
of decision making (i.e., Lasswell, 1971; Meltsner, 1976; Stokey & Zeckhauser, 1979). These theories typically offer a set of principles to guide the systematic consideration of policy problems and their potential solutions. Theory gives the students a historical and conceptual foundation for the analytical and decision- making methods. It also serves as a tool to “systematically organize knowledge” (Miller, 1997, p. 363) that, if used practically and actively, can render complex systems and issues analytically manageable. It is the equivalent of showing the derivation of the standard error calculation before teaching students how to use it in inferential analysis. As professional analysts (whatever form this role might take), the graduates of a master’s program should not only understand how to implement a tool, but know what its origins are as well. What is the theoretical motivation behind one analytical approach over another?
Central to the “theory” conversation is acknowledgment of the (often rigid) assumptions underlying the model. Rather than being taught as gospel, the assump- tions—and the models more generally—should be presented as guidelines or templates for analysis. This point is often illustrated by comparing various decision- making models, rather than focusing on a single approach. The simplicity of the models is presented as a tool for organizing one’s thoughts (something that is hugely helpful when addressing complex, multidimensional policy issues) and not necessarily as an accurate and sufficient reflection of real processes. Perhaps most important, in-class “theory” conversations provide a space for critical thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of an analytic tool and engage students in the dialogue of what is effective policy analysis.
Application of Theory to Practice The next challenge is linking, in a convincing way, the theoretical assumptions
and models to actual practice. Here, practice is construed in two ways. First, practice refers to application: taking the theory, or the model, and using it on actual “data” (in this case, policy issues and the quantitative and qualitative data that comprises the analytical evidence). Application can be both simulated and “live,” and an effective learning process should include both. Simulated applications provide students with the opportunity to falter without severe consequences; this is important for the reflective part of the process as well as the ego. Vining and Weimer aptly name these learning experiences “sheltered workshops” (2002, p. 703). Live applications (i.e., real-time problem solving), on the other hand, provide students with the opportunity to perform under actual pressures and constraints; this is important for assuring skill relevance beyond the graduate school context. This is where the client experience fits in because, for the policy analyst, the client is theoretically the purveyor of these issues, pressures, and constraints (Lynn, 1980; Meltsner, 1976; Moore, 1983; Szanton 1981). The client-based curriculum serves as the “bridge” between the classroom and the professional world (Allard & Straussman, 2003).
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 409
Second, practice refers to repetition—the process of turning the science of policy analysis into an art. In other words, more important than the application of policy analysis is the repeated application of the decision-making model to real issues and questions. Repetition helps the students to refine and make more nimble the decision-making model, which is really just that, a framework from which to start. Stokes (1986) equates this approach to the flight simulator exercise that pilots undergo to prepare for conditions that might arise in the air. The more developed analysis emerges when the analyst uses the model as a guide whose nuances take different forms depending on the subject matter and context. This is ideally part of the process where students own the analysis more, as it becomes more integrated with each student’s broader problem-solving style.
INTEGRATED CLIENT-BASED LEARNING IN ACTION: EXISTING CURRICULA This part of the paper examines actual policy analysis curricula at a sample of
U.S. public affairs graduate programs. I pay particular attention to the master’s program in urban policy at The New School’s Milano School for International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy in New York City, because it provides a useful illustration of the framework proposed earlier. Most of the content in this analysis is a product of my own experiences teaching the Milano curriculum for the past 3 years, and my interactions with the curriculum’s primary faculty and original conceivers. I supplement these observations with data I collect on other, “competing” public affairs programs (the collection methods and outcomes for the data are outlined in the next section) and from previously implemented surveys of graduating urban policy students, alumni, and former clients of the Milano program.
To collect information from participants in the Milano program, a survey was sent by the chair of the urban policy department via e-mail (with a link to an online- generated form) to Master’s students upon graduation in spring of 2012 asking them about their academic experience at Milano. Here, I draw on questions asking them specifically about their experience with the policy analysis curriculum and the aspects of the degree that they found most valuable.1 The response rate for this survey was 66% (29 out of 44). A similar survey was sent to alumni in early 2011 (respondents graduated anytime between 2001 and 2010).2 The relevant questions in this survey were more open ended, and so content was analyzed with respect to the policy analysis curriculum. The response rate for this survey was 50% (125 out of 250). Finally, clients who participated in the Lab course (described later) were surveyed on their experiences; I obtain data from the 2011 and 2012 spring semesters. The response rate for this survey was 59% (17 out of 29) in 2011 and 69% (11 out of 16) in 2012.
Data Collection on Existing Policy Analysis Curricula I survey the current state of policy analysis studies at graduate programs across
the country. To do this, I use the list of public affairs graduate schools provided by U.S. News and World Report 2012 (with no regard for the rankings), under the
Practice Makes Perfect
410 Journal of Public Affairs Education
assumption that this is a reasonable source for the universe of relevant graduate schools. I then navigate to each school’s website and identify master’s degree programs in public policy, public administration, and public affairs more broadly. I then search for information on whether they offer client-based coursework (either “live” or simulated) in their core curriculum and, if so, (a) whether it incorporates team or individual projects; (b) to what degree they use the client-based curriculum as a marketable strength, that is, by explicitly highlighting it in their program descriptions and/or central mission rather than simply listing the course; and (c) how integrated it is across the entire degree program.3 For this final factor, a curriculum is considered integrated if the client-based work (either live or simulated) spans multiple semesters, thereby exposing the students to client work beyond a single culminating thesis or project. Preference is given to coursework that spans both years of the program, incorporates both live and simulated analytical projects, and involves at least one client-based experience under fast-paced and time-constrained circumstances. The programs with a single capstone experience, even if it spans two semesters, are not considered integrated because the client-based learning is really only a single experience (and it usually does not reflect compressed time constraints). A summary of the findings is displayed in Table 1.4
Table 1. Client Orientation of U.S. Public Affairs Graduate Programs
Yes No Missing Total
Has an applied policy capstone/project? 127 151 0 278
For those with an applied policy capstone/project: Yes No Missing
Uses “live” clients? 43 73 11 127
Average # semesters of applied capstone/project coursework
1.2 — —
For those with a client-based capstone/project curriculum: Yes No Missing
Website highlights client-based curriculum? 15 28 0 43
Average # semesters of client-based coursework 1.5 — —
Team Individual Both Missing
Team versus individual responsibility 20 11 8 4 43
High Low Missing
Level of client-based curriculum integration 6 37 0 43
# schools 265
# programs 278
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 411
The results reveal that just under half of the programs surveyed (127 out of 278 total) require some applied capstone course or project for the graduate degree (whether or not it is completed for a live client). The nature of this requirement varies tremendously, from a single paper to a multi-semester research project. Of those with an applied policy experience, about one third incorporate live clients (versus simulated client topics or no client at all). This means students are working with current policy issues presented by actual clients with whom they interact on a regular basis. For those with live client-based work, the likelihood of incorpo- rating team projects is higher than that of individual projects, and a small part of the sample incorporates both into their curricula (only 8 out of the 127 programs have some applied policy capstone or project).
The survey also demonstrates the centrality of client work to the policy curric- ulum. First, only 15 out of the 43 degree programs with live client-based coursework actually highlight it (or applied policy work more generally) as a core component of the curriculum on their website. Rarely is it a selling point for the program, and most often it is entirely omitted from their program descriptions. Second, of those 43 curricula with a live client component, only 6 could be characterized as integrated. The overwhelming majority incorporate the client project as a final-semester analysis project that serves as a culminating application of the skills that students accumulated over the previous two or three semesters.
Integrated Client-Based Policy Analysis Curricula: An Overview The six programs identified as highly integrated are those that, in one way or
another, incorporate a range of client-based learning experiences throughout the degree’s curriculum (see Table 2 for a summary of their characteristics). Integration can take various forms, but in general, these programs have courses or projects that introduce applied client-based work in the first year of the program, in addition to a larger culminating experience in the final year (the mean number of semesters for client-based work is 2.5).5 In addition, all of the programs require both individual and team client-based analytical work, and most (except Duke) provide the students with simulated and live client-oriented experiences. And, not surprisingly, all of the programs highlight the client-based approach on the program’s website: They explicitly mention it as an asset and focus of the program.
On the other hand, each program organizes the coursework and analytical projects differently across the 2 years of the degree. First, all of the integrated programs include short-term, time-compressed analytical projects as well as those on longer timelines. This combination, however, is achieved in various ways. For example, Milano and Duke’s Sanford School are the only ones to have a complete course in the first year dedicated to the client-based analytical experience. The others can take various forms, but in general, these programs have courses or projects that introduce applied client-based work in the first year of the program, in addition to a larger culminating experience in the final year (the mean number of semesters for client-based work is 2.5).5 In addition, all of the programs require both individual
Practice Makes Perfect
412 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Table 2. Client-Integrated Curricula
School Degree “Live” or Simulated
Team or Individual
# of Semesters
Website highlights
client-based curriculum?
Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy
Master of Public Policy
Live T/I 3 Y
Harvard University Kennedy School of Government
Masters in Public Policy
Live/Sim T/I 3 Y
Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Int. Affairs
Masters in Public Affairs
Live/Sim T/I 2 Y
The New School Milano School of International Affairs, Management & Urban Policy
Master of Science in Urban
Policy Analysis & Management
Live/Sim T/I 3 Y
UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy
Masters in Public Policy
Live/Sim T/I 2 Y
University of Oregon Dept. of Planning, Public Policy and Management
Master of Public Administration
Live/Sim T/I 2 Y
and team client-based analytical work, and most (except Duke) provide the students with simulated and live client-oriented experiences. And, not surprisingly, all of the programs highlight the client-based approach on the program’s website: They explicitly mention it as an asset and focus of the program.
On the other hand, each program organizes the coursework and analytical projects differently across the 2 years of the degree. First, all of the integrated pro- grams include short-term, time-compressed analytical projects as well as those on longer timelines. This combination, however, is achieved in various ways. For example, Milano and Duke’s Sanford School are the only ones to have a complete course in the first year dedicated to the client-based analytical experience. The others include a shorter exercise outside of the regular coursework, ranging from 48 hours (i.e., Berkeley and University of Oregon) to 2 weeks (i.e., Harvard). The master’s program at The Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton also requires that the students sit for two qualifying exams, which test for similar applied analytical skills, before the start of the second year. Most of the programs, except for Milano, require a two-semester capstone project in the second year of the degree.
In sum, although different in their curricular approach, all (or most) of these highly integrated client-based programs provide the students with several oppor- tunities to practice their analytics in the context of both live and simulated clients.
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 413
They also place the students in various contexts: They are required to work indiv- idually and collaboratively and in both fast-paced and relatively less compressed time settings.
Integrated Client-Based Policy Analysis Curricula: The Milano Case Although the components of the Milano master’s program are consistent with
many of the characteristics of the other highly integrated examples, they do con- stitute a slightly different approach to the client-based learning experience. Most notably, the Milano curriculum is relatively more incremental in its sequencing of client-based practica, and it generally asks much more of the students, in terms of client-based work, in their first year of the program. In addition, it provides a nice illustration of how a very applied curriculum can be rooted in a formal theoretical framing.
The Master’s Program The Milano School offers a number of graduate degrees, one of which is the
MS in Urban Policy Analysis and Management. Most of the students are enrolled full-time, but about one third are part-time; all students, regardless of status, generally have the same requirements and take classes together. Typically, classes are kept to a 25-student maximum, even in the core courses (electives can be considerably smaller). In addition to the policy analysis curriculum, the required core coursework includes public management, quantitative methods, economics, public finance, and political economy of the city. Then the students are allowed to take five electives in one or several of the specialization areas the school offers (e.g., housing and community development or social policy). Students are required to start the policy analysis curriculum in their first semester, and the entire curri- culum extends through three terms. Therefore, unlike any other core competency, the policy analysis coursework is a constant element in any student’s class schedule.
THE MILANO POLICY ANALYSIS CURRICULUM The policy analysis curriculum is both theory- and practice-based. It is com-
prised of three courses, described here.
Course 1: Introduction to Policy Analysis
Part I: Learning the five-stage model. The coursework begins in the student’s first semester with an introductory Policy Analysis course, which is a mix of found- ational theoretical readings, case-based class discussion, and applied issue analysis.6 The course meets twice a week for nearly 2 hours at a time. The number of students in the class tops out at about 28 (depending on the section), and each section has a primary faculty instructor and a teaching assistant (TA). The TAs are selected from among the top performers in the class from the previous year. Throughout the semester, the TAs hold “office hours” and various workshops on cost-benefit
Practice Makes Perfect
414 Journal of Public Affairs Education
analysis, creating PowerPoint presentations and conducting final briefings. The TAs are tremendous resources for the students, since they have successfully completed the first year of the curriculum.
The first part of the course revolves around learning the five-stage analytical model for decision making, drawing heavily from Bardach’s “Eightfold Path” (2009) and the Stage Heuristic, as first conceived by Lasswell (1956) and others (see Table 3). Also known as The Rational Actor model, it is a stylized and boiled-down version of how the decision-making process ensues. In the literature, it is synonymous with the economic paradigm undergirding traditional policy analysis (e.g., see Munger, 2000) and has served as the foundational perspective for seminal analytical treat- ments, such as Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow’s “Essence of Decision,” in which they use it to explain (as one alternative) decisions behind the Cuban Missile Crisis (Allison & Zelikow, 1999) and foreign policy more generally.7
Table 3. Five-Stage Decision-Making Model
1 Problem definition
2 Select evaluative criteria
3 Generate alternatives
4 Analysis of trade-offs
5 Make a recommendation
The students are trained to think in a very formalized way, and at this point the five-stage model is applied with little flexibility. The five-stage heuristic is intended to provide the students with a manageable tool that can be operationalized and is rooted in a long-standing theoretical dialogue in the field. It is an effective starter kit, because it is also provocative in its rigidity. This quality challenges the students to learn how to apply the model in an active and creative way.
A clear example of the model’s actionable nature is the decision matrix. The matrix as a tool for applying criteria to multiple alternatives is emphasized and required as part of the memo assignments (described later). Table 4 displays a generic outcomes, or criteria-alternatives, matrix.
Lectures progressively lead the students through the five-stage process, using a policy or management case to apply each new concept. The cases are an essential instructional tool in the curriculum, because they immediately get the students accustomed to grappling with complex, multi-actor, and often socially and politi- cally sensitive issues. Massie (1995) describes them as “praxis learning,” which is particularly useful in introductory courses where students have less experience with making the theory-practice link; the method promotes learning where theory
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 415
Table 4. Generic Outcomes (Criteria-Alternatives) Matrix
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Criterion 1 High Low Moderate High
Criterion 2 High Moderate Low Moderate
Criterion 3 Low Moderate Low High
is actively applied to practice instead of rote memorization of facts. Cases are selected to coincide with the session’s lesson as well as contexts or issues that are close to the students. For example, at Milano cases often pertain to issues specific to New York City and increasingly to international scenarios as the international student body has grown.
Deliverable 1: The students now must complete their first individual memo assignment, in which they analyze a case on how best to provide the flu vaccine. This usually occurs 2 weeks into the semester, and the students have about one-and- a-half weeks to complete it. The memo is addressed to a U.S. congressman and cannot exceed five pages—this is an exercise in writing concisely and constructing a reasoned and robust argument (following the five-stage model) with a clear policy recommendation at the end. In the spirit of “practice makes perfect,” students are allowed to revise this memo (and are required to do so if they receive a grade below B+). This is almost always a completely new way of writing and presenting ideas for the students, and indeed, the super-majority of the class typically must revise their memos.
Part II: Learning cost-benefit analysis. The second part of the course introduces Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), to which seven class sessions are dedicated. Students are presented with a formal explanation of discounting and CBA methods and then asked to apply these models to actual cases and data. Like the case-based coursework, the CBA material is intended to enhance the analytical tool kit that the students will ultimately employ during their client-based work. Ironically, what they often discover in the live client-based work is that few issue analyses are well suited for a legitimate cost-benefit analysis; the numbers are often unattainable or flimsy. Nevertheless, the CBA training provides them with important tools to incorporate such quantitative analysis if necessary (it is also a skill they can market to potential employers). Transparency, reasonableness, and consistency are emphasized.
Deliverables 2 and 3: The students are required to complete two assignments on the discounting and CBA material. First, they do a discounting exercise in which they calculate and compare net present values for various construction options.
Practice Makes Perfect
416 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Second, the students write another brief case-based policy memo on whether to construct transportation infrastructure in Costa Rica that still follows the five-stage decision-making model, but now includes as part of the analysis a formal CBA. The CBA is treated as another evaluative criterion in the context of their analysis.
Part III: The “trial” round for client-based issue analysis. The final part of the course involves a trial round of client-based issue analysis. This part of the course provides the students with a practice round analysis project, which is repeated the following semester with a set of real clients in the “Lab” (described later). The students are placed into teams of four or five and together conduct policy analysis on issues that have been prepared for actual public and nonprofit organizations in New York City in the previous year. Teams are assigned based primarily on skill set and secondarily on subject matter. For the remainder of the semester, the class no longer meets together. Teams use the class time to meet separately and with the faculty instructor and TA assigned to their project (indeed, teams usually meet outside of the allotted class time as well).8
Teams are provided with a policy mandate from the simulated client and a datapack with actual materials and data to conduct the analysis. The mandate is a description of the central policy problem, the organizational and policy context, and any other specific guidelines for framing the analysis from the client (see Appendix B for a sample client mandate). During the trial round the clients are not re-engaged, but the issues are used for simulating the analysis process. The datapack is the product of the live analysis from the previous year. Trial round teams use the datapack contents as their research material. Because the teams do not have to worry about culling original data, they can really focus on the analysis process itself. One challenge with this approach, however, is that the students are constrained to use ideas that coincide with data in the pre-populated datapack. At best, this is yet another chance to practice the analysis process within information- based constraints.
Deliverables 4 and 5: At the end of the trial round, the team must prepare a short (two-page) memo addressed to the client describing the analysis and final recommendation, and conduct a presentation of their analysis and findings in front of the class (simulating an actual client presentation). Every team member must participate in the presentation, and every presentation is followed by a question-and-answer period with the simulated client (usually a faculty member).
Course 2: Laboratory in Issue Analysis In the semester following the introductory Policy Analysis course, students
are required to enroll in the Laboratory in Issue Analysis (“Lab”). Students work in teams of five or six with actual clients on timely policy questions, hence this is labeled the live round. The clients come from all three sectors, are located within the New York City metro area, and present a wide range of issues. Appendix C
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 417
displays a list of selected clients and issues from past years. About 35% of these clients are repeat participants in the program.9
In the course of 16 weeks, the students work with two different teams/clients, and for both projects receive guidance from a faculty instructor and student teaching assistant. Although the timeline is rather compressed for each project, the idea is that it better reflects the urgency of real issue analysis. In addition, it encourages students to remain active and nimble in their application of the analytical models from previous semesters. Miller (1997) acknowledges the threat of “unreflective practice” when analysts rely too heavily on set heuristics and models; the Milano curriculum avoids this pitfall by introducing new (and often unfamiliar) issues multiple times. The process for each client round generally echoes that in the trial round, except for a pre-populated datapack: In the live round, the students start from scratch in terms of research and data collection. For each client and issue, the students conduct research on the issue, produce a comprehensive report documenting their analysis and recommendation, write up a two-page memo summarizing the analysis and findings, and conduct a formal briefing in which the entire team presents its analysis process and findings. The briefing is followed by a question- and-answer period between the team and the client, and any outstanding issues must be addressed in the final report, which is typically submitted about 1 week later. The students present in front of a panel comprised of the client and Milano faculty. Although they do not participate, everyone in the class is also required to attend their peers’ briefings.
The teams have a mandatory initial client meeting the first week of the round and then arrange regular meeting times and milestones. The teams meet weekly with their assigned advisor and TA. Other than the regular team meetings, the entire Lab cohort comes together for weekly plenary sessions where special topics are covered by faculty and guest lecturers. Table 5 shows some of the topics covered in the plenary session.
Table 5. List of Plenary Session Topics
Plenary Session Topic
Session 1 Welcome to the Lab: Introduction to Course and Policy Issues
Session 2 Data Collection and Research Strategies
Session 3 Structuring and Delivering Effective Client Communications
Session 4 Managing Group Dynamics
Session 5 Preparing for the Briefing and Public Speaking
Session 6 Course Reflections and Evaluations
Practice Makes Perfect
418 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Course 3: Advanced Seminar (“Professional Decision Report”) Finally, the students complete their culminating Professional Decision Report
(PDR). This assignment typically occurs in the student’s final semester, and the students now conduct the issue analysis solo with clients of their choosing. Students are responsible for securing their own client, establishing the core policy issue for analysis, and sustaining a working relationship with the client throughout the project. The client can be a current employer, but many students use this as an opportunity to gain entrée into another organization or field. Whether the student presents a final product to the client (other than in the written report) depends entirely on what the client wants. This is the most loosely structured course in the series, because it is almost entirely driven by the student-client relationship. The students do meet with faculty advisors weekly to discuss key concepts (such as the analytical process, literature reviews, or interviewing protocol) and receive guidance on their specific projects. Appendix C shows sample PDRs from past years. The two students who submit the most exceptional PDRs receive awards at graduation.
Logistics and Responsibilities: How the Courses Come Together
Forming and managing a cohesive teaching team. The Milano curriculum is com- prised of numerous moving parts and players. Well-timed and consistent oversight is a requisite for successful implementation. It is a time-intensive endeavor, and Milano definitely benefits from its routinization of this long-standing curriculum. At Milano, the team of faculty and teaching assistants have all experienced the policy analysis curriculum at least once before (refer to Table 6 for a summary of the teaching team members and their responsibilities). It is also beneficial to have instructors (both full-time faculty and adjuncts) who have practical experience with clients; it is challenging for an instructor without any relevant experience to guide the students in a realistic way.
In addition, one faculty member (or, if resources allow, an additional part-time instructor) serves as the “director” for the policy analysis course and the Lab; he or she leads the coordination and manages the client recruitment. Responsibilities of this director include (a) selecting the TAs for the current year, (b) scheduling and leading regular meetings with the Lab instructor and TA team (the Lab team) throughout the year, (c) identifying the cases from the previous live round to be recycled in the current year’s trial issue analysis round, (d) recruiting clients (and, if the student cohort is large, additional adjunct instructors to work with teams), and (e) disseminating and processing course feedback tools (which are executed at the end of the first policy analysis course and each Lab round).10 Regular meetings with the Lab team are essential for maintaining some consistency among expectations and guidance and for sharing insight. Because Lab team members are approaching their roles with different experiences and perspectives, guidance inevitably will be
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 419
varied. However, these regular meetings and a brief orientation for the new instructors before the start of the issue analysis help to minimize discrepancies.11 At Milano these meetings have become more regular, and complaints from the students about inconsistent advice have diminished.
Table 6. Teaching Team Responsibilities
Team Member Responsibility
Director Typically a full-time faculty member or part-time adjunct; responsible for coordinating trial cases, creating student teams, recruiting clients, and organizing cohort-wide plenaries and workshops.
Faculty instructor A full-time faculty member; responsible for teaching introductory policy analysis course, helping to recruit clients, guiding teams through Lab analyses, and advising culminating PDR.
Adjunct instructor A part-time faculty member; responsible for guiding teams through Lab analyses.
Teaching assistant A second-year master’s graduate student who completed Policy Analysis and Lab courses in previous year; selected based on exemplary performance and leadeship potential; responsible for advising teams during trial and live issue analysis and conducting tutorial workshops on cost-benefit analysis and professional presentations.
Recruiting clients. Reaching out to and orienting the clients is perhaps the most critical role of the director. This process typically begins toward the middle of the semester preceding the Lab course, and the first round of clients is confirmed before the end of that semester so that students can rank their interest in the available subject areas (a survey is sent around). This process is repeated for the second round of clients. Consistently, at least one third of the clients are repeated from previous years. Other clients are recruited by exploiting personal and professional connections (mostly through the director and other affiliated faculty).12 The school’s strong relationship with practitioners, who are also often adjunct faculty, and with alumni also help bring in new clients. Experience demonstrates that most organizations are very receptive to the opportunity to work with students and to receive free consulting work. The bigger challenge is agreeing with the client on an issue that is narrow enough to address comprehensively in the time allotted and that is not framed in a prescriptive way. That is, the question should warrant the analysis of multiple alternatives; if, for whatever reasons, the outcome is obvious (or inflexible) or if there is no actionable goal, then it is not a good fit for this exercise. In many cases the client will essentially design a research project or best practices review, and this is not in line with the curriculum design. The issue needs to pose a problem that warrants action or resolution, and the preferred strategy should not be predetermined.
Practice Makes Perfect
420 Journal of Public Affairs Education
As regards client commitment, it generally is quite minimal. The minimum participation involves drafting the mandate (usually with the help of the course director), hosting an initial meeting with the student team at the organization’s office, conducting a midpoint meeting (either in person or on the phone), and attending the final briefing at The New School. Although such time is not scheduled explicitly, the client is also expected to interact with the students should they need information, contacts, or other relevant data. Of course, the burden will vary by the organization’s size and/or capacity; smaller and understaffed organizations may find any regular interaction with the students hard to manage. Indeed, some clients choose not to repeat the program in the future, because it proved too onerous. However, this is usually the exception; clients generally find the product well worth the time dedicated toward interacting with the students. In fact, clients are often very hands on and request more frequent meetings or updates than are required on by Milano.
Because Milano is situated in New York City, and its degree specializes in urban policy, the clients do reflect this context. All of the government agencies are local, and the nonprofits tend to be focused on urban issues. These tendencies emerge out of The New School’s local connections, but they also serve the interests of students. This approach, however, could easily be replicated in the context of state or federal government clients and international NGOs. Time and resources are limited; thus, the Milano program relies on the close proximity of clients, so that students can travel to their offices and any other relevant sites (and so the client can easily attend the briefing). However, with more resources to support travel and virtual interactions, the same approach could be achieved with nonlocal clients. Still, it is important to keep in mind that the more the students need to travel, the less time they will have to dedicate toward productive analysis.
INTEGRATED CLIENT-BASED CURRICULA PRODUCE TANGIBLE OUTCOMES Outcomes from the client-oriented policy analysis coursework are evident both
inside and outside of the classroom. First, the improvement from the first to the final policy memo is quite impressive. The final reports produced by teams usually display quality that is legions beyond what was achievable in the first memo assign- ment. In what is a relatively short amount of time, the students transform their writing styles and become incredibly agile at writing direct and cogent analytical arguments. This improvement is largely due to the rigid parameters that direct their writing assignments from the beginning and also the repeated opportunities for revision and rethinking. The transformation is also highly contingent on extensive professor involvement: Grading the memos with such attentiveness takes time, and professors also usually meet with students to discuss the revisions.
Second, the students hone their presentation skills. For many, the briefings are their first experience with formal, and in the case of the live briefings, high-stakes presentations. During the trial and live briefings, every student is required to present
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 421
a part of the PowerPoint without notes, and they must field spontaneous questions during and after the presentation. This is not an exercise in presenting a flawless analysis; rather, it is an opportunity to orally portray and defend a well-formed argument that is bolstered by quantitative and qualitative evidence. The students learn how to think on their feet and how to sell a defensible argument with actionable recommendations in a relatively high-pressure context.
Third, the utility of a common language, as provided by the five-stage model, becomes evident in the Lab course when teams are comprised of students from different Policy Analysis sections (and instructors). Jumping into a tightly scheduled project is largely facilitated by the common analytical foundation that the team members share. Alumni have also indicated that these analytical “heuristics” help them tackle complex and unfamiliar problems in their interviews and jobs.
Fourth, the students have in their job market portfolio relatively polished, policy-relevant memos that are professional and concise. In addition, the numerous presentation opportunities help to hone interviewing skills and general confidence in public speaking.
Fifth, the Lab and PDR courses generate networking opportunities and contacts for future internship and postgraduation job prospects. Indeed, a good number of students either work with their Lab or PDR client or related organizations after completing the degree.
Finally, there is a public relations benefit from the client-based coursework. The client-based work not only helps connect the graduates (and the school’s name) to the professional world but also associates the school with a product that can be marketed. For example, the service provided by Milano’s Lab and Advanced Seminar to local organizations and agencies is a great value added: It costs the client almost nothing (save coordination costs of working with the team) and provides them with new, organized information (that they probably would not have collected on their own). Indeed, based on client surveys conducted after the completion of the Lab from two consecutive years, about one third of the clients revealed that they likely would have not researched the topic had it not been for the student team’s work. In addition, in surveys (and through numerous anecdotal accounts) clients respond enthusiastically to the professionalism and rigor of the students’ work; the product often “far exceeds” their expectations. Clients almost unanimously report that they would work with another team and would recommend the Lab experience to another potential client.
Admittedly, the client-based curriculum also exposes the school to potential bad press. That is, if clients have unfavorable experiences and/or outcomes, the school’s reputation and any postgraduation prospects for the students could suffer. This is an undeniable risk, and one that is mediated by close supervision of the student teams. At Milano, not only do teams meet at least two times per week with their faculty advisors and TAs, but every major deliverable is also reviewed by the faculty member before it goes to the client.
Practice Makes Perfect
422 Journal of Public Affairs Education
CONCLUSION This paper considers a method for teaching policy analysis that relies on a strong
link between theory and practice and one that integrates client-based coursework throughout the graduate school experience. A survey of graduate programs in public affairs indicates that an intensive client-based curriculum for a policy degree is rare; any client-based learning typically occurs sporadically or as a culminating capstone event. Only 6 out of 278 U.S. public affairs programs incorporate client-oriented work continuously into their master’s curricula. And the policy analysis curriculum at Milano has a slightly different approach, even among these highly integrated programs. It relies on formal theoretical foundations and multiple, incremental iterations of client-based work to instruct students on how to make transparent and systematic decisions in a variety of policy and organizational contexts.
If we expect professional public affairs degrees to prepare students for real-world challenges, then it is reasonable that the curriculum emphasize repeated analytical applications that mirror the resource constraints and interpersonal interactions of actual decision-making scenarios. The implication from the highly client-integrated programs is that a client-based curriculum should be interwoven throughout as much of the coursework as possible and not limited to culminating theses or capstone projects. Interactions with clients and urgent policy issues can be intimidating and pressure filled. By providing repeated opportunities for students to practice resource- and time-constrained issue analysis and client relations, student confidence is developed and analytical skills are more ingrained. This kind of training serves as a bridge from the classroom to the professional world and sets up the students with highly transferrable skills that they can employ adeptly in interviews and on the job. At Milano, students overwhelmingly isolate the client-based coursework as the most valuable experience from their graduate studies, and the clients find value in the products as well.
The Milano case is an instructive illustration of a client-integrated approach that is exceptional in its theory-practice link and its continual reliance on client- based applications. That said, Milano’s approach is transferrable. The urban focus and application of the Milano curriculum provides really nothing more than a context for skill development; therefore, to accommodate students studying manage- ment, public administration, or even international affairs, the adjustments are primarily in the topical content (i.e., the client’s field or orientation). Milano, a relatively small program, relies on a rather personalized approach for client recruit- ment and project assignment; larger programs can make this process more routinized and cast wider nets for client recruitment to reduce preparation time. The efficacy of the Milano program relies heavily on instructor commitment, and this compo- nent cannot be compromised as easily. To shepherd the students through the various phases of the client-based work and to ensure quality control for the live clients, the instructors need to be available to students and conscientious in their oversight. This commitment ensures a coherent learning experience for the students and a solid reputation for the program.
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 423
The regular involvement of live clients guarantees that students are exposed to current issues; the challenge is keeping the analytical framework on the cutting edge. The Milano program benefits from the coordination of its long-standing curriculum, but its somewhat traditional technical approach begs for the consideration of more innovative tools. Rather than relying so heavily on a single, stylized framework, theoretical foundations could (and probably should) consciously incorporate alter- native decision-making models. Policy communications could move beyond the traditional memo or PowerPoint presentation toward more multimedia forms; students also found PowerPoint presentations to be unsuited for particular contexts. As long as the client component is continuous and diversified (in terms of live and simulated, of team and individual), there is ample room to tailor the analytical scheme to match the mission and needs of any particular program. In the end, the process has the potential to simultaneously shift pedagogical approaches and real-time policy discourse and action.
FOOTNOTES 1 For example, the questions asked students to rate their experience in the policy analysis core
classes and to rate how well the curriculum prepared them to make evidence-based, systematically assessed decisions in their current employment. The respondents were also asked to identify aspects of the program they found particularly valuable; content was analyzed for reference to the policy analysis curriculum and/or the skills gleaned from it.
2 This was the only survey with some incentive attached to it (respondents were entered into a drawing to win either an iPod or Kindle).
3 I focus on the content of the core curriculum and not electives, because the latter are idiosyncratic to the student; it is a reasonable assumption that every student is required to take the core classes.
4 This method will underrepresent the degree of client-based work for programs that do not fully disclose it on their websites; however, I argue that if it is a core piece of the curriculum, it should be publicized on the program’s website.
5 The University of Oregon’s program is the one exception: There is no required first-year, client- based work, but the applied curriculum is varied and intensive enough in other ways to warrant its consideration among the integrated programs.
6 See an (abbreviated) schedule of lecture topics (lifted from the full syllabus) for the introductory Policy Analysis course in Appendix A. Although not comprehensive, it gives a sense of the order of topics and materials used in class.
7 The strength of the Allison and Zelikow treatment is actually their multiple-lens approach, illustrating that the decision-making process can be explained in different ways depending on the theoretical framework. The students engage in similar discussions in class when they are assigned readings on alternative policy decision-making models. This part of the curriculum is omitted here for purposes of brevity.
8 Additional faculty members (either full-time or adjuncts) are brought in to supervise the teams, because each section typically has five or six teams and only one instructor and TA. Each instructor and TA pair works with two teams.
9 This return rate is consistent with client-based courses at other institutions: for example, accord- ing to Allard and Straussman (2003), between 25% and 50% of the clients participating in the MPA workshop at the Maxwell School return for another round. The recruitment of new clients
Practice Makes Perfect
424 Journal of Public Affairs Education
(instead of a higher number of repeat clients) is mostly a product of the director’s discretion (the contacts and issues of interest typically shift from year to year). However, some previous clients might find the involvement too time-consuming or that they no longer have a qualified project, both of which would deter them from repeating the experience.
10 Coordination of feedback is a critical component. It involves several parties, because there is feed- back from the instructor, TA, and each member of the student team. In addition, the goal is to return the feedback from the first round of Lab clients to the students before the start of the second round of Lab clients, so that they have this information to influence their performance going forward. This task is usually facilitated by having spring break between the two live Lab rounds.
11 In addition, over the years Milano has developed a cohort of instructors who are familiar with the curriculum and help to maintain consistency in the pedagogy.
12 Another strategy is to advertise, on the program’s website or through mailings, the projects as an opportunity for clients to receive free consulting work; this shifts the burden onto the clients to contact the school (although it may bring in a larger pool than the program can handle). The Wagner School at New York University, for example, does this for its capstone projects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Doug Besharov, Jenny Oser, and Beryl Radin for their helpful comments and insights. I also thank Pooya Ghorbani for excellent research assistance.
REFERENCES Allard, S. W., & Straussman, J. D. (2003). Managing intensive student consulting capstone projects:
The Maxwell School Experience. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(4), 689–701.
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York, NY: Longman.
Amy, D. J. (1984). Why policy analysis and ethics are incompatible. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 573–591.
Bardach, E. (2009). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Behn, R. D. (1985). Policy analysts, clients, and social scientists. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4(3), 428–432.
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (1996). Cost benefit analysis: Concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice åHall.
Elmore, R. F. (1979–80). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Social science that matters. Foresight Europe, 38–42.
Herzlinger, R. E., & Nitterhouse, D. (1994). Financial accounting and managerial control for nonprofit organizations. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Educational Publishing.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1982). Professional roles for policy analysts: A critical assessment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(1), 88–97.
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 425
Kelman, S. (1992). Cost-benefit analysis, an ethical critique. In J. M. Gilroy & M. Wade (Eds.), The moral dimension of public policy choice. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York, NY: Longman.
Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
———. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.
Lindblohm, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
Lynn, L. E., Jr. (1980). Designing public policy. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing.
Massie, C. Z. (1995). Teaching introduction to public administration via the case method. Journal of Public Administration Education, 1(2), 102–115.
Meltsner, A. (1976). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Miller, H. T. (1997). Why teaching theory matters. Journal of Public Administration, 3(3), 363–373.
Moore, M. H. (1983). Social science and policy analysis. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences and policy analysis. New York, NY: Plenum.
Munger, M. C. (2000). Analyzing policy: Choices, conflicts, and practices. New York, NY: Norton.
Radin, B. A. (2012). Policy analysis reaches midlife. Paper prepared for the 22nd IPSA World Congress, Madrid, Spain.
Stokes, D. E. (1986). Political and organizational analysis in the policy curriculum. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(1), 45–55.
Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1979). A primer for policy analysis. New York, NY: Norton.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: Norton.
Szanton, P. (1981). Not well advised. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Trumbell, W. H. (1990). Who has standing in cost-benefit analysis? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(3), 201–218.
Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2002). Introducing policy analysis craft: The sheltered workshop. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 697–707.
Weimer, D. L. (2012). The universal and the particular in policy analysis and training. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 14(1), 1–8.
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2011). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wheelan, C. (2011). Introduction to public policy. New York, NY: Norton.
Rachel Meltzer is an assistant professor of Urban Policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy at The New School. Her research centers on issues related to housing, economic development, and local public finance and on how public policies in these areas affect neighborhoods and cities. She teaches graduate classes on policy analysis, quantitative methods, urban economic development, and public finance.
Practice Makes Perfect
426 Journal of Public Affairs Education
APPENDIX A
Abbreviated List of Class Topics
Class Topic Case/Reading Source
Class 1 Problem Definition
Air Pollution and Democracy: The Mexico City School Calendar Change Proposal
KSG*
Class 2 Generating Alternatives
Ellen Schall and the Department of Juvenile Justice
KSG
Class 3 Objectives and Evaluative Criteria
The Challenge of Adapting to Cli- mate Change: King County Brings Local Action to a Global Threat
KSG
Class 4 Analysis and Recommendations
Swimming Pools KSG
Class 5 Review of Analytical Process
Seattle Commons Electronic Hallway
Class 6 Alternatives to the Five- Stage Model
Stone (2002); Lindblohm (1959); Kingdon (2003); Baumgartner & Jones (2009); Elmore (1979)
See references
Class 7 Intro to Cost-Benefit Analysis and Discounting
Herzlinger & Nitterhouse (1994); Stokey & Zeckhauser (1978); Wheelan (2011)
See references
Class 8 Discounting Applied
Leicester Polytechnic Institute Herzlinger & Nitterhouse (1994)
Class 9 CBA Applied Crossrail (A): The Business Case KSG
Class 10 Critical Perspectives on CBA
Boardman et. al. (1996); Trumbell (1990); Kelman (1992); Jenkins- Smith (1982); Amy (1984)
See references
KSG = Kennedy School of Government Case Program.
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 427
APPENDIX B
Abridged Sample Policy Mandate for Laboratory in Issue Analysis
Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy 72 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011 - (212) 229-5400 - www.milano.newschool.edu
Laboratory in Issues Analysis Spring 2010
Mandate
CLIENT/AGENCY: New York City Department of Small Business Services, District Development Unit, 110 William Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10038
CENTRAL POLICY ISSUE:
1. What can District Development do to determine the relative health of low-to moderate-income neighborhood business districts in New York City?
2. How can District Development use this information to help make funding allocations through the Avenue NYC program?
BACKGROUND OF ISSUE: New York City Department of Small Business Services
The New York City Department of Small Business Services (SBS) makes it easier for companies in New York City to form, do business, and grow by providing direct assistance to business owners, promoting commercial districts, promoting financial and economic opportunity among minority- and women-owned businesses, preparing New Yorkers for jobs and linking employers with a skilled and qualified workforce.
SBS’ District Development Unit supports community-based economic development organizations throughout New York City in order to create the conditions under which local businesses thrive and residents enjoy access to a vibrant mix of goods and services. Through its network of 64 Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), SBS’ District Develop ment unit oversees the provision of almost $100 million in services annually. District Development also partners with dozens of local development corporations, merchants associations and other neighborhood economic development organizations through Avenue NYC.
Avenue NYC
The Agency’s Avenue NYC program provides funding to non-profit economic development organizations (local development corporations, merchant associations, and other community organizations) to carry out commercial revitalization activities in neighborhood business districts throughout New York City. The Avenue NYC program is funded entirely through SBS’ annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars, administered through the Entitlement Communities program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Practice Makes Perfect
428 Journal of Public Affairs Education
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM: Each year SBS receives applications for Avenue NYC funding from an average of 85 non-profit economic development organizations through- out the five boroughs. Funding decisions are based on three broad criteria:
1) Existing Organizational Capacity (40%); 2) Strength of the Avenue NYC Project Proposal (50%); 3) Viability of the Proposed Avenue NYC Budget (10%)
SBS evaluators prioritize applicants’ dedication of human resources to a proposed project, previous experience carrying out commercial revitalization activities, previous experience contracting with the City of New York, and the alignment of adequate financial resources toward the proposed project when making their funding decisions. The challenge in making funding decisions based on these criteria is that the focus is largely on organizations, rather than on the neighborhoods they serve.
Applicants are requested to provide a general overview of their targeted commercial district and highlight current conditions and trends related to the retail mix and vacancy rate in that district as part of the application. However, these descriptions are often subjective in nature and are not incorporated into SBS evaluators’ funding decisions in any meaningful way. Designation as a low- to moderate-income commercial district as defined by HUD’s CDBG requirements is the only objective criterion that is consistently applied in directing where Avenue NYC program investments are made.
Given that SBS cannot fund all CDBG-eligible neighborhood business districts through the Avenue NYC program, what are other neighborhood-specific characteristics (aside from CDBG eligibility) that the Agency should consider when making its funding decisions? What data is currently available that will allow the Agency to acquire a more nuanced understanding of the low- to moderate-income commercial districts served by applicant organizations? How can the Agency easily aggregate and use this information on an annual basis to help determine where Avenue NYC investments should be made throughout the five boroughs?
Proposed Approach: SBS is engaging the Milano Policy Lab to assist District Develop- ment staff in creating this more objective and comprehensive means of determining the health of the low- to moderate-income neighborhood business districts served by Avenue NYC applicants. The ultimate goal of the project is to have a system (e.g., a matrix) that provides up-to-date information on specific indicators of neighborhood business district health across the multiple neighborhoods served by Avenue NYC applicants. The neighborhood-specific data will help Agency staff to compare the health of individual districts to one another and will complement the information included in the Avenue NYC applications so that staff can more rationally determine where Avenue NYC investments should be made.
Possible indicators of neighborhood business district health may include crime and fore- closure rates, property values, business openings/closings, business tax revenues, owner- occupancy rates, among others. In selecting the indicators, however, focus should remain on the commercial corridor. While surrounding residential conditions unquestionably impact business district conditions, the system created must adequately capture what is happening along the commercial corridor served by an Avenue NYC applicant.
Reliability of data sources, frequency with which these sources are updated, and ease of accessing and aggregating these data sources must be the primary considerations when
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 429
designing the system. The number of staff dedicated to overseeing the Avenue NYC program is small, and therefore, ease of compiling the data from multiple sources and segmenting of that data by individual districts must be considered when selecting the indicators included in the final deliverable.
District Development staff will work with the Milano Policy Lab group to define individual neighborhood business district boundaries and the total number of districts included in the final deliverable. Ideally, the system would include information on all neighborhood business districts represented by Avenue NYC applicant organizations so that this information could assist staff in making FY2011 funding decisions (to be made in May 2010). If this is not possible, however, District Development staff will determine a limited number of neighborhood business districts on which the selected indicators should focus.
Practice Makes Perfect
430 Journal of Public Affairs Education
A P
P E
N D
IX C
L is
t of
S am
pl e
L ab
C lie
nt s
an d
P D
R s
C li
en t
C en
tr al
P ol
ic y
Is su
e
N Y
C D
ep ar
tm en
t of
P ar
ks &
R ec
re at
io n
W ha
t pe
rf or
m an
ce m
et ri
cs s
ho ul
d th
e R
ec re
at io
n D
iv is
io n
em pl
oy t
o he
lp g
ui de
n ew
p ro
gr am
m in
g,
re de
fin e
an d
m ea
su re
t he
s uc
ce ss
o f
ex is
ti ng
p ro
gr am
m in
g?
O ffi
ce o
f V it
al R
ec or
ds , N
Y C
D ep
t. o
f H
ea lt
h &
M en
ta l
H yg
ie ne
H ow
c an
t he
C or
re ct
io ns
& A
m en
dm en
ts U
ni t
en ha
nc e
it s
w or
kfl ow
in o
rd er
t o
cr ea
te a
m or
e cu
s- to
m er
r es
po ns
iv e
an d
ef fic
ie nt
p ro
ce ss
?
H os
te lli
ng I
nt er
na ti
on al
N ew
Y or
k H
ow s
ho ul
d H
os te
lli ng
I nt
er na
ti on
al r
es po
nd t
o a
re ce
nt ly
e na
ct ed
N ew
Y or
k la
w b
an ni
ng s
ho rt
– te
rm r
en ta
ls (
le ss
t ha
n 30
d ay
s) in
m os
t m
ul ti
-u ni
t re
si de
nt ia
l b ui
ld in
gs , a
la w
t ha
t go
es in
to e
ff ec
t M
ay 1
, 2 01
1?
G al
e B
re w
er , N
ew Y
or k
C it
y C
ou nc
ilw om
an W
ha t
sh ou
ld C
ou nc
ilm em
be r
B re
w er
p ro
po se
t he
C it
y do
t o
im pr
ov e
vo te
r tu
rn ou
t?
U ni
te d
W ay
N Y
C H
ow s
ho ul
d U
ni te
d W
ay r
es tr
uc tu
re it
s fo
od s
ta m
ps o
ut re
ac h
pr og
ra m
in o
rd er
t o
be tt
er a
ch ie
ve t
he
or ga
ni za
ti on
’s go
al s
of e
xp an
di ng
a cc
es s
to f
oo d
st am
ps f
or lo
w in
co m
e N
ew Y
or ke
rs ?
A nn
en be
rg I
ns ti
tu te
f or
S ch
oo l R
ef or
m W
ha t
sh ou
ld t
he A
nn en
be rg
I ns
ti tu
te f
or S
ch oo
l R ef
or m
r ec
om m
en d
to o
pt im
iz e
th e
ro le
s tu
de nt
s an
d pa
re nt
s ca
n pl
ay in
m ea
ni ng
fu l a
nd s
us ta
in ab
le s
ch oo
l t ra
ns fo
rm at
io n?
C it
iz en
s B
ud ge
t C
om m
is si
on W
ha t
po si
ti on
s ho
ul d
th e
C om
m is
si on
t ak
e w
it h
re ga
rd t
o th
e co
ns tr
uc ti
on o
f w
as te
-t o-
en er
gy f
ac ili
- ti
es f
or t
he d
is po
sa l o
f th
e C
it y’
s m
un ic
ip al
w as
te ?
Ta xi
& L
im ou
si ne
C om
m is
si on
H ow
s ho
ul d
th e
T ax
i a nd
L im
ou si
ne C
om m
is si
on o
pe ra
ti on
al iz
e th
e Fi
ve -B
or ou
gh T
ax i P
la n,
a n
ew
ca te
go ry
o f
ta xi
ca b
(c al
le d
a B
or ou
gh T
ax i)
t ha
t w
ou ld
b e
pe rm
it te
d to
p ic
k up
“ st
re et
-h ai
l” p
as se
n- ge
rs o
ut si
de M
an ha
tt an
?
SA G
E (
Se rv
ic es
& A
dv oc
ac y
fo r
G ay
, L es
bi an
, B is
ex ua
l a nd
Tr
an sg
en de
r E
ld er
s) H
ow c
an S
A G
E a
dv an
ce a
ff or
da bl
e ho
us in
g op
po rt
un it
ie s
fo r
L G
B T
o ld
er a
du lt
s in
N Y
C ?
R. Meltzer
Journal of Public Affairs Education 431
Practice Makes Perfect
A P
P E
N D
IX C
L is
t of
S am
pl e
L ab
C lie
nt s
an d
P D
R s
(c on
ti nu
ed )
P ap
er t
it le
C en
tr al
P ol
ic y
Is su
e
C om
ba ti
ng G
an gs
in J
er se
y C
it y
Fr ie
nd s
of t
he L
if er
s Yo
ut h
C or
p
A ss
is ti
ng H
ab it
at A
ffi lia
te s
to w
ar d
B ui
ld in
g E
ne rg
y St
ar R
at ed
H om
es H
ab it
at f
or H
um an
it y
In te
rn at
io na
l
H ow
t o
In ce
nt iv
iz e
Sm al
l R et
ai l D
ev el
op m
en t
w it
hi n
A ff
or da
bl e
H ou
si ng
C om
pl ex
es C
en te
r fo
r an
U rb
an F
ut ur
e
C on
fo rm
in g
to t
he F
in al
R ul
e A
m en
dm en
ts o
f th
e V
io le
nc e
A ga
in st
W om
en A
ct H
ou si
ng A
ut ho
ri ty
o f
N ew
O rl
ea ns
St at
e B
an ki
ng : A
S ol
ut io
n fo
r N
ew Y
or k’
s Fi
na nc
ia l W
oe s?
C en
te r
fo r
W or
ki ng
F am
ili es
D ec
on st
ru ct
in g
th e
A rt
ic ul
at ed
E ns
em bl
e: A
na ly
ti cs
a nd
N Y
C ’s
C ap
it al
B ud
ge t
N Y
C O
ffi ce
o f
M an
ag em
en t
an d
B ud
ge t
Il lu
m in
at in
g th
e B
la ck
B ox
: E co
no m
ic I
m pa
ct M
od el
in g
in N
Y C
G oo
d Jo
bs N
ew Y
or k
Pa re
nt a
nd s
tu de
nt in
vo lv
em en
t in
t ea
ch er
e va
lu at
io ns
A nn
en be
rg I
ns ti
tu te
f or
S ch
oo l R
ef or
m
E xp
an di
ng a
cc es
s to
a nt
i- hu
ng er
p ro
gr am
s N
ew Y
or k
C it
y C
oa lit
io n
ag ai
ns t
H un
ge r
Pu rs
ui ng
n ew
m et
ho ds
t o
en su
re a
cc es
si bl
e in
te gr
at ed
p ub
lic b
en efi
ts f
or M
ia m
i r es
id en
ts C
it y
of M
ia m
i E co
no m
ic I
ni ti
at iv
es
E xp
lo ri
ng c
ol le
ge r
ea di
ne ss
& c
ar ee
r pa
th w
ay s
fo r
G en
er al
E du
ca ti
on al
D ev
el op
m en
t gr
ad ua
te s
H en
ry S
tr ee
t Se
tt le
m en
t
Pr op
os al
f or
A dv
an ci
ng E
nv ir
on m
en ta
l a nd
C om
m un
it y
H ea
lt h
in N
or th
ea st
H ai
ti N
at io
na l O
rg an
iz at
io n
fo r
th e
A dv
an ce
m en
t of
H ai
ti an
s N
ew Y
or k
In ce
nt iv
iz in
g St
or e
O w
ne rs
t o
Se ll
H ea
lt hi
er F
oo ds
in N
Y C
N Y
C D
ep ar
tm en
t of
H ea
lt h
D ec
on st
ru ct
in g
Fl in
t: T
he G
am e
P la
n G
en es
ee C
ou nt
y L
an d
B an
k
H ow
t o
be st
t ra
ns it
io n
fo rm
er p
ro gr
am p
ar ti
ci pa
nt s
to s
ta ff
p os
it io
ns T
he D
oe F
un d
C re
at in
g a
un ifi
ed w
or kf
or ce
d ev
el op
m en
t sy
st em
: T he
in te
gr at
io n
of T
A N
F a
nd W
IA Fe
de ra
ti on
o f
Pr ot
es ta
nt W
el fa
re A
ge nc
ie s
C lo
si ng
t he
G ap
: A P
la n
to L
ow er
t he
E le
ct ri
ci ty
C os
t B
ur de
n fo
r Se
ct io
n 20
2 R
es id
en ts
H op
e C
om m
un it
y, I
nc .
L oo
ki ng
p as
t th
e sk
yl in
e: Z
on in
g fo
r a
gr ee
ne r
N ew
Y or
k N
at ur
al R
es ou
rc es
D ef
en se
C ou
nc il
432 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 433
Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings.
A System Approach
Claudia Scott Victoria University of Wellington and the
Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)
ABSTRACT This paper discusses the design and delivery of a master’s-level course in policy analysis for senior public servants studying for a Masters of Public Administration Executive (EMPA) degree with the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). ANZSOG is a consortium of government and university partners that was established in 2002 to enhance the management and policy capability of public sector leaders. The course sets out to develop sophisticated, creative policy design skills in its students, using a highly practical pedagogical approach that offers practice in negotiating the complexities and subtleties of policy option design in the real world.
Keywords: policy analysis, systems, design
Partners in the ANZSOG consortium are the Commonwealth Government of Australia, the government of New Zealand, and those of all the states and territories of Australia, and 16 universities and business schools that award the EMPA degree. Participants are nominated by their public sector employers, and selected by the public service commission in their own jurisdictions. Designing Public Policy and Programs sets out to supplement process models of policy analysis and counterbalance the client-centric understanding of policy work that prevails in many jurisdictions and courses. The course is delivered yearly as a five-day intensive to three cohorts of 40 students, two in Australia and one in New Zealand.
The offering has extensive connections with the other courses in the EMPA degree—it follows courses on delivering public value, and government in the market
JPAE 19 (3), 433–443
434 Journal of Public Affairs Education
C. Scott
economy, and is followed by courses on evidence-based policy, governance, and leadership. I have been subject leader of this course since 2003. It was designed and taught between 2003 and 2009 in collaboration with Dr. Karen Baehler, and since then with Professor Mark Evans.
Designing Public Policy and Programs compares process and systems perspectives on policy development. Scott and Baehler’s 2010 Adding Value to Policy Analysis and Advice serves as the textbook for the course. It sets out a system approach to public policy and engages with policy issues pertaining to the advisory system in the context of Westminster-style arrangements in Australia and New Zealand.
The program’s participants work in cross-jurisdictional teams throughout the master’s degree to share their knowledge of the diverse policy and management practices in Australian and New Zealand governments. This alerts students to the importance of awareness of the institutional context to the exercise of managerial and policy leadership in the public sector. The cross-jurisdictional emphasis extends to a substantial team research project, which explores a real-world problem situated in one of the partner jurisdictions. Each research project involves five to seven students from at least three jurisdictions; most of these students do not reside in the jurisdiction where the topic is placed.
PEDAGOGY The literature and orientation of policy courses vary in their relative emphasis
on understanding policy or on learning the skills of practical problem solving in the real world. Courses with a practical bent can neglect the richness, sophistication, and reach of positive analysis, in their strong client orientation. This course seeks to redress this balance by teaching models, frameworks, and methods that accom- modate a comprehensive understanding of the problem in situ. We call this a “system” approach.
Designing Public Policy and Programs encourages students to pursue solutions to underlying policy issues rather than merely address their symptoms. It pursues these key learning outcomes:
Understanding various models of policy development, their different perspectives, and when they are suited to use in the context of a specific issue; appreciating the benefits of viewing more complex issues from a wider system perspective. Developing an appreciation of various policy tools and methods, and their applicability to designing and implementing strategic, operational, and responsive policy in the public sector. Building skills in scoping and framing policy problems and in crafting tailored policy options for simple and complex issues. Reflecting on what defines quality and value in policy advisory work, and designing strategies to enhance the capability of individuals, organizations, and the policy system to deliver quality and value.
Journal of Public Affairs Education 435
Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings
Students are assessed on three written assignments and two presentations: An individual essay comparing policy models, or reflecting on advisory systems in Australia or New Zealand and their ability to offer strategic policy advice An inter-jurisdictional project team report, which scopes and frames issues, designs options, develops criteria, and constructs an outcomes matrix to evaluate options and project outcomes and, if possible, makes contingent (if-then) recommendations An individual essay linking theory to practice, on one of four topics: implementation, policy transfer, citizen-centered policy, or policy innovation
Students do a brief presentation on day two, demonstrating the application of the tools and techniques they selected to scope their policy project topic—such as systems mapping, intervention (program) logic (e.g., Baehler, 2002), causal mapping, and reverse-brainstorming. On day five of the course, two groups (each with four project teams exploring different topics) assemble in separate rooms and present their draft project reports to each other.
The project team’s report covers problem/opportunity definitions, options, criteria, an outcomes matrix with some outcome projections, and where appro- priate contingent recommendations linking particular criteria to options that deliver the key values and impacts sought. Each project team presents its draft report and is assessed on its analysis and presentation, on its responses to questions, and on its critique of other project teams’ presentations.
This approach creates incentives for all the students to engage with all the projects and to observe the application of similar tools and techniques to the analysis of diverse policy topics in multiple jurisdictional contexts. Students are required to include at least one option that involves actors or institutions in the private or community sectors. The pedagogy approach promotes collaboration within and between project teams to share learning and to cultivate sophisticated, nuanced responses to policy issues in context.
The course includes presentations by academics and practitioners, case studies, and activities to foster interaction and the pooling of ideas. Case study examples draw on experiences from management and policy practices in ANZSOG juris- dictions; over a decade, an extensive case study library has been built up for use in ANZSOG executive education courses.
A SYSTEM APPROACH TO POLICY CRAFTING Policy analysis is about applied decision making. It can be conducted on a
descriptive level to elucidate and explain existing policy phenomena, or on a practical level to design and implement policies that improve on the status quo. Knowledge of what is will inform the conception of what should be underlying new policy design.
436 Journal of Public Affairs Education
A policy system approach positions policy problems in a wider context than process models, mapping the whole array of actors and institutions in the policy system that bear upon more complex issues and thus upon potential solutions. The theoretical literature (see, e.g., Howlett & Ramesh, 2003) has recognized the need to describe the policy system to acknowledge the many institutions and influ- ences involved, but this insight is rarely applied to the teaching of policy analysis and advising, where the focus is more often on normative analysis. Designing Public Policy and Programs makes this perspective its prime focus, with a view to building the capability of public sector practitioners.
Translating a rich, comprehensive account of the drivers of policy into the real world of policy design calls for a flexible and agile approach. The course’s methodology treats policy work as combining elements of art, science, and craft: It cultivates the craft of custom designing options for complex problems, which demands a thorough, critical understanding of the range of policy tools, and their selective application to the issue under consideration. Tools are then chosen and processes designed purposefully, rather than applied or followed according to prescribed uniform approaches and processes.
Process models and a systems approach both have their place in the array of policy skills, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Process models provide simplistic heuristics that suit students with limited experience who are seeking to master applied problem solving. More complex portrayals of policy involving multiple actors and institutions offer richer descriptions of the policy system, but they are less amenable to use as examples; and practitioners can be inclined to dismiss such accounts as arcane academic diversions from real-world policy practice. The system approach will sometimes far exceed what is required to address a simple issue within the purview of a single client.
Policy analysis models in the normative tradition typically adopt a client-centered perspective. A system approach takes into account the full range of influences on the policy in question. This expands the choice of policy levers and institutional environments in which to evaluate or modify existing options or design new alternatives. The system approach cultivates a crafting approach to policy design. This means assembling policy frameworks, processes, and tools with regard for the particular context and purpose of each policy task. It expands the policy space beyond a specific client for advice, opening up a wider range of options, actors, and institutions than a simpler client-oriented model.
The policy analysis approaches developed and applied in the course draw on numerous models including Bardach (2011) and Althaus, Bridgman, and Davis (2007), with a client orientation and a normative policy analysis approach. Colebatch (2002) and Howlett and Ramesh (2003) acknowledge nongovernmental actors and institutions in the policy system. Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots (2004) base their account on empirical observation of practice, mapping the various roles, approaches, and styles adopted by policy advisers. Scott and Baehler (2010) draw on policy process approaches as well as the system approach, as required.
C. Scott
Journal of Public Affairs Education 437
Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings
Students are introduced to many different concepts and frameworks drawn from various disciplines, such as market and government failure, distribution failure, and social capital, for application in scoping and framing problems and opportunities and designing policy options. Other frameworks are used to consider the policy implications of gender, indigenous, and other sectoral perspectives. These frameworks are applied to the design of options, and the consideration of potential roles for governments and other actors and institutions, alongside concepts and frameworks more specific to the policy topic under consideration.
The workings of the policy system are explored in more depth by studying various “policy pathways”—the routes by which policies typically develop, gain momentum, and lead to more or less successful outcomes. Good policy advisers become familiar with these patterns, and thus better able to design effective processes and manage the attendant risks, such as “death by research,” groupthink, avoiding at worst “policy fiascos” (Scott & Baehler, 2010, pp. 66!81). The scenarios are used to stimulate participants to anticipate possible end points that are more or less likely to make their policy work succeed or fail. This reminds policy designers to intuit risks, hazards, and unforeseen opportunities.
The course does not mandate a system approach to problem solving in every instance. The approach is offered among others, particularly for dealing with complex, “wicked” problems (APSC, 2007; Roberts, 2000) where the relation- ships between cause and effect are uncertain, and both “problems” and “solutions” may be disputed or subject to multiple interpretations. In such cases, the design of options may involve multiple actors and institutions and competing logics connecting problem definition, options, criteria, and projected outcomes.
The system approach is not new to policy practice, nor is it a general theory that proposes to replace other approaches. Rather, its purpose is to encourage analysts and advisers to reach beyond some of the limitations of models that restrict the scope of inquiry to a single problem, limit the actors and institutions considered when seeking a solution, and tilt the solutions considered toward a particular individual, organizational, or government client.
A system approach seeks to encourage advisers to focus on the dynamic inter- actions between actors, institutions, and influences rather than on static structures and snapshots of issues at a single point in time. It is open to opportunities to widen the policy space and to encourage analysts and advisers to devise practical solutions with the creativity of the arts, the evidence base of the sciences, and the pragmatic purposefulness of the crafts.
Scott and Baehler’s 2010 book draws on both process and system traditions; their focus is on the development of the complex skills that make up the art, science, and craft of policy work. This involves the selection and use of models, frameworks, tools, and methods in policy work to enhance the quality of policy analysis and advice. Policy advice has value when it delivers value to clients and citizens; building policy capability and performance requires extension to bodies of knowledge, skills, and competencies at the individual, organizational, sectoral, and policy system levels.
438 Journal of Public Affairs Education
CONTEXT Australian and New Zealand governments follow the Westminster tradition
of policy development by a professional public service, offering “free and frank” apolitical advice to the government. Career policy advisers maintain their positions when the government changes; however, ministers also employ political advisers in their offices. Their growing influence (particularly in Australia) has brought more contestability of advice, and competition between analytical and political streams of advice.
The strength of the executive and Cabinet in the Westminster tradition makes it relatively easy to make and change laws, particularly in New Zealand where there is a single house of Parliament, and no federal overlay. The ease with which legis- lative change is effected can encourage public servants to be too optimistic about what governments can deliver. A system approach challenges this optimism by considering the whole range of influences that affect the problem or issue under consideration, many of them difficult or impossible for governments to influence directly. This encourages the designing of options that employ many policy levers rather than just those under the influence and control of governments.
The multiplicity of government agencies and levels of government generally constitute obstacles to aligning policy and delivering on it. Federalism adds a further layer of complexity in Australia, where the Australian Commonwealth funds state and territory governments to deliver services. The course emphasizes the multiplicity of roles that governments and others can play in a policy option— funding, purchasing, delivery, regulation, and ownership, among others. Making connections between policy design and management issues is designed to ensure the integration of the policy design and its successful implementation.
The course draws on the concept of public value—in particular, the work of Mark Moore (1995). Moore’s approach to strategic management has an organiza- tional focus in which public value is likely to be achieved when there is alignment between the public purposes that give risk to public value, the authorizing environ- ment (which involves elected representatives as well as citizens and stakeholders) and organizational capability.
Designing Public Policy and Programs seeks to build the skills of those who will be involved in strategic and operational policy in the public sector, as well as others in managerial positions delivering services. Managers need an appreciation of policy skills, as implementation of policy all too often fails to deliver the policy intention of those who design it. Managers need to engage with policy designers in ongoing evaluation and review of current policy and service-delivery priorities.
The uncritical use of the concept of public value is challenged as a rationale for promoting the role of government and state-centric policy options and solutions. Rather than assume that public value exists self-evidently, students are required to interrogate public value by applying policy analysis techniques and frameworks to determine the potential value of government involvement in addressing issues in various hypothetical circumstances.
C. Scott
Journal of Public Affairs Education 439
Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings
This is all the more important in an environment of fiscal constraint, when governments are being forced to cut budgets and do more with less. A tight fiscal climate makes it essential for government agencies to have a clear rationale for the public sector’s continued involvement in service delivery, and many are exploring ways to gain greater efficiency and effectiveness through joint ventures or partner- ships with private or community partners.
CROSS-NATIONAL PROJECT TEAM WORK The outcomes matrix is the nerve center of an applied problem-solving approach
to policy analysis and in the course it provides a focal point for teamwork. Evaluating options and projecting outcomes requires good information and a sound evidence base, and familiarity with a range of methods of outcome projection. Projecting outcomes is perhaps the most difficult of all policy tasks; it requires “stress-testing” of options, involving risk assessment and designing possible risk mitigation measures.
The value of formulating an outcomes/alternative matrix is debated; but I en- dorse the view of David Weimer, who has argued that this is the most important of all policy craft skills because it provides an organizing framework for bewildered analysts and imposes a discipline that helps them avoid many common pitfalls— such as failure to consider the full range of relevant values in comparing alternatives, to anticipate unintended consequences, or to consider potentially desirable alter- natives (Weimer, 1998).
Broad policy topics are assigned to project teams, in the area of arts and culture, health priority-setting, housing affordability, and industry policy. Teams must decide upon a particular strategic or operational issue to explore in a specific organ- izational and jurisdictional context. This requirement gives their work some structure and focus, but still affords considerable choice as to the level of analysis to be undertaken and the jurisdiction in which the problem or opportunity to be studied resides.
After years of running the course, I am excited by the fresh, insightful analysis that emerges from these cross-jurisdictional project teams. The project work tries to model the challenges of teamwork in public sector agencies, and the ability to select and apply specific policy skills and capabilities to policy topics with which they may have little previous expertise or experience.
The public sector background of the students means that initially, many of them consider the client of policy advice to be the minister and/or the government of the day. Some students prove reluctant, or find it difficult, to design options that vary as to the problem/opportunity definition, or to propose options that are very different from current policy settings. To overcome the tendency for teams to be self-limiting as regards new, innovative options, they are sometimes asked to develop a set of very different options for a scenario in which it is unclear which party will win an upcoming election, or what coalition government may be formed.
440 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Project groups are warned to resist groupthink and the superficial appeal of consensus. The teams are asked to design a set of credible options that differ in the roles they assign to government and other actors and institutions. They are required to present competing program logics, and to encompass options that vary in the degree to which the public sector is linked to other private and com- munity sector actors and institutions in the wider policy system.
Complex policy issues require a proportionately complex approach to analysis and options design. A policy systems approach makes it possible to examine and evaluate multiple solutions simultaneously within a single outcomes matrix. Varia- tions on each of the options considered can also be explored. This puts compet- ing policy logics on to the agenda together—a very effective way of encouraging public service students not to rush to solutions in which their employing govern- ment or agency is prominent. It facilitates evaluation and learning, which may lead ultimately to the redesign or possible termination of a policy.
The need for transparency in the analysis is stressed: in the logic underpinning options, the criteria for choosing between them, the assessment of trade-offs, and the methods employed to project outcomes. Students are encouraged to experiment and to learn from the experiences of other teams as part of a strategy of building and deepening their policy-crafting skills. Project work during the weeklong course can inevitably be short on evidence, so any initial results must be revisited before final conclusions are reached to allow time for further research and analysis before the project reports are submitted for assessment.
Policy processes are treated in the course as an aspect of policy design, rather than an overarching approach to policy development and policy analysis. Students are encouraged to appreciate the limitations of simplistic linear, stepwise policy process models, and the benefits of tailoring the nature of particular policy tasks and their order in the policy process, having primarily regard to the particular issue and context and the positioning of the issue within the wider policy system.
Working with the outcomes matrix helps students appreciate that they can examine alternatives at many different levels of analysis. After spending several days on their projects, they begin to appreciate the interrelationships between options, the values of concern to decision makers, and the impacts sought. The options matrix is a tool that needs to be applied with the appropriate caution, however, as it can also lead to problems—for example, overemphasizing a single dimension in specifying alternatives; multiplier effects from combining instru- ments inappropriately; and projecting outcomes from too limited an information and research base.
During the week, project teams are coached and mentored to keep them on track. Sometimes the primacy of purpose over process has to be reinforced: On occasion, a group will become determined to fill in all the cells of the matrix, even when the information and evidence for projecting outcomes is weak. I have observed that students develop a deeper understanding of policy analysis design
C. Scott
Journal of Public Affairs Education 441
Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings
skills by seeing the same tools and techniques applied by the various teams to different policy issues. This helps students begin to make connections between particular kinds of issues and the design of specific options and policy instruments, and the relative suitability of different tools and techniques to explore particular problems and solutions. Students learn from practical demonstration that policy work is at once art, science and craft, and calls for the cultivation of astute judgment.
Learning by doing seems to be a particularly effective way of building crafting skills, and the second project team presentations require students to demonstrate their communication and presentation skills. Students benefit from the process of mutual critiquing that is part of the final session for the course. They can often observe flaws in the work of others more readily than in their own, and the exercise cultivates their willingness to critique ideas independently in a teamwork setting, rather than to settle for easy consensus.
Designing and evaluating options provides great insights into applied problem solving and highlights the importance of selecting those criteria that resonate with the options being considered. Multi-criteria analysis is also taught, requiring students to assign weights to the criteria and observe whether they lead to different policy choices.
IMPROVING QUALITY AND POLICY CAPABILITY The course considers how the quality of and value derived from policy advice
can be assessed, and thus how policy capability can be cultivated and improved. Policy capability can be understood as the appropriate balance of knowledge, skills, competencies, and behaviors needed to deliver sound policy analysis and advice. Policy capability can be defined at the individual, group, organization, sector, or whole system level. The system approach considers not only the knowledge, skills, and competencies of analysts and advisers but also the role of elected and appoint- ed representatives, citizens and stakeholder groups, the media, experts, and other influences on the quality and value of analysis and advice.
Lifting policy capability and performance is an explicit preoccupation in both Australia and New Zealand, and the market for policy advice is becoming increas- ingly contested as a result. The New Zealand Review of Expenditure on Policy Advice (2010) and the Advisory Group on Reform of the Australian Government Administration (AGRAGA, 2010) document the need to invest in and profession- alize the policy advisory function, and both reports stress the preoccupation of the advisory system with “responsive” policy work, suggesting that more resources should be devoted to strategic policy analysis and advice (e.g., UK Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2002).
Ministers and governments have expressed some discontent with the policy advice on offer, typically singling out deficiencies in the public sector advisory system without considering the many other factors that influence the quality and value of policy analysis and advice.
442 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Designing Policies and Programs encourages development of the capability and capacity of the professional public service to look beyond the current govern- ment and short-term political imperatives. At the same time, it acknowledges that policy craft requires a melding of the political and the analytical. Policy settings will always be contested, nevertheless, because policy work involves values and politics as well as information, evidence, and analysis.
Components of the program exploit the opportunity created by drawing students from policy and management positions and from numerous jurisdictions across Australia and New Zealand. Participants reflect on the policy capability challenges and priority areas for policy capability developed by individuals and organizations within the ANZSOG consortium.
CONCLUSION Policy advisers and managers benefit from the requirement to apply policy
tools and techniques to real-world issues. They make useful connections between theory and practice and appreciate the importance of designing policies and programs that are fit for purpose. In general, students benefit demonstrably from developing and analyzing an outcomes/alternatives matrix. They become more willing to question and scrutinize options, and accept the need to interrogate public value rather than assume that the public sector self-evidently provides it.
Designing Public Policy and Programs encourages participants to explore diverse approaches to option design, and to overcome the state-centric bias that typifies a class of practicing public servants. Enhancing the craft of policy analysis and adding value to decision makers and citizens is less about technical efficiency and effectiveness and more about developing a clear strategic direction, a good understanding of the overarching policy system, which embraces many influences and drivers and both government and nongovernment actors and institutions. Better performance enjoins the development of capability at the organizational, sectoral, and whole-of-policy-system levels.
Designing Public Policy and Programs encourages careful attention to the definition of problems and opportunities, and fosters experimentation with a wide range of policy tools and techniques. It helps students to appreciate that policy analysis is not simply a multistep march from problem to solution. The course builds the design and crafting skills of individuals and groups, and ultimately the quality, capability, and performance of the policy and managers working for government organizations as part of a more complex and extensive public policy system. It cultivates a flexible public policy workforce equipped to develop the knowledge, skills, and competencies to craft policies that will be more consistently fit for purpose and to develop and exercise judgment; ultimately, to contribute to a public policy system that is purposeful rather than perfunctory.
C. Scott
Journal of Public Affairs Education 443
Teaching Policy Analysis in Cross-National Settings
REFERENCES Advisory Group on Reform of the Australian Government Administration (AGRAGA). (2010).
Ahead of the game. Canberra: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Retrieved from http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/aga_reform/aga_reform_blueprint/index.cfm
Althaus, C., Bridgman P., & Davis, G. (2007). The Australian Policy Handbook. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Canberra: Author.
Baehler, K. (2002). Intervention logic: A user’s guide. Public Sector, 25(3), 13–19.
Bardach, E. (2011). A practical guide for policy analysis. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Colebatch, H. K. (2002). Policy. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Mayer, I. S., van Daalen, C. E., & Bots, P. (2004). Perspectives on policy analysis: A framework for understanding and design. Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 4, 169–191.
Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Review of Expenditure on Policy Advice. (2010). Improving the quality and value of policy advice. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/policyexpenditurereview
Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1!19.
Scott, C., & Baehler, K. (2010). Adding value to policy analysis and advice. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
UK Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. (2002). The strategy survival guide. Retrieved from http:// interactive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/survivalguide/
Weimer, D. (1998). Policy analysis and evidence: A craft perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 114–129.
Claudia Scott is professor of Public Policy at the School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington and The Australia and New Zealand School of Govern- ment. Her teaching and research interests include policy analysis and advising, strategic policy and planning, and local government. She has had extensive experience teaching courses in these fields for academic credit and professional development in Australia and New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
444 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 445
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
and Improving Public Policy Content Online
Donna Lind Infeld and William C. Adams Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration
The George Washington University
ABSTRACT Most young Americans use Wikipedia. Among those in the age range of most MPA and MPP students (18–29 years old), 62% report turning to Wikipedia (Pew, 2012), although they probably know it is taboo to cite it as a source in an academic paper. Ironically, however, encouraging students to strengthen Wikipedia may be pedagogically valuable. During the 2010–2011 academic year, the Wikimedia Foundation launched WikiProject U.S. Public Policy, “aimed at finding better ways to recruit experts and students to help improve Wikipedia content” (//bit.ly/jpae-w). This case study of one Wikipedia project examines the pedagogical utility of using open-source, wiki-based assignments in policy analysis courses.
Keywords: policy analysis, Wikipedia, Internet, pedagogy
WIKIS AND WIKIPEDIA A wiki is a Web application that allows collaborative authorship. Unlike blogs,
wikis are not time based or sequential. The three basic types of wikis are (a) those that can be edited and accessed only by group members; (b) those, such as Weebly, that can be edited only by group members but can be accessed by the general public (Martin & Smith, 2011); and (c) those that are “open-source,” editable and accessible to the public. The most widely used open-source wiki is Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation’s online encyclopedia, which allows members of the public not only to read it but also to add to and amend its content. Wikipedia
JPAE 19 (3), 445–459
446 Journal of Public Affairs Education
ranks as the sixth most widely viewed website both world-wide and in the United States. Only two other wikis not under the Wikimedia umbrella1 can be found in the top 1,000 websites (WikiHow and Answers.com; see http://www.alexa.com/ topsites). Student engagement with open-source editing as described here could well apply to other sites; however, because Wikipedia is the most widely used, it is an ideal starting place for engaging students.
Wikipedia currently posts nearly 4 million articles in English. As a result of being open source, the accuracy and balance of these articles are subject to debate. One early study, using expert blind comparison of 50 science topics in Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica articles, found both sources to have low rates of serious errors, but Wikipedia had slightly more minor mistakes (Giles, 2005). Studies in a range of fields including medicine, pharmacology, philosophy, and library science have reported Wikipedia to be generally accurate. Brown (2011), examining coverage in political science, concluded, “Wikipedia seems to be roughly as accurate as established reference sources” (p. 339). However, Rector (2008) found a higher error rate in articles in the field of history compared to three leading reference books. Thus recent studies indicate that Wikipedia is more accurate than many may think, but they also suggest room for improvement in this perpetual work in progress. Indeed, as will be seen, class projects offer a provocative opportunity to refine Wikipedia content.
Wikipedia has been incorporated into teaching a wide range of disciplines at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, including, for example, history, chemistry, psychology, law, American studies (Wikipedia: School and university projects), anthropology, and environmental studies (http://outreach.wikimedia. org/wiki/Education/Case_Studies). Several potential advantages of using Wikipedia in academic courses have been identified by authors who have written about their experiences (Callis et al., 2009; Obar, 2011; Patch, 2010). Among other things, these authors have suggested that contributing to Wikipedia can give students valuable experience in four important areas:
1. Collaborating in a diverse environment
2. Fostering critical thinking about evidence
3. Effectively communicating information to a broad public audience
4. Appreciating the role of access to information in a democratic society
These objectives reflect the pedagogical approach that Newman, Marks, and Gamoran (1996) call authentic pedagogy. They argue for educational activities requiring students to be engaged in the construction of knowledge, engaging in disciplined inquiry, and providing value beyond school. Although these tactics could be helpful in many fields, they are particularly germane to the pedagogy and practice of both public administration and public policy where team-based research is widely used. Analysts must carefully weigh the best available evidence and then must successfully communicate their findings to varied stakeholders.
D. L. Infeld & W. C. Adams
Journal of Public Affairs Education 447
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
Other pedagogical values of using wikis may derive from the power of social networking and external transparency. Public access to student products via wikis can “increase the motivation for delivering work with high quality” (Dalsgaard & Paulsen, 2009). The presence of an engaged audience outside the classroom is a distinctly positive incentive for students (Baltzersen, 2010). If this Wikipedia assign- ment does indeed spur students in these ways, it could be a serious pedagogical tool.
THE WIKIPEDIA PUBLIC POLICY PROJECT Over 30 faculty members at 26 universities participated in the WikiProject
United States Public Policy during academic year 2010–2011 (Table 1). Courses that incorporated Wikipedia activities ranged from general policy courses to field-specific courses in environmental policy, economics, law, and many others (Table 2).
Table 1. Participating Universities
Boston University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown University Harvard University Indiana University James Madison University Lehigh University Louisiana State University Michigan State University Montana State University, Bozeman
New York University San Francisco State University
Source. WikiProject United States Public Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/).
Approximately 800 students participated in the project. Brief descriptions of the class assignments are available online (//bit.ly/jpae-a). In most courses, students were tasked, either individually or in groups, to develop a new page or substantially improve existing Wikipedia pages (e.g., Georgetown University [//bit.ly/jpae-b]
Santa Clara University Siena College Simmons College Syracuse University Texas Southern University Troy University University of California, Berkeley University of Kentucky University of San Francisco University of Southern California Virginia Tech Western Carolina University Winona State University
448 Journal of Public Affairs Education
and James Madison University [//bit.ly/jpae-c]). In a few courses, students often created new pages on rather specific topics that lacked any coverage (e.g., Louisiana State University [//bit.ly/JPAE-LMtS9j], Western Carolina [//bit.ly/JPAE-NVb5dJ],
Table 2. Examples of Courses in the Wikipedia Public Policy Project
Examples of Courses in the Wikipedia Public Policy Project General Courses Policy Analysis Public Policy Analysis: Public Roles in Private Markets Public Policy Making (including policy analysis) Public Policy Design and Evaluation Political Research Seminar Professional and Technical Editing Political Communication Seminar Public Relations Seminar Public Affairs Seminar Wikipedia and Public Policy Policy-Focused Courses Telecommunication Policy Analysis Environmental Policy Energy Economics and Policy Cyberlaw Federal Indian Law and Policy Copyright, Commerce, and Culture Advertising and Marketing Law Transnational NGOs in World Affairs Refugees in the Arab World International Trade and Strategy Approaches to Development Women and Human Rights Habituating and Addictive Drugs in Our Culture
Source. WikiProject United States Public Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/).
D. L. Infeld & W. C. Adams
Journal of Public Affairs Education 449
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
and San Francisco State University [//bit.ly/jpae-d]). Some assignments required students to use the qualitative assessment matrix (//bit.ly/Y6cKSZ) to evaluate current pages (e.g., at Michigan State [//bit.ly/JPAE-MGazom] and Troy University [//bit.ly/jpae-e]).
Although the Public Policy Project has ended, the Wikimedia Foundation maintains a multidisciplinary Wikipedia Education Program that provides support in the form of newsletters, training materials, and sample assignments as well as online and in-person “Wikipedia Ambassadors” trained to assist new contributors. Of course, any faculty member can develop a Wikipedia assignment without formal affiliation with such a project. The following case experience recounts how it can be an interesting, useful, and engaging undertaking.
Before initiating the WikiProject U.S. Public Policy, staff from the Wikimedia Foundation met with faculty of several policy schools to gauge their interest and encourage participation. They visited the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at The George Washington University in the late spring of 2010. I was intrigued by the idea of integrating Wikipedia into the policy analysis class, and I pilot tested a short assignment that summer, requiring students to critique online public policy content and offering bonus points if they changed online text.2 The following fall, my class (and several others at GW) became official participants in the project. Two of our MPA/MPP students, trained as Wikipedia Ambassadors, give brief instruction about editing Wikipedia content to the class. With their support, I required students to add new material to Wikipedia pages after conducting extensive policy research.
Although some courses in the Public Policy Project jumped right into a Wiki- pedia assignment, I considered some substantive expertise to be essential before editing a Wikipedia page. Therefore, I continued to require a fairly traditional policy analysis paper, but instead of being due at the end of the semester, it was due two thirds of the way through. Only after that paper was completed were students to move on to the Wikipedia assignment.
Clearly, writing for Wikipedia is not the same as producing a policy analysis. Policy analysis is generally defined as including certain basic steps: problem defi- nition, specification of criteria for evaluating policy alternatives, identification of policy options, and a comparative analysis culminating in a policy-relevant recommendation. Each of these steps involves gathering information about what currently is known, identifying what is agreed upon, and frequently applying findings from one arena to a different issue.
In contrast, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, designed to share agreed-upon know- ledge, not to assess likely outcomes of untried initiatives. However, some key components of a policy analysis—especially the problem definition and identifi- cation of policy options—do offer relevant and appropriate content for Wikipedia.
Students identified a Wikipedia page related either to the policy problem that was the focus of their analysis or to one of the policy alternatives they had
450 Journal of Public Affairs Education
assessed. In every case, students found relevant Wikipedia pages. They described the quality of these pages as ranging from “limited” to “impressive.” Topics included
Alternative Minimum Tax “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” DREAM Act Emergency Contraception Equal Pay for Women Maternal Health Oakland Unified School District Occupational Safety and Health Piracy in Somalia Recidivism
Students drew on class readings in critiquing the page and submitted changes online to improve its substance, style, tone, and/or documentation. They were expected to contribute at least half a typed page of new content, as a single section or throughout an article. Most inserted a page or more. They had the benefit of feedback on their major policy paper; but they were empowered to make Wikipedia changes as they saw fit, without preapproval from me. The final stage was to monitor feedback from the Wikipedia community. I asked them to track the page for at least 10 days, which seemed to be a reasonable window to make sure all reactions were noted. Only about one third of the students received any feedback, typically within a few days after posting. They reported all their Wikipedia contributions, along with the ensuing online reception, in a summary and analysis (employing relevant course readings) submitted to me at the end of the semester.
Learning the technical skills of editing Wikipedia was not difficult for these graduate students. Most were in our MPA program, and some were in our MPP or related master’s degree programs. Although a Wikipedia Ambassador conducted the in-class training the first semester, not a single student came to her lab sessions or contacted her individually for help. In subsequent semesters, I simply offered a 10-minute in-class segment about editing Wikipedia. Initially, the process of editing Wikipedia was more daunting to me than it was to these Facebook-generation students.
How did contributing to Wikipedia, an open-source Wiki, enhance the teaching of policy analysis in terms of the four objectives noted earlier?
Objective 1. Collaborating in a Diverse Environment Working in teams or other work units is central to careers in public admini-
stration and public policy, particularly in conducting policy analysis. Certainly on the job, analysts will rarely be able to produce and release research (or anything
D. L. Infeld & W. C. Adams
Journal of Public Affairs Education 451
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
else, for that matter) without considerable review and scrutiny. As an apprentice- ship for the real work of collaboration and negotiation, MPA and MPP courses often assign students to team projects.
Students working on Wikipedia projects must be prepared to engage in a more challenging sort of collaboration, involving many people from varied backgrounds, and not confined to the United States. They must do so in a demanding online, written dialogue. Contributing to Wikipedia entails more than just adding or de- leting content. Via the history and talk tabs on each page, contributors (and readers) can see the trail of past changes and have off-line conversations with others inter- ested in that page in order to defend their modifications. The result is collaborative authorship beyond a school paper with perhaps like-minded friends.
Wikis are democratic in that everyone can participate, and they permit “distributed authorship,” engaging groups to reach consensus (en.wikibooks.org/ wiki/Wiki_Pedagogy/Pedagogical_Potential). As Jonathan Obar, a communications professor, put it (2011):
Students learn the technical and social skills needed to work with wiki- technology, they’re pushed to collaborate and engage with Wikipedia’s social network, they are thrust into a thriving open-source movement, and they are exposed to a growing and increasingly relevant wiki- culture. Students experience all of this, while simultaneously learning course content. (//bit.ly/JPAE-PXQVzM)
In fact, two thirds of the students in my class did not receive any revisions or pushback on their Wikipedia contributions following their postings. Some students found themselves surprisingly disappointed that their work had not prompted feedback or counter-editing, although I argued that this outcome implied that their work had been so very solid—fair, well documented, and clearly conveyed— that it did not invite criticism or further editing. By monitoring activity of regular “watchers” of their page, they could see that others were tracking its amendments, so this was a plausible interpretation.
Students who did receive feedback were strikingly positive about their exper- iences. Andrew Harris described editing on Wikipedia to the student newspaper. Someone changed his text within 48 hours, but by applying the expertise he acquired in conducting his policy analysis, he justified the new content in the online discuss- ion section and had it reinstated in full (Ferris, 2010).
One very different case might be viewed as having a negative but constructive outcome. This student had her content completely and rapidly removed because it was considered biased and inadequately sourced. I had given her similar feedback on drafts of her research, but it appeared that her embarrassment from online outcome had more impact.
452 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Most students were pleasantly surprised by the quality and civility of the ensuing conversations, and trepidation turned to confidence. One typical observation:
My first experience editing Wikipedia was initially wrought with fear because I was unsure what feedback my content would receive from the public. My fear was unnecessary, however, as the response to the content was subdued and uneventful. … Ultimately, I felt that all of the changes made were valid and served to enhance the accuracy of the page’s content.
Another student reflected:
My communication with … other users on various talk pages shows that you can have a discussion on a public and free forum about [what a complex policy topic] means for different races and genders. The debate and our subsequent interaction shows how complicated this policy problem can be. Our back and forth demonstrated the various viewpoints on pertinent details surrounding the issue, and how the Internet can be a constructive forum.
Ultimately, in their careers as administrators and analysts, graduates will have to face having their work products vetted and critiqued by strangers. In this exercise —with a far wider audience than an ordinary class assignment—students seemed to gain confidence that strong preparation and a high-quality product, along with a respectful and collegial discourse, made an enormous difference in their capacity to have a constructive voice.
Objective 2. Fostering Critical Thinking About Evidence Much of the pedagogy of public administration can be traced to the teachings
of Dwight Waldo. In an interview by two of his students, Brown and Stillman (1986, p. 141), Waldo emphasizes two fundamental questions related to conceptual clarity and strength of evidence: “What are we talking about?” (Is it a concept, a problem, or a fact?) And, “How do we know?” (What tests of truth are relevant and admissible?) These questions are central to study across social science disciplines and fundamental to public policy and the tool of policy analysis. These are essentially the skills of critical thinking. Students are expected to be explicit about what we know and how we know it, with thorough documentation, for each step of a policy analysis.
The need to be able to clarify “messy” problems is a vital skill in policy analysis. O’Hare (2008) notes that MPP students must learn to address poorly specified questions that are typically based on vague or ambiguous concepts. He argues that faculty can best teach these skills with activities that involve actively coaching rather than telling students exactly what to do and how to do it. Likewise, Abel argues
D. L. Infeld & W. C. Adams
Journal of Public Affairs Education 453
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
that MPA students need to learn, among other things, “how to make rapid decisions based on incomplete and biased information” (2009, p. 154). Thus we need teaching tools that enable students to clarify concepts and problems as well as assess the validity of information they use. Although writing a policy analysis paper requires these skills, adding a Wikipedia component means that how well they convey and document that evidence will be tested with a much wider audience.
The Wikipedia assignment forced me, as the instructor, to address how to assess information sources even more explicitly than I had in previous semesters. But just describing valid information or giving students feedback on a paper is different from getting that feedback from the Wikipedia community. To an extra- ordinary degree, the assignment heightened students’ commitment to be able to defend their online input with the strongest possible evidence. Rather than some- thing to collect dust in a professor’s file cabinet, they were suddenly targets that the entire world could appraise.
Critical thinking in policy analysis employs fact-based information but is ultimately, as specified in its name, analytical. In contrast, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, calls for agreed-upon facts. Two Wikipedia policies are especially relevant to this distinction. Content cannot be original research (unpublished data, concepts, etc., “or any new interpretation, analysis or synthesis of published data”), and content must be verifiable, citing reputable sources (en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies). Validity of information on Wikipedia is established through peer review by an engaged and, hopefully, cumulatively fair-minded community (Dede, 2008).
The perceived stakes of the Wikipedia project seemed to dramatically increase students’ commitment to reliable, justifiable evidence:
This assignment has proven to be a great training for being able to present only reliable information.
[You become] personally invested. … In fact, after I posted my content, I checked the website almost daily to see if anyone had changed it. I was armed with hundreds of pages of research to back up my postings in case anyone had audaciously changed my content.
The possibility that external critics might find their contributions flimsy and unsubstantiated seemed to dramatically increase the pressure:
I was really concerned by the fact that publishing any information that was not well supported by evidence could have been contested. Therefore I wanted to be perfectly sure that the text I was going to publish could not be challenged under the points of sourcing and neutrality.
454 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Objective 3. Effectively Communicating Information to a Broad Public Audience
The participatory culture of Wikis creates a sense of social connections because participants care what other people think and believe that contri- butions matter (Jenkins, 2006). Becoming engaged in this culture helps students develop a professional self-image. According to Warschauer and Ware (2008, p. 222), “Technology and literacy are intimately tied up with expressions of individual and social identity, as users of technologies enter into new communities of practice and enact new social roles.”
Writing for the Wikipedia audience is clearly different from conduct- ing a policy analysis. Several major textbooks explicitly define the central role of an identified client in policy analysis, often in a contractual relationship (e.g., Bardach, 2011; Patton, Sawicki, & Clark, 2012; Weimer & Vining, 2010). The goal of some clients may be truly unbiased and value neutral, but the client may still be engaged with defining the issue and other aspects of an analysis. In the case of submitting content to Wikipedia, there is a large audience but, strictly speaking, no client. If students prepare traditional policy analyses with a client in mind, transporting their research to Wikipedia requires them to consider the content from a different vantage point, that of the general public.
Comments from several students conveyed that interacting with a large public audience helped them develop confidence and feel responsible for their work. For example:
Knowing that the content I was editing would [be] visible to every Wikipedia user made me feel responsible for the reliability of my production. I would dare to compare this feeling of responsibility to one that a policy analyst feels towards her client: all Wikipedia readers (almost all Internet users with knowledge of the English language) were my potential clients. … At first I was almost scared by the large audience I could reach just by improving a simple wiki-page. But at the same time this represents the great potential that Internet can offer.
One student noted that the assignment had helped her examine evidence closely as well as convey it clearly.
This exercise was very useful in furthering my ability to apply what Bardach calls the “Grandma Bessie Test,” i.e., to be able to explain my story to someone with little or no knowledge of the topic in a simple and clear way.
D. L. Infeld & W. C. Adams
Journal of Public Affairs Education 455
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
Objective 4. Appreciating the Role of Access to Information in a Democratic Society
One broader benefit of using a Wikipedia assignment is encouraging students to think about the importance of access to information. As James Madison (1822) put it long ago, “A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” Their online work seemed to vividly remind students of this essential component of a participatory political system:
This Wikipedia assignment opened my eyes for the need for policy makers to be more involved in the free exchange of information over the Internet.
Drawing on a class reading, one student noted:
Al Gore, in his book Assault on Reason, identifies the Internet as not only the best option available, but as the actual path towards participative democracy. I think “wiki” platforms can be considered one of the best representations of this potential. … Internet and platforms such as Wikipedia can be helpful in increasing democracy and information sharing.
Likewise, other comments addressed how students felt engaged and respon- sible as a result of this exercise:
I loved contributing my hard-earned research and ideas to Wikipedia. I felt I was helping a grander audience have a more balanced perspective on my issue. It was awesome!
One student perfectly summed up this objective:
[I got to] … take my semester-long research project out of an academic context and focus on aspects most relevant to the general public. It gave me a first-hand insight into the way Wikipedia helps promote accuracy by encouraging users to forge a consensus. ... It helped me to realize the role that social media sites have in defining policy problems for the public.
Thus, as a result of this assignment, students seemed to feel a heightened level of engagement with the policy debate.
456 Journal of Public Affairs Education
LESSONS LEARNED Lesson one: Implementing a Wikipedia assignment, although perhaps initially
intimidating, is not difficult, either for the instructor or students. Trained Wikipedia Ambassadors are available on many college campuses. Wikipedia offers tutorials and “cheat sheets” (//bit.ly/jpae-t) on how to edit content online. If fact, unless there are changes to fonts or style, it is basically just a matter of cutting and pasting.
Lesson two: Be prepared for a range of strong reactions. The assignment gener- ated considerable interest, including an article in the campus newspaper. However, there was also pushback from some colleagues who dismissed the assignment as anti-academic and nonscholarly. Wikipedia is still controversial in academic circles, and this project can inflame that debate.
Lesson three: At the outset, it is essential to be clear about how the exercise employs and sharpens skills required of policy analysts. In the concluding anony- mous class evaluations, a few (5 out of 30 students) wrote that the assignment was insufficiently pertinent to the course. In subsequent semesters, I more explicitly talked about how the Wikipedia exercise is germane to policy analysis with its similar requirements for thorough documentation of sources, clarity in writing, avoiding bias in content or in tone, sensitivity to a range of perspectives, profes- sional negotiation with outside critics, and providing reliable information to the public. This new prefatory discussion was helpful for those students who did not initially see the logic and embrace the idea.
Lesson four: Teaching with Wikipedia proved to be engaging and pedagogical- ly rewarding. Wikis offer a democratic environment where students can test their knowledge, make a contribution to information in the public arena, and develop professional writing skills and identity. They offer a real-time environment that maximizes interaction, and a platform for refining a range of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and research skills. Students become more engaged with real-world issues while being held accountable to an audience representing a range of stakeholder views. The Wikipedia experience illustrates Abel’s (2009) call for creative use of stimulating technology to help our students gain the complex array of skills, values, and sensitivities required by public service.
Contributing to Wikipedia helps students clarify whether the topic of concern is a concept, a problem, or evidence. It also forces them to weigh the strength of that evidence as they address the question of “how we know.” When applied to policy analysis, the assignment has direct relevance to the challenge of specifying “messy” problems and identifying and defining policy options available to address those problems. As stated by one student, “I believe Wikipedia is the most ambitious social experiment to answer the question of ‘what is knowledge?’ and I am very happy to be part of this discussion.”
Lesson five: Contributing content to a major, open-source website transformed an ordinary classroom exercise into an opportunity to inform a worldwide audi- ence on challenging public policy issues. With elevated stakes, the process acquired
D. L. Infeld & W. C. Adams
Journal of Public Affairs Education 457
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
a greatly heightened level of excitement, pressure, and responsibility. Clearly, Wikipedia can be an innovative tool in teaching policy analysis and a medium for distributing research conducted in a range of policy courses. As students enrolling in our programs arrive with increasing levels of media literacy and technological savvy, they embrace opportunities to employ those 21st-century tools. Using Wikipedia, or another online open-source environment, is a unique and stimulating way to engage students, make the material come alive, and bring our courses into the digital age.
FOOTNOTES 1 Wikimedia Foundation sponsors other open-source sites such as Wikimedia Commons (a data set
of usable media files), Wikinews, Wiktionary, WikiSource (free content publication), Wikiquote, Wikibooks (open-source textbooks), and Wikiversity, “a project devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research” for use in education (wikiversity.org/).
2 Although this entire article is coauthored, this section is written in the first person by the course instructor, Donna Lind Infeld.
REFERENCES Abel, C. F. (2009). Toward a signature pedagogy for public administration. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 15(2), 145–160.
Baltzersen, R. K. (2010). Radical transparency: Open access as a key concept in wiki pedagogy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 791–809.
Bardach, E. (2011). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (4th ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press.
458 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Brown, A. R. (2011). Wikipedia as a data source for political scientists: Accuracy and completeness of coverage. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 339–342.
Brown, B., & Stillman, R. J. (1986). A search for public administration: The ideas and career of Dwight Waldo. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Callis, K. L, Christ, L. R., Resasco, J., Armitage, D. W., Ash, J. D., Caughlin, T. T., et al. (2009). Improving Wikipedia: Educational opportunity and professional responsibility. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(4). doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.003
Dalsgaard, C., & Paulsen, M. F. (2009) Transparency in online education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–22.
Dede, C. (2008, May–June). A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE Review, 80–81. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/seismic-shift-epistemology
Ferris, S. (2010, September). Wikipedia recruits GW students to edit website’s content. GW Hatchet, 13.
Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900–901. doi:10.1038/438900a
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. White paper for the MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning. macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_ WHITE_PAPER.PDF
Madison, J. (1822). Epilogue: Securing the Republic. In Gaillard Hunt (Ed.), The Writings of James Madison. 9 vols. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900–1910.
Martin, F., & R. Smith. (2011, November 2). Using Weebly to teach policy analysis in today’s classroom. Presented at the 2011 APPAM Workshop: Teaching Policy Analysis and Public Management in Today’s Classroom, Washington, D.C.
Newman, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1966). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312.
Obar, J. (2011, January 15). From my dirty little secret to my favorite tool for e-pedagogy: How one university professor learned to love Wikipedia. Wikimedia Blog.
O’Hare, M. (2008). Pedagogy for policy analysis and management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 1030–1044.
Patch, P. (2010). Meeting student writers where they are: Using Wikipedia to teach responsible scholarship. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 37(3), 278–285.
Patton, C. V., Sawicki, D. S., & Clark, J. (2012). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pew Internet and American Life Report. (2011). Wikipedia, past and present. Retrieved from http:// pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Wikipedia.pdf
Rector, L. H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7–22.doi:10.1108/00907320810851998
D. L. Infeld & W. C. Adams
Journal of Public Affairs Education 459
Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching Policy Analysis
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2008). Learning, change, and power: Competing frames of technology and literacy. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 216–240). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Weimer, D., & A. R. Vining. (2010). Policy analysis: Practice and concepts (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Donna Lind Infeld is a professor at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at The George Washington University, where she is also director of the PhD program. She teaches graduate courses in policy analysis and research methods. Her recent publications have focused on public administration education in the United States and China.
William C. Adams, professor of Public Policy and Public Administration at the Trachtenberg School at The George Washington University, teaches research methods and applied statistics courses to both MPA and MPP students. He has been a frequent contributor to the Journal of Public Affairs Education. His most recent book is Election Night News and Voter Turnout.
460 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 461
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators” in
Different National Settings
Jennifer Oser University of Pennsylvania
Alma Gadot-Perez
Itzhak Galnoor Hebrew University of Jerusalem
ABSTRACT This article reviews two sets of generalizable lessons learned from adapting pedagog- ical material on the case method and policy workshops for Israeli Master of Public Policy programs. First, we discuss the considerations involved in the development of a cohesive series of original case studies in the Israeli context. Second, we review the creation of a specific exercise that integrates the case method and policy work- shops pedagogy in the classroom—namely a Political Strategy Appendix—as an example of how the development of original pedagogical material in different settings may lead to instructional innovations that can be useful to the international community of policy scholars. Building on Stokes’s (1986) analogy of policy work- shops as “flight simulators,” this article contributes to the recognition that as the worldwide community of policy scholars continues to grow and diversify, context- ually specific flight simulators will enrich policy instruction both in and beyond U.S. borders.
Keywords: case method, policy workshop, international pedagogy, political strategy
In a now-classic examination of political and organizational analysis in the policy curriculum over two decades ago, Donald Stokes (1986) explored two central pedagogical devices in policy curricula: the case method and policy workshops. Recent reassessments of policy instruction note that these two central pedagogical devices are still front and center, although concerns have arisen regarding their U.S.-centric development and application.
JPAE 19 (3), 461–477
462 Journal of Public Affairs Education
The first set of concerns relates to the need for case material that goes beyond U.S. borders to enhance global policy instruction. Indeed, universities located in a variety of national contexts with varied levels of democratic development began approaching American institutions such as the Kennedy School more than two decades ago to request permission to use U.S.-focused cases and to solicit support for developing new cases for their own national contexts (Husock, 1993). Yet, a recent assessment of emerging policy programs around the world found that although several countries have attempted to adopt normative policy analysis approaches as developed in the United States, these efforts have yielded mixed results in diff- erent settings (Geva-May, Nasi, Turrini, & Scott, 2008).
The second set of concerns relates to what Straussman termed the “collective hand-wringing” (2008, p. 630) in American policy schools regarding attempts to adjust curricula to better meet the needs of an increasingly international student body. The typical internationalization effort of attempting to “include a Kennedy School case or a couple of readings that are ‘international’” (Straussman, 2008, p. 630) has clearly fallen short of meeting the needs of a changing student body.
To address how the two pedagogical pillars of case studies and policy workshops can be better integrated in varied national settings, this article reviews two main pedagogical developments in our adaptations to the Israeli setting. First, we review our experience of developing a coherent series of original policy case studies that were designed to address contextually specific issues of theory and practice. The central lessons learned from this adaptation are particularly relevant for those instructors beyond U.S. borders who may be interested in launching a similar effort to develop original policy cases that are contextually sensitive and relevant. Yet, given the increased internationalization of the student body of public affairs and public policy programs in the U.S. that became prominent over a decade ago (cf. Devereux & Durning, 2001), this topic may also be instructive for American instructors considering the use of international cases in U.S. domestic-focused policy programs.
Second, we review the creation of a specific exercise that integrates the case method and policy workshops pedagogy in the classroom, namely a Political Strategy Appendix. Although this exercise was developed for our instruction in the Israeli setting, the central contribution as reviewed in this article is not context-specific. We therefore review this exercise as an instructional contribution in and of itself, and even more importantly, we review it as a heuristic example of how the develop- ment of original pedagogical material in different settings may lead to instructional innovations that can be useful to the international community of policy scholars.
DEVELOPING ORIGINAL CASE STUDIES IN DIFFERENT NATIONAL CONTEXTS To examine the contribution of original case studies in different contexts, it
is worth reviewing what constitutes a “good case” for the purposes of policy instruction. The objective of the case method is to help students learn from past
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 463
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
and future experiences in order to prepare them for engaging with the world of practice (Zimmerman, 1985). A classic articulation of the pedagogical purpose of a single case is that it serves as “the vehicle by which a chunk of reality is brought into the classroom to be worked over by the class and the instructor” (Lawrence, 1953, p. 215). As a general pedagogical approach, the case method is an inductive teaching and learning process in which cases are used to train students to analyze the specifics of a case, as well as to draw generalizable lessons through the interplay of theory and practice (Foster, McBeth, & Clemons, 2010; Garvin, 2003; Massie, 1995). Instructional cases do not aim to provide a definitive documentation of a historical event; rather, the presentation of a “chunk of reality” is intended to pro- vide a substantive vehicle for elucidating a specific theoretical question or action dilemma (Kennedy & Scott, 1985, p. 1). Given this review of the pedagogical objective of the case method, it is clear that the past and future experiences of students are inevitably shaped by their context.
Yet, a review of the best-selling cases from the Kennedy School of Government found that most cases use a “hero-centered” model of social and organizational change that focuses on the dilemmas and actions of individual leaders without accompanying historical, social and institutional contextualization (Chetkovich & Kirp, 2001). This focus on the “figure” of the public leader rather than the “ground” of organizations and politics has been attributed to the disciplinary shift from public administration to public policy (Lynn, 1996), and there is no evidence that this hero-centered model of case studies has changed over time. Chetkovich and Kirp’s review clarifies that this hero-centered instructional approach is both unachievable and undesirable, because it encourages students and practi- tioners to conclude that politicians and the polity should be considered as secondary to the role of analysts and managers. Their conclusion was to encourage instructors who taught these cases to work to counter this hero-centered message by self- consciously teaching about the contextual and historical elements of a case. As discussed in Yang’s (2005) overview of efforts made in China to adapt Western cases and to create original cases based in China, it can be difficult to achieve a meaningful balance between local context and global standards of instruction.
Although contextual cases beyond U.S. borders were once rare, they have be- come more common in recent years through sources such as the Kennedy School’s case program, Electronic Hallway, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s research unit, and the International Institute for Asian Studies. The preponderance of publicly available instructional cases are still American- focused, however, evidenced by the fact that the Kennedy School’s case program in 2013 includes 1,977 cases, only 50 of which are contextually set outside of North America.1 An implication of this U.S. contextual focus is that instructional cases tend to deal with substantive policy topics that are most germane to American practitioners and scholars. In a discussion of policy process curricula, Straussman lists a number of topics that have received minimal attention in U.S. case studies
464 Journal of Public Affairs Education
even though they are important topics elsewhere, such as “the privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation, the marketization of government services, rule of law, transparency, and accountability” (2008, p. 631). From an Israeli perspective, this is a remarkable list; all of these topics are essential in the Israeli policy-making environment, even though they have received little attention in U.S.-focused instructional case studies.
To extend Stokes’ (1986, p. 51) analogy of policy workshops as “flight simulators,” the dearth of these kinds of topics in U.S. instructional materials that are critical for policy analysis in other national contexts means that the direct use of existing U.S. case studies to other national contexts risks a pedagogical “crashing and burn- ing” in the effort to prepare policy students for the world of practice in different national contexts. If centrally relevant issues in a policy professional’s day-to-day life are simply not addressed in policy instruction, then the case method and policy workshops are ill equipped to serve the purpose of meaningfully integrating theory and practice. In addition to this central theoretical concern, we experienced other practical advantages of the development of contextually sensitive and relevant case studies.
A key practical advantage of original case studies in a local context is the resulting capacity to effectively hone in on the most important theoretical and practical content to maximize student learning. Decades of experience of using the case study method has shown that case study preparation, when done well, is a particularly demanding assignment for students in the breadth of material to master and the importance of understanding detailed nuance (Garvin, 2003). In our experience, the added challenge of constantly decoding foreign cultural and institutional details in a nonnative language has led to superficial and unsatisfying implementation of the case method. In addition, although the primary goal of cases is not to create a definitive historical account, we have found inherent utility in teaching cases within the political context in which students are most likely to implement their gained knowledge and skills. As detailed in the next section, teaching contextually grounded cases has the added value of elucidating the centrality of specific institutions in a given context and of analyzing political issues that may have perennial importance.
The Development of Original Cases in Israel: Specific Example of a Global Practice
In this section, we review our efforts to create a series of original case studies in Israel in order to provide a specific example of original case development beyond U.S. borders. The following section reviews generalizable lessons from this exper- ience. The original case studies discussed in this article were developed for instruc- tion in a master’s level course titled Political Analysis of Public Policymaking in Israel taught by the authors in the Federmann School for Public Policy and Govern-
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 465
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
ment at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. We then adapted the cases for an intensive workshop for the Faculty of Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. These cases were recently published, along with additional instructional material, in a coedited book in Hebrew intended for students, instructors and policy practitioners (Galnoor, Oser, & Gadot-Perez, 2012). The audience for the book is intentionally broad and includes policy students, government workers, policy advisors, and social change leaders in nongovernmental organizations and businesses alike. Indeed, cases from this book have been used for instruction in master’s programs for policy students at various stages of their careers, including those who are full-time workers and managers in government ministries and institutions, private corporations, and nongovernmental entities.
The tension between the universal and the particular in the development of non-U.S. policy programs writ large is aptly posed as a dilemma by Fritzen from his perch in Singapore: “Are we an Asian school of public policy, or simply a school of public policy in Asia? What would make the difference?” (Fritzen, 2008, p. 207). From the perspective of this global dilemma, Hebrew University is clearly an Israeli school of public policy (and not simply a school of public policy in Israel), evidenced by the fact that, as of this writing, the language of instruction is Hebrew, and almost all students are Israeli citizens. Foreign students are not systematically recruited, and there is no institutionalized exchange program. Yet, even though the program has a clear national identity, it aims to be globally com- petitive in terms of excellence in research and instruction, and the curriculum has been developed with the intention of drawing on the best possible teaching and research practices around the globe.
The relatively recent development in Israel of master’s programs in public pol- icy and public affairs leads to an array of challenges and opportunities. Hebrew University’s School of Public Policy and Government is just more than a decade old, and policy instruction and research in other academic institutions in Israel are likewise in early stages of development. A challenge presented by such a recent development of this academic discipline in Israel is the appropriate adaptation of existing pedagogical materials, which are often developed in American institutions and focused on U.S.-based policy content. How is it possible, then, to make this material effectively instructive in the Israeli context despite significant differences between Israeli and American institutional structures and policy-making environments?
For the purpose of highlighting general guidelines for developing context- sensitive case studies, the unique features of Israeli public institutions are not important per se. Yet, to relate to the Israeli context as an exemplar for identifying useful original case study topics, we review a few noteworthy features of Israeli public administration. In particular, in the early years following the founding of the state in 1948, political parties were so central to governance that the country was referred to as a “party-state” (Akzin, 1955). Even in the 1960s, the sector
466 Journal of Public Affairs Education
boundaries between the government, private economy, and the civil society were almost nonexistent. Although strong ideological differences remained among political parties vying for power, parties lost their central role in shaping the public agenda over time in favor of public-bureaucratic mechanisms, the media, and a variety of interest groups.
In comparison to the American policy-making context, however, Israeli policy processes are still remarkably concentrated in the hands of a small number of governmental ministries and elected representatives. In recent years, public admini- stration in Israel is affected by three main shifts in sector boundaries. First, the scope of state tasks has continued to narrow as part of the contraction of the traditional welfare state. Second, the private sector has become increasingly dominant in ideo- logy as well as practical influence. Third, civil society and the third sector have increased markedly since the state-centric founding period. Building on our experience in the Israeli context, the following section reviews the development of a series of original cases for instruction with a focus on clarifying lessons learned for supporting similar efforts in other settings.
Lessons Learned From Developing a Series of Original Case Studies Beyond U.S. Borders
Building on the Kennedy School’s case program advice of almost three decades ago, our case selection and development process began by clarifying the pedagog- ical issue each case was intended to raise (Robyn, 1986). The central aim of the course development and the edited book of cases was to hone students’ and readers’ skills in analyzing the political environment of policy making. The general message of the course and book is that policy analysts must first tackle their work as if there were no political considerations, and then reassess this analysis while taking the contextual political environment into account. The book therefore aims to broaden the often technical approach to policy analysis by developing a contextually sensitive understanding of this topic in advanced democracies in general and in Israel in particular.
The case studies are designed to give students opportunities to look deeply inside historic policy cases in Israel to learn from policy practitioners’ years of experience, including their successes and failures. In this way, the case studies are a unique avenue for learning about theory on policy processes, as well as the actual professional challenges faced by those engaged in policy making. Each case begins with a brief introduction that aims to provide a conceptual framework for analyzing the case. The cases conclude with a series of targeted questions and recommended readings intended to guide readers—students, instructors, and practitioners alike—to analyze the dilemmas that arise in each case.
Two levels of learning were used as criteria for case selection. On the first level, the cases bring life to actual historical events in the Israeli context, which we selected and developed to address a specific theoretical question or dilemma.
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 467
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
Throughout the reading of a case, the reader is confronted with the central question of “what would you do if you were one of the central characters in this case?” Even a seemingly straightforward question—such as “what was the problem that caused the crisis described in the case?”—concretizes the difficulties decision makers face in the eye of a storm. On this first level, the case allows for the analysis of particular interests, central characters, and successful or problematic strategic moves. This first level can be thought of as the level of inspecting the trees within a forest, in which each case can be thought of as a single tree that must be studied in great detail. Through the personal and organizational history of the characters, the interpersonal and institutional interactions, and the unique politics of a particular case, insights arise regarding general guidelines for action.
The transition to the second level of generalization and lesson learning—in other words, gaining a sense of the forest based on the trees—is a critical challenge in effectively using the case method. Each case in the book provides an opportunity for readers to gain experience with diagnosing problems and challenges that are inherent in a particular case but are not necessarily unique to the specific case at hand. Therefore, developing a general understanding of the problems identified in a case is critical for future implementation of the insights and lessons learned.
During the process of testing and developing these cases in the Israeli class- room, a number of key issues clearly proved to be foundational topics that students returned to again and again in their learning process. Therefore, over time the course was restructured into two distinct sections that also frame the book in order to frontload the teaching of these foundational topics. The first Foundational Issues section lays out the conceptual framework for understanding key elements of the policy-making environment in Israel. The second Policy-related Topics section includes cases selected to touch on a variety of topics to round out a holistic under- standing of the policy-making process in Israel. Some of the questions raised by these cases include: What is the connection between corruption and creativity? How is it possible to distinguish between professionalism and organizational politics? How are structural problems affected by the time constraints of political pressures? How effective is civil society in influencing public policy? What is the role of investigative committees in the policy process?
To provide a window into design considerations in developing the case studies, Box 1 reviews the theoretical issues addressed in all three of the Foundational Issues case studies and a selected number of cases in the Additional Policy-related Topics section. Some of the additional policy-related topics cases in the book use a well-known historical case in Israel to exemplify a topic that is also well covered in American cases, such as the tension between political versus professional responsibility, and the political environment of public administrators. The cases summarized in Box 1 include only cases that address topics of central importance to Israeli policy making and policy analysis that have received less attention in American instructional cases.2
468 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Box 1. Original Israeli Case Studies
I. Foundational Issues Values as a basis for policy Given the ideological polarization and political divisiveness in Israel, we found it crucial to address values as a basis for policy making as a topic in and of itself. The case study developed to highlight this issue analyzes efforts made between 1994 and 2003 to institute a stock market tax in Israel. This case highlights the importance of understanding the process of decision making on a particular policy issue, including pragmatic issues of developing agreements and desirable democratic processes for advancing policy reform.
Law as a means for policy making Legislation is a central tool in responsible governance in an advanced constitutional democracy, and it is an increasingly central tool for understanding the policy-making process in the Israeli context. The case study developed to address this issue presents the gap between the positions taken by the Israeli Civil Service Commissioner and the Israeli Women’s Lobby on the topic of the advancement of women from all backgrounds, Arabs and Druze in the public service in Israel. The central question addressed in the case is whether the goal of achieving social change is best achieved through advancing legislation or whether (and under what circumstances) attempts to affect civic norms could yield more meaningful or effective results.
The budget as a political and administrative tool The heightened centrality of the Finance Ministry in the policy-making process in Israel, particularly in comparison to other advanced democracies, merited a systematic review of the unique aspects of the Israeli budgeting process. To present this foun- dational issue, we chose to outline central principles of the budgeting process with an emphasis on reviewing historical developments and the organizational context of the Budget Department in Israel. This historical overview includes a review of the organizational culture of the Budget Department, which was established during a major financial crisis in Israel in the mid-1980s. Given the centrality of the budget- ing process to policy making in Israel, the content in this chapter is referred to in some way in almost every case study in the book.
II. Additional Policy-Related Topics Systemic problems and political timelines Israeli media are saturated with reports of local government salary payment crises at least three times a year: toward the end of budget discussions in December, lead- ing up to the Jewish holiday of Passover in March, and the high holidays in late August. The case details the problematic legal infrastructure regarding the operation of local government in Israel as well as the budgeting relationship between the local and central governments. Two main conflicting roles of the local government in Is- rael come into stark relief through the examination of this case: local government as a performer of services provided by the central government, and local government as a substantive layer of democratic governance.
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 469
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
Box 1. Original Israeli Case Studies (continued)
Delegating authority and leading change The delegation of responsibility in the process of leading organizational change is particularly important in Israel given the institutional tendency toward centraliza- tion of government authority. A case dealing with this topic reviews an attempt in the mid-1990s to create Exemplary Offices to serve as role models for institutional change in public service writ large. Through a review of this historic experiment, the case opens a window to better understanding the structural reforms, known as New Public Management that have taken place in the past thirty years in a number of developed countries, but were never fully integrated in Israel’s public sector.
Procedural rules versus responding to opportunities and threats In a young and rapidly developing country like Israel, it is not uncommon for procedural rules to seem unnecessarily cumbersome in the face of dynamic oppor- tunities and threats. To highlight this tension, a case was developed that reviews the decision to establish a private oil company instead of a governmental company to manage the oil fields in Sinai that were conquered and seized in the Six Day War in 1967. Key questions posed through the case study include: What role does impro- visation play in the effort to take advantage of opportunities or to avoid threats in conditions of uncertainty? How should proper management and managerial super- vision be prioritized in the face of unexpected opportunities and constraints? And what are the definitive distinctions between creativity and corruption?
Organizational conflict in political and administrative systems Political rivalry in administrative settings is often a barrier to the development of sound policy, and this is a particularly problematic dynamic in a small country like Israel where political and professional networks are highly enmeshed. A case review- ing the attempt to establish a school of public policy in the mid-1990s delves into the need for professionals to develop coalitions, recruit support, and ensure that their professional plans are not torpedoed by organizational politics. This case pres- ents a rivalry between different public service units in order to frame fundamental questions regarding the role of interorganizational conflict in policy making.
Citizen involvement in public policy making The role of citizens and civil society organizations in raising policy problems on the public agenda has changed rapidly over time in Israel, where the once state-centric “party state” of the 1950s has given way to the relatively vibrant role of civil society in contemporary politics (Oser, 2010). A case reviewing the legislation of a public housing law in 1998 presents the success of a grassroots coalition’s efforts to place social issues on the public agenda, while also highlighting the challenges faced by citizens attempting to influence policy outcomes. Given the public demonstrations of thousands of Israelis over social and economic justice sparked by a crisis of hous- ing affordability in the summer of 2011, this case deals with perennial issues of the potential for citizen influence on policy processes in Israel.
470 Journal of Public Affairs Education
ORIGINAL CASE DEVELOPMENT IN NON-U.S. SETTINGS AND INSTRUCTIONAL INNOVATION
In this section we review an example of how the creation of original case materials in non-U.S. settings may lead to generalizable instructional innovations, in addition to the benefit reviewed in the previous section of improving case study instruction. Through the process of academic instruction, which led to the develop- ment of a coherent set of cases, we also developed an exercise to support students learning to write a Political Strategic Appendix for the purpose of training profess- ional policy analysts in the Israeli context.
As a supplement to traditional policy analysis workshops, we sought existing textbooks and instructional materials that would address the topic of how to supple- ment policy analysis papers to take into account the political environment of policy making. If an Israeli policy analyst does not carefully consider the structure, limitations, and opportunities of governmental ministries and representatives, any amount of brilliant policy analysis will likely remain on the shelf regardless of how well various constituencies are recruited to support the recommendations in the paper. Given the centralized nature of Israeli governmental decision making discussed above, a political strategic appendix is therefore a crucial supplement to a successful policy paper in the Israeli setting.
We found that in American instructional material, however, the topic of political strategy tended to be separated as an entirely unrelated instructional topic. We therefore created an exercise that would help students to integrate the lessons learned from the original case studies about the political environment of policy making into their policy analysis writing. Box 2 outlines the schematic description of policy paper development, which we designed to consist of two main components. The first component of policy paper preparation, outlined in steps one through six, represents a schematic outline of standard elements in a policy paper, as often presented in canonical guides to policy analysis (e.g., Bardach, 2008; Weimer & Vining, 2005). The second component, outlined in step seven, reviews the Political Strategic Appendix exercise.
In our instruction of this exercise, we clarify that a first draft of the strategic appendix should be written only after the policy alternatives have been identified and that it should never be undertaken at the beginning of the policy analysis process. This approach encourages students to release themselves from narrow conceptions of what seems politically feasible in their first round of analysis, while also encouraging them to hone their pure analytical recommendations given considerations of opportunities and constraints in the political environment. Through this exercise, students learn that the initial stages of problem definition and the intellectual search for solutions to the defined problem require freedom from political constraints. This exercise also emphasizes, however, that more ad- vanced stages in the policy analysis process require a keen understanding of the political context, including potential sources of resistance.
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 471
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
A standard policy workshop is conducted in Hebrew University’s School of Public Policy in which students gain experience in policy paper preparation in steps one through six. The course on the political analysis of policy making aimed to help students hone their policy paper writing skills with the additional tool of preparing a political strategic appendix based on the steps outlined in Box 2. The steps recommended for developing a strategic appendix are intended to cover the broad range of tools that students can draw upon to consider the political environment of policy development, and they are in no way meant to be narrowly prescriptive. Indeed, in reviewing these steps with students, we highlight the inher- ent tension between producing a high-quality analytic policy paper in comparison to the more fluid development of a political strategic appendix, depending on the policy topic under consideration.
In general, our experience has been that the main steps outlined in Box 2 encourage students to develop a fairly comprehensive Political Strategic Appendix. In line with our identification of values as a foundational issue in policy analysis in the Israel context, the first step of drafting the strategic appendix is to identify the values-based implications of the recommended policy alternatives, including a consideration of who potentially benefits and who is potentially harmed. Mapping the benefits and the losses of a given policy enables analysts to develop both a greater understanding of the meaning of the policy recommendations and knowledge of potential limits of compromise between professional policy proposals given the extant political constraints. Then more practical issues are taken into consideration, including a mapping of opposing and supporting actors, proposals for increasing the likelihood of political implementation, preparing a timeline, and developing a media strategy.
The content of the initial policy paper is then revised based on this analysis of the political environment. In this way, an initial policy analysis based on scholarly and policy research focuses on developing an ideal policy recommendation, which is then informed and adjusted given the opportunities and limitations uncovered in the process of developing the strategic appendix. In this final process of revision, students are also encouraged to establish what Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) refer to as the nonnegotiable “red lines,” meaning to clarify issues of substance that are not subject to compromise, regardless of considerations of implementation and feasibility.
In sum, this Political Strategic Appendix exercise developed as an organic outgrowth of our creation of original case studies in the Israeli setting, and our efforts to better integrate the two pedagogical pillars identified by Stokes (1986) as constituting the “flight simulator” of policy instruction, namely the case method and policy workshops. Although we created this exercise with the centralized nature of governmental decision making in Israel in mind, it is likely that this exercise could be useful in a variety of national contexts, including those with
472 Journal of Public Affairs Education
less centralized decision-making and policy-making structures. We therefore conclude this review of the Political Strategic Appendix exercise by noting
Box 2. Developing a Political Strategic Appendix
I. Policy Paper Preparation
1. Background: Provide information on the topic, actions taken in the past, and an overview of the timelines or urgency of the issue.
2. Goal: What is the goal of the policy paper? A brief and clear formulation of the goal(s) for which the paper is being written. This description should relate to the values motivating the policy paper.
3. Problem definition: The definition of the problem that allows for action- able solutions.
4. Policy alternatives description and assessment: Analysis of different policy alternatives that can solve the defined problem. The different solutions should be assessed in light of the goals and values identified in section 2 above. The comparison of alternatives can be conducted through the use of different criteria in relation to the overarching goal of the policy paper.
5. Identification of opportunities and constraints: timeline, budget, etcetera.
6. Recommendation: The recommended policy alternative, justification of the choice including an identification of the weaknesses, analysis of sensitivities, and potential backup recommendation(s).
II. Analysis of the Political Environment
7. Political Strategic Appendix: Political strategy for implementation of the policy recommendation. Central points in the analysis of this plan include:
a. The values-based implications of the recommended policy (including who benefits and who is harmed)
b. Mapping of opposing and supporting actors
c. Political implementation: proposals for recruiting the support or moderation of the opposition
d. Preparing an action timeline
e. Media strategy (including social media)
f. Analyzing the policy alternatives according to the suggested political strategy, and the preparation of alternative plans in the event of insurmountable political obstacles
g. Establishing “red lines” of proposed policy that are not open to negotiation in the political strategy development
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 473
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
that similar generalizable instructional innovations are likely to occur as policy scholars increasingly adapt the “flight simulator” of the case method and policy workshops to address substantive topics in different national contexts.
CONCLUSION In this article, we aimed to examine the lessons learned in our efforts to
develop original case studies in the Israeli setting with an intention of inspiring and informing similar efforts in other contexts. What are the key lessons learned from our pedagogical adaptation in the Israeli context?
First, our experience in developing a coherent series of original cases shows the added value of being able to identify foundational issues in a given setting. In place of the frequent approach of using the most common case studies available from American settings and adding one or a handful of “international” cases for variety, the approach outlined in this article is to consider the whole of a national context’s political and policy considerations and then deliberately develop a corpus of coherent case studies that addresses the most foundational and topical issues. For example, in the Israeli context, the choice to focus on “values” as a foundational case study is based on a consideration of the importance of ideological polarization in policy making and policy implementation and the importance of directly addressing this topic to enhance policy instruction in general. Of course, in varied national settings, different issues would be identified as foundational and, therefore, worthy of original case study development. Frontloading the teaching of case studies that deal with foundational issues provides a touchstone reference for subsequent instruction on additional policy topics.
Second, the development of original case studies in Israel created a dynamic learning opportunity for instruction on important elements of national affairs and encouraged students to wrestle with controversial issues in policy development. For example, the case on “delegating authority and leading change” provides a lively historical example of an attempt in Israel in the mid-1990s to implement New Public Management reforms that had already been implemented in many developed democracies. Considering why and how these reforms achieved only partial implementation in Israel educates students about contextual administrative capacities and obstacles at the same time that the case raises the general theoretical issue of authority delegation in public affairs.
Third, this description of developing a coherent set of non-U.S. cases may provide insight in domestic-focused American public policy and public affairs programs that are increasingly educating foreign students. Although it is clear that all issues of relevance to foreign students cannot be addressed in American programs that focus primarily on domestic policy, it could be advisable to consider the countries of origin of foreign students and consider how case adaptation and development could enhance classroom learning while raising theoretical issues that foreign students are most likely to face in the return to their home countries.
474 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Finally, our development of the Political Strategy Appendix exercise was motivated by our efforts to translate the central pedagogical pillars of the case method and policy workshops to the Israeli context. In political environments such as that of Israel where the centralization of governmental decision making can lead to a large gap between technocratic policy analysis and successful policy adoption and implementation, this exercise can serve to integrate the two pillars of the case method and policy workshops. Based on this experience, it seems likely that the considered development of contextually sensitive “flight simulators” in different international settings has the potential to enhance policy instruction around the globe, including in the U.S.A.
FOOTNOTES 1 Based on an online search of the Kennedy School’s Case Program, accessed April 4, 2013
(http://www.case.hks.harvard.edu/search.asp)
2 For a full review in English of all cases in the book and a more detailed description of each case, readers are invited to view the conference paper version of this article in the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Teaching Workshop conference website (http://umdcipe.org/conferences/Classroom/agenda_and_abstracts.html).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For helpful comments at various stages of this article’s development, the authors would like to thank Doug Besharov, David Levi-Faur, and Beryl Radin. The authors also thank Momi Dahan for his support to represent Hebrew University’s Federmann School of Public Policy and Government at the APPAM Teaching Workshop, and the many students over the years who engaged with and improved the pedagogical materials presented in this article.
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 475
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
REFERENCES Akzin, B. (1955). The role of parties in Israeli democracy. Journal of Politics, 17, 507–545.
Chetkovich, C., & Kirp, D. L. (2001). Cases and controversies: How novitiates are trained to be masters of the public policy universe. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(2), 283–314.
Bardach, E. (2008). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Devereux, E. A., & Durning, D. (2001). Going global? International activities by U.S. schools of public policy and management to transform public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4), 241–260.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.
Foster, R. H., McBeth, M. K., & Clemons, R. S. (2010). Public policy pedagogy: Mixing method- ologies using cases. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(4), 517–540.
Fritzen, S. A. (2008). Public policy education goes global: A multi-dimensional challenge. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 205–214.
Galnoor, I., Oser, J., & Gadot-Perez, A. (Eds.). (2012). The political environment of policy making in Israel. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press. (In Hebrew).
Garvin, D. A. (2003). Making the case: Professional education for the world of practice. Harvard Magazine, 106(1), 56–65, 107.
Geva-May, I., Nasi, G., Turrini, A., & Scott, C. (2008). MPP programs emerging around the world. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 187–204.
Husock, H. (1993). Democracy and public management cases: Kennedy School Case Study Program. Retrieved from http://www.case.hks.harvard.edu/casetitle.asp?caseNo=1232.0
Kennedy, D. M., & Scott, E. (1985). Preparing cases in public policy. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government Case Program.
Lawrence, P. R. (1953). The preparation of case material. In K. R. Andrews (Ed.), The case method of teaching human relations and administration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lynn, L. E. J. (1996). Public management as art, science, and profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Massie, C. Z. (1995). Teaching introduction to public administration via the case method. Journal of Public Administration Education, 1(2), 102–115.
Oser, Jennifer. 2010. Between atomistic and participatory democracy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39(3), 429–459.
Robyn, D. (1986). What makes a good case? Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government Case Program.
476 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Stokes, D. E. (1986). Political and organizational analysis in the policy curriculum. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(1), 45–55.
Straussman, J. D. (2008). Public management, politics, and the policy process in the public affairs curriculum. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(3), 624–635.
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2005). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yang, K. (2005). Globalization and public affairs education: The case of China. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(2), 105–120.
Zimmerman, P. B. (1985). Case development and teaching: Communicating the results. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government Case Program.
Jennifer Oser earned her PhD at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Feder- mann School of Public Policy and Government. She is currently a postdoctoral visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior postdoctoral researcher on a European Research Council project about democratic linkages between citizens and the state. Her fields of research include social policy, political participation, and participatory inequality, and she has taught in courses on policy analysis and organizing at Harvard University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the University of Pennsylvania. Email: [email protected].
Alma Gadot-Perez acted as the director of the Israel Center at the Milken Institute and the first director general of its registered nonprofit in Israel. From 2008 to 2012 she focused on structuring innovative solutions to social, environmental and economic challenges through public policy, private sector tools, and strategic philanthropy. She is also the founder of Working Insight, a social venture connecting talented Israelis to their Diaspora communities through professional development. A graduate of the first cohort of the honors program of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Federmann School of Public Policy and Government, she led a number of innovative policy consulting, training, and research efforts in academic institutions, government ministries, and think tanks, including the Foundation for International Community Assistance International and the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services. Email: [email protected].
Itzhak Galnoor is the Herbert Samuel Professor (Emeritus) of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a senior fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. He is a leading scholar on Israeli politics and administration and also
J. Oser, A. Gadot-Perez, & I. Galnoor
Journal of Public Affairs Education 477
Developing Policy Analysis “Flight Simulators”
served as the head of the Civil Service Commission (1994–1996) and deputy chair of the Council for Higher Education (2007–2008). Professor Galnoor supported the founding and development of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Federmann School of Public Policy and Government, and is currently leading a multiyear project examining privatization policies Israel. Email: [email protected].
478 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 479
Organizational Change Skill Acquisition and Change Agency Preparedness in U.S.
NASPAA-Accredited MPA Programs
Helisse Levine Long Island University
Nicole J. Christian Dowling College
Beverly P. Lyons Long Island University
ABSTRACT New challenges in our global and regional economies question managers’ ability to navigate change in the years ahead. Because colleges and universities are the incubators for future leaders, we argue that MPA programs across the country must train leaders of public organizations in organizational change and leadership skills to be successful during this transformation. Although a growing body of literature focuses on how employees and managers perceive organizational change and change management (e.g., culture change, effect of globalization), a considerable rift exists between the analysis and the practical application. Filling this gap, and in keeping within NASPAA’s accreditation guidelines to prepare students to be “leaders, managers, and analysts in the professions of public affairs, public administration, and public policy,” the purpose of this research is to identify the skills required by graduate students of public admin- istration programs to effect change in public organizations and determine whether NASPAA-accredited MPA programs are providing these skills as reflected in course curricula and program catalogs. We caution that in light of NASPAA’s emphasis on universal competencies, coupled with the current economic and fiscal constraints faced by all levels of government, the ability of public affairs and administration graduate students to master organizational change skills should be considered a fundamental objective in the assessment of NASPAA-accredited MPA programs’ learning outcomes.
Keywords: leadership skills, change agency preparation, NASPAA-accredited MPA programs, course curricula, learning outcomes
JPAE 19 (3), 479–492
480 Journal of Public Affairs Education
The world of business and government has ostensibly changed since the latest global recession as unemployment and foreclosures have increasingly become common experiences. Coined the “new normal” by Wall Street, sluggish economic growth, high levels of unemployment, and a 2%-growth world have led to govern- ment budget problems, hastening the need for public leaders to do more with less. These new conditions in our global and regional economies question what leaders will need to know to navigate this “new normal” going forward. Kotter (1990; Kotter & Cohen, 2002) points out that mastering adaptation and trans- formation are at the cornerstone of a new kind of leadership that embraces and supports change. In the private sector, new technologies, processes and applications are well recognized as vital to the firm’s long-term viability. Similarly noted by a host of public administration scholars (e.g., Schraeder, Tears, & Jordan, 2005), public sector organizations face the same demands. Because colleges and universities are the incubators for future leaders, we argue that MPA programs across the country must train leaders of public organizations in organizational change and leadership skills to be successful during this transformation.
From a business education perspective, Crosling, Edwards, and Schroder (2008) make the case that because “market, political and social” (p. 108) forces are at work, business school curricula must change to address these forces. In the area of public affairs and administration graduate education, despite attention to areas of law (Szypszak, 2011) and finance (Peddle & Thurmaier, 2011) to name a few, we argue that MPA programs across the country must also train leaders of public organizations, including nonprofit and health care organizations, to have the leadership skills to be successful during transformation.
Public sector employees must be motivated to see change as necessary and have a sense of urgency to achieve it (Knowles, 1998; Kotter, 2002). Given the global, complex, uncertain and interrelated environment (Maak & Pless, 2006) government leaders of the future will have to be more shepherd-like in their approach, including developing and allowing others the opportunity to lead (Hemp, 2008). This means that the public sector workplaces will need to usher in a paradigm shift in the traditional leadership approach to become more inclusive and collaborative. Importantly, students of public administration must be given the opportunity to be steeped in the knowledge, skill and application of management concepts, including those related to organizational change (Hemp, 2008; Cope, 2009; Olshfski & Levine, 2004). Although a growing body of literature focuses on how employees and managers perceive organizational change and changemanagement (e.g., culture change, effect of globalization) a considerable rift exists between the analysis and the practical application. Filling this gap, and in keeping within NASPAA’s accred- itation guidelines to prepare students to be “leaders, managers, and analysts in the professions of public affairs, public administration, and public policy” (NASPAA, 2009), the purpose of this research is to identify the skills required by graduate students of public administration programs to effect change and adaptation in public organizations and determine whether NASPAA-accredited MPA programs are providing these skills in course curricula.
H. Levine, N. J. Christian, & B. P. Lyons
Journal of Public Affairs Education 481
Organizational Change Skill Acquisition
A review of organizational change literature follows. To identify the skills managers need to be successful leaders of change, we develop and conduct open- ended, face-to-face interviews to a purposive sample of public administrators in the New York metropolitan area. A content analysis of NASPAA-accredited MPA program curricula is conducted to determine evidence of organization change skill builders. We conclude with study limitations and suggestions for further study.
LITERATURE REVIEW Over a decade ago, Valle (1999) noted that public organizations, which are
subject to continual crises, whether acute or chronic, severe or less severe, need to develop mechanisms to cope with the demands of their ever-changing situations. In other words, change management, defined by Moran and Brightman (2001) as “the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers,” represents a critical component of organizational management (p. 111).1 Previous research indicates that navigating the changing landscape of our world requires leaders of public organizations to cope with continual environmental change and to prepare the members of their organizations to cope with, and adapt to, changes of mission, environment, and/or direction (Valle, 1999). Understanding where the change occurs in the industry (context), the practices needed to succeed (management process), and the ability to lead others through the change (management capability) is a necessary integrated approach to successfully managing change. These changes in leadership style and approach are directly connected to how these changes will be implemented in the workplace. Consequently, Miller (2011) suggests that students will need to have a curiosity-driven approach to their leadership style where they are always open to new ideas and remain proactive. Therefore future public sector leaders will need to be skilled in assessing changes in the environment, policies, and demographics of their service population. Previous research relevant to skills required for successful public sector organizational change leadership includes (a) integrated approach to leadership, (b) change sustainability, (c) colla- boration, (d) shared purpose, and (e) radical transformation and agility.
Change Sustainability An effective way to ensure change sustainability is to get leaders and directors
involved in the change process from the beginning. Therefore, leaders will need to be skilled in the ability to integrate themselves into the change processes from the onset so the process does not begin and end in one department and flow to each department in a staccato silo fashion (Chocqueel-Mangan, 2011; Miller, 2011). Leaders also will be required to understand the culture, strengths, and weaknesses of different departments and be able to forge links with and between them (Miller, 2011, p. 58). Chocqueel-Mangan (2011) maintains that leaders will need to create a “shared purpose” between and among executives,
482 Journal of Public Affairs Education
department heads and the rank and file. For the change to stick, it must be in the organization DNA (Chocqueel-Mangan, 2011). Leaders must also be able to effectively transform business units or teams and infrastructure (systems, policies, etc.) in a way that will sustain change in an organization.
Collaboration To combat resistance to change, the leader must focus on and deal with fear,
which Edmonds (2011) claims is one of the main causes of resistance to change. Employees will only embrace the change and follow the process if they feel em- powered. This takes deft negotiation and facilitation on the part of the public leader. Accordingly, the leader must engage and communicate with skeptical staff while developing clarity, strengthening the team, and communicating the organization’s vision. These skills were once required of executive staff only, but all public leaders will need to break free and encourage others to break free of the comfort zone and “move forward in a new direction” where these skills are a part of everyday work life (Edmonds, 2011, p. 35). To build collaboration, the public manager must also be able to understand people’s work and work style (Shulman, 2010). As Shulman (2010) points out, in the for-profit world, leaders can demand and mandate changes from the top, but in the public sector where workers often have strong views, opinions and commitment levels, leaders must take the time to understand and respect others’ perspectives and ideas, or change processes can be sabotaged from within. Public managers must have strong skill in persuasion and presenting a “compelling vision” to staff members (Shulman, 2010, p. 24). A public leader with proficient collaboration skills will gain more respect from staff than if he or she has expertise in a certain skill area.
Shared Purpose Today’s public sector leader must be a purpose builder in addition to his or
her expertise in a particular area. Edmonds (2011) explains that ground rules that everyone in the organization can agree on must be set before ushering in change. The more people agree to and understand in the beginning, the more likely they are to stay engaged in the entire process. The leader, therefore, must know, under- stand, and embrace the need for the change and what the change is before the rest of the organization gets on board. In this regard, Edmonds (2011) recommends s that there be some “project management and stakeholder engagement before leading the transition to change”; otherwise, the change process will be dismissed as a passing fad with no real organizational traction (p. 33). Preparing people early to accept and be ready for change is another responsibility for the leader.
Radical Transformation and Agility “Radical transformation” (Chocqueel-Mangan, 2011, p. 58) of the business
and service model is the norm for today. Mangan (2011) makes the case that today
H. Levine, N. J. Christian, & B. P. Lyons
Journal of Public Affairs Education 483
Organizational Change Skill Acquisition
more than ever before, organizations need trained leaders who are able to redesign processes, behaviors, and relationships that will net a new approach to the market. It is no longer about developing a new “workforce of creative, wacky thinkers” (Chocqueel-Mangan, 2011, p. 58) to revamp products and services and to find new clients. Today it is about developing a “cadre of managers who have a broad enough array of skills to cope with the new world” (Chocqueel-Mangan, 2011, p. 57) and can identify when change is on the horizon.
With the rapid growth of technology, “survival of organizations is dependent on the selection and development of future leaders” (Amagoh, 2009, p. 989), and those leaders must be empowered to be able to engage others in organizational change processes and policies (Melcrum Research, 2009). It takes trained and developed leaders to be able to successfully implement and manage change processes that could take months or years and often can affect the entire business or service model from production and outreach (sales) to evaluation. Agility is a common theme in ensuring long-term performance in challenging times (Miller, 2011; Chocqueel-Mangan, 2011). Agility is having the ability to work in many facets of leadership in an organization, not just in one aspect of work. Because staying in one aspect of work can become a change inhibitor, it’s important for a public sector manager to be able to see relationships among and between departments and to be able to facilitate work among them (Miller, 2011).
DESIGN A qualitative exploratory research method involving two phases was used.
The first phase was to identify the skills required by MPA students to effect change and adaptation in public organizations. We conducted face-to-face open-ended interviews to a purposive sample of six managerial leaders in the public sector. Open-ended questions allowed for greater flexibility of responses (Patton, 1990; Kvale, 1996). Then, to determine whether NASPAA-accredited MPA programs are providing the aforementioned skills in course curricula, we conducted a review and analysis of the content of a random sample of MPA course curricula selected from the 139 NASPAA-accredited MPA programs across the country.
Characteristics of the Public Administrators Interviewed The interview respondents are senior-level administrators in state, county, or
town government in Long Island, New York. Each is a policy expert and manages the day-to-day operations of a division/department with an average of 5 to 20 employees. The respondents were selected because of their many years of service (average tenure for the respondents is 20 years of service) and senior-level standing and included administrators from different levels of government. Organizations in our research had office-wide annual budgets of at least $1 million with a minimum of five public programs managed in-house. Interview administrators have at least a master’s degree (one public administrator has a law degree) and 10 years or more experience managing people in the public sector. One manager who is about to
484 Journal of Public Affairs Education
retire after 34 years in public service has two master’s degrees and has worked at the federal, state, county, town, and village levels. Another, an attorney by training, managed a congressman’s office for a decade, returned to the private sector for some years, then was recruited to work at the county government level in economic development. Another interviewee is a social worker by training and rose through the ranks in the housing, youth, and community development fields. The other three interviewees included a village/town administrator, budget director/treasurer, and agency manager.
FINDINGS
Phase One: Interview Process We asked respondents four lead-in questions: (1) What qualities are needed
for public organizations to be successful today? (2) What kinds of skills do public managers need in the 21st century to make an impact in today’s public sector? (3) What challenges must public managers prepare for to handle today’s present economic climate? (4) What kinds of skills did they look for when hiring public managers? First, the interviewees acknowledged that getting people to change is very difficult, and managing a changing economic, social, and political landscape even more so. Overall, respondents noted that the current economic and cultural climate demands more from public leaders than ever before. In responding to the qualities public organizations need to be successful today, each of the six admin- istrators began by stating that government organizations needed to meet less and accomplish more, which takes effective leadership, knowledge, desire and high emotional intelligence.
One public manager nearing retirement noted, “In government for manage- ment track [positions] the ability to handle technology is the foundation I look for—not so much how often technology is used but whether he or she has the ability to learn what is needed to do the job.” The respondent added, “What I mean is, using technology or having agency knowledge or expertise is not the most critical factor in navigating the changing public landscape but having the ability to learn new things to get the job done is what counts.”
One of our administrators suggested that “high intellect and analytical skills ranked high on the list because a public manager is expected to juggle many duties and wear many hats since public work is more a marathon not a sprint.” The respondent also said, “Public leaders must be ready to listen, think, plan, and then implement.” Leading change and innovation was identified as being “forward thinking” and “proactive.” These skills were described as “necessary,” “critical,” and “important.”
When asked what kinds of skills public managers need in the 21st century to make an impact in today’s public sector, interviewees noted the following 10 strengths at least once in their responses: (1) effective leadership; (2) knowledge; (3) desire/
H. Levine, N. J. Christian, & B. P. Lyons
Journal of Public Affairs Education 485
Organizational Change Skill Acquisition
passion; (4) empathy; (5) analytical skills; (6) emotional Intelligence; (7) ability to be proactive; (8) future-oriented; (9) confident; and (10) listening/communication skills. Also, the interviewees suggested that additional enhancement skills needed by public managers include a commitment to mission. One manager stated that public managers need “to be proactive and future oriented or not much gets done” so public managers will need to be even more connected to trends in the public landscape to be more effective. Further, the days of marathon meetings as proof of working hard in government or the public sector are also dwindling in importance. One manager noted, “My general attitude is stop the meetings—get it done” This “get it done kind of attitude” is an important skill for public admin- istrators to develop.
In further discussion about skills, one manager brought up the concept of emotional intelligence. He observed that “emotional intelligence is paramount for successful public management.” He said, “You could be a cold fish and be a good writer/talker, but can you sense they can be trusted, sincere, caring, empathy, etc., politeness, sharing,” making the point that being credible and trustworthy are important characteristics for today’s public manager, especially during times of economic and social crisis. Each respondent agreed that leadership in the public sector requires a range of skills and experience and that leaders in the public sector will be expected to draw on all of these.
One administrator emphasized “that most things can be learned but that ‘articulation and timing’ of the message or the change process was critical.” Therefore, the interviewee said, public administrators must be nimble, intellectually agile and have knowledge of “micro/macroeconomics, understanding a sense of money and how it affects the public and the world,” meaning that public managers must grasp the global effect of policy, procedures, and the economy. This response confirms Mangan’s (2011) assertion that navigating the changing landscape of the public sector will require an integrated approach to leadership that includes understanding “strategic context” (p. 57), specifically, addressing contemporary issues by thorough investigation of that particular environment and the specific situation. This is a critical function of organizational change— understanding and being proactive in a particular environment.
The most senior of the six administrators interviewed (a village admin- istrator) believed that “one to one communication” was key because “e-mail, texting and telephone is not necessarily the best way to communicate all messages.” The respondent said, “Experience working together in a team, communicating clearly, and being transparent, [are important], especially now during one of the most devastating economic crises to hit Long Island.” A municipal budget expert suggested that “not only is ‘fiscal savvy’ important but also communicating and organizing a budget [are] important for all public managers.” He believes that public administrators must “wear many hats” and “be prepared to communicate, translate and create a vision in order for organizations to thrive.”
486 Journal of Public Affairs Education
All interviewees acknowledged that the current fiscal crisis on Long Island will have a ripple effect in all areas of public life for a long time to come—for 10, 20, maybe 30 years. With this as a backdrop, they underscored how important it is for public leaders to be highly skilled in all facets of governance: budgeting, evalua- tion, program management and team building. Now more than ever, as one inter- viewer put it, “The future of the public sector is in this generation’s hands.”
Phase II: Review and Analysis of Course Content During the review and analysis of the course content phase, we randomly
selected one third of the 139 NASPAA-accredited MPA programs across the country. The final data consisted of 46 (33%) NASPAA-accredited MPA programs. To ensure consistency, two authors independently reviewed the content of courses listed on the websites of the selected MPA programs and coded the information separately. Then both coders conducted a collaboratively reviewed the independently coded information for comparison purposes.
The authors reviewed each MPA program course curriculum and course de- scriptions to determine two factors: (1) the core focus of the program and (2) if organizational change was a fundamental element of the curriculum and courses. The authors also detailed whether or not leadership instruction was included in the courses or curriculum. All 46 (100%) of the randomly sampled MPA programs had as a program emphasis or core curriculum the following 11 areas: (1) public finance and budgeting; (2) economics, (3) the policy process, (4) organizational theory and development, (5) quantitative methods, (6) policy analysis, (7) human resource management, (8) ethics, (9) program evaluation, (10) decision making, and (11) the administrative process.
In addition, all programs included specific courses about leadership, and as a part of that leadership curriculum, navigating change or innovation was an element in the description. However, only 24% (11 programs of 46 selected) included an organizational change course or focus in the core curriculum. For the most part, MPA program curricula included instruction in areas related to improving public sector professional practice, such as policy, human resources, and finance. Presumably, because organizational change is a fairly new concept in the public sector, it has thus far been embedded in the leadership curriculum in MPA programs. All of the MPA programs offered specialty tracks, and of those with a nonprofit management specialization, leadership and/or change was a fund- amental element of the course curriculum for that specialization. Of the sampled MPA programs, all programs but one had as a part of their mission statement career advancement, or management or professional preparation at its core. The exception is UC at Denver, which had as its tag line: “Lead. Solve. Change.” Organizational management and change is a required course in its core course offerings and as part of this course, students learn organizational change theories and practices.
H. Levine, N. J. Christian, & B. P. Lyons
Journal of Public Affairs Education 487
Organizational Change Skill Acquisition
Overall, NASPAA-accredited MPA programs are structured around developing professional practitioners and improving skill level to prepare individuals for leadership or management roles. In terms of leadership and organizational change, Table 1 below depicts where organizational change/leadership is situated in the sampled MPA programs.
Table 1. Situating Organizational Change/Leadership
n = 46 Percent
Organizational Change Course 11 24
Organizational Change in Curriculum 4 9
Leadership in Curriculum 46 100
Promoted/Emphasized individual change agency preparation 13 28
Promoted/Emphasized Professional Practice (Managerial Positions) 45 98
DISCUSSION Several common themes emerged from the interview phase, including the need
for emotional and technological intelligence, the ability to accept, foster, and sustain change through collaborative efforts, and the importance of analytical skills. These responses echoed several examples from the literature including Shulman’s (2010) suggestion that since public organizations are mission-driven, people expect them to be stable and secure, passing on knowledge and values. As a result, most public organizations are conservative and therefore resistant to major shifts in direction or changes in vision. In addition, as noted by Charbonnier-Voirin (2011), as the public workplace changes, managers need to be ready to help employees adapt their work style to a changing environment. For example, interviewees cited “motivating, developing and leading by example” as critical for effective public management style. In addition, responses from administrators interviewed confirm that leadership is an integrated process (Amey, 2005), and that includes organizational change (Jarrett & Ellis, 2010; Cochran, 2010). Also it corroborates the findings of Mangan (2011) that organizations need “a cadre of managers who have a broad enough array of skills to cope with the new world” (p. 57). Overall, public administration skills are not limited to training in organizational change only, but as we learned from our Administrators, also includes cross-functional strength in effective leader- ship, industry knowledge, desire/passion, empathy, analytical skills, empathy, EI, proactive/future-oriented, confidence and communication skills. This harkens
488 Journal of Public Affairs Education
back to Miller’s (2011) caution that public leadership style should include being open to new ideas and being proactive and ready to move forward.
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE STUDY Responses to open-ended interviews of New York public administrators provided
the skills managers need to be successful leaders of change. After reviewing more than 60% of all NASPAA-accredited MPA program curriculum and courses, we found organizational change courses in 24% of sample MPA programs, and 28% promoted change agency preparation. The implications of this study are that organizational change preparation and skill, as a contemporary field in public management, are linked to leadership training in the MPA curriculum. The results can serve as a first look into the emerging field of students’ preparation as leaders and change agents. Leadership study is multifaceted, as Amey (2005) points out. It includes many sides of the human equation, and therefore preparing leaders is a complex task that will include skill and education in a variety of disciplines, including public administration.
Preliminary research also shows that organizational change theory and skill have been included under the leadership instruction umbrella. Underscoring its importance during this current economic climate, some institutions, as identified through this research, are isolating social and organizational change as a separate graduate-level MPA course. We learned from our public administrators that it takes prepared leaders to successfully implement and manage change processes. A necessary skill for future leaders is the ability to facilitate and implement organi- zational change. As one of the largest incubators of future leaders, public manage- ment schools, particularly MPA programs, can provide students the knowledge, skills, tools and abilities to navigate and leverage change and crisis for long-term organizational success. MPA programs are at the forefront of change management preparation since MPA programs are where future public leaders incubate, develop and are primed to serve.
This study, however, is limited by the small sample of public administrators interviewed and the interviewees’ specificity to the New York area. Given the main objective was to learn more about the problem, rather than infer back to the population, the use of a purposive sampling design fits well with the exploratory nature of the research. Wimmer and Dominick (1997) note that qualitative research of this type “is more interested in the depth of the data rather than breadth” (p. 84). Although in practice, application of skills varies across the political, economic, and geographical spectrum, isolating and articulating core leadership skills offered in MPA programs across the country is a worthy contribution to public administration scholars, students, and practitioners. In addition, the content analysis of the MPA curricula was limited to core leadership and broadly based change skill acquisition courses, and not whether each of the five skill areas of organizational change management appeared in the syllabus itself.
H. Levine, N. J. Christian, & B. P. Lyons
Journal of Public Affairs Education 489
Organizational Change Skill Acquisition
CONCLUSION Organizations, public and private, are influenced by outside forces that are
making it necessary to alter procedures and systems to stay successful. In the 21st century and beyond, MPA students, as future business leaders, will need the know- ledge, skill, and ability to facilitate, embrace, and implement change in the work- place. As Weiner (2009) cautions, change agents are needed in today’s workplace to help organizations identify, facilitate, and manage change.
Although training and development in organizational change is universally needed, starting with MPA students (one of the larger populations of individuals being trained and developed for high-level public leadership positions across the globe), the results of this exploratory study confirm that best practices of public administrators and preparation of future public managers (i.e., students) will need to emphasize an integrated approach to leadership (Chocqueel-Mangan, 2011). In other words, successful public leaders need to master skills in a variety of areas, including collaboration, shared purpose (Edmonds, 2011), and sustainability (Miller, 2011), and these functions build the foundation for skill building in organizational change.
As previously noted, the mission of NASPAA-accredited MPA programs is to prepare students to be “leaders, managers, and analysts in the professions of public affairs, public administration, and public policy.” Further exacerbated by the economic and fiscal constraints organizations at all levels of government currently confront, the ability of public affairs and administration graduate students to master organizational change skills described in this study becomes an even more fundamental objective in assessing NASPAA-accredited MPA programs’ learning outcomes. In addition, acquiring organizational change skills aligns with several of NASPAA’s newly developed core competency domains, including (a) leading and managing in public governance; (b) analyzing, synthesizing, thinking critically, solving problems, and making decisions; and (c) communicating and interacting productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry. Also, connect- ing competencies with program missions precipitates new queries regarding organizational change acquisition and change agency preparedness. Is a stand- alone Organizational Change course necessary to satisfy required leadership skills during fiscal crisis? Would offering organizational change modules in existing courses fulfill these requirements? Further studies are warranted to gain a solid perspective of organizational change preparedness instruction in the public sector by further reviewing course syllabi and extending the target sample to student experiences and reflections. A larger quantitative study conducted with multiple states or a nationwide sample of public administrators would be a valuable next step to this research. Expanding the sample pool of MPA programs would further complement continued information gathering, including a more nuanced coding of areas of organizational change management skills.
490 Journal of Public Affairs Education
FOOTNOTE 1 For a comprehensive review of theories of change management, see Todnem, B. R. (2005).
Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380.
REFERENCES Amagoh, F. (2009). Leadership development and leadership effectiveness. Management Decision, 47(6),
989–999.
Amey, J. M. (2005). Leadership as learning: Conceptualizing the process. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(9/10), 689–704.
Bisoux, T. (2010, May/June). Reshaping business. BizEd, 9(3), 18–23.
Charbonnier-Voirin, A., & El Akremi, E. (2011). The effect of empowerment on employees’ adaptive performance (English). l’effet de l’habitation sur la performance adaptive des employés (French). Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 66(1), 122–149.
Chocqueel-Mangan, J. (2011, June). Managing transitions. Training Journal, 57–61.
Cope, J. (2009, October/November). Adapt to survive and thrive. British Journal of Administrative Management, 68, 26.
Crosling, G., Edwards, R., & Schroder, B. (2008). Internationalizing the curriculum: The implement- ation experience in a faculty of business and economics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(2), 107–121.
Edmonds, J. (2011, April). Making change happen. Training Journal, 33–36.
Hemp, P. (2008, January). Where will we find tomorrow’s leaders? A conversation with Linda A. Hill, Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 123–129.
Jarrett, D., & Ellis, F. (2010, December). Changing the way we change. Training Journal, 71–74.
Knowles, M. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kotter, J. Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Massachusetts, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Inter views: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. P. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), Proceedings of the 18th Eben Annual Conference in Bonn (June 2006), pp. 99–115.
H. Levine, N. J. Christian, & B. P. Lyons
Journal of Public Affairs Education 491
Organizational Change Skill Acquisition
Melcrum Research. (2009). Guiding managers during change at Mayo Clinic: How managers can be trained to support employees during change. Melcrum Publishing, SCM, 13(5), 12.
Miller, J. (2011, April). How to achieve lasting change. Training Journal, 58–62.
Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2001). Leading organizational change. Career Development International, 6(2), 111–118.
Olskhfsi, D., & Levine, H. (2004). Organizational change and innovation. In Marc Holzer & Seok- Hwan Lee (Eds.), Public productivity handbook. New York, NY: Marcel-Dekker.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peddle, M. & Thurmaier, K. (2011). Reformulating and Refocusing a Fiscal Administration Curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(4), 523–542.
Szypszak, C. (2011). Teaching Law in Public Affairs Education: Synthesizing Political Theory, Decision Making, and Responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(4), 483–499.
Schraeder, M, Tears, R. S., & Jordan, M. H. (2005). Organizational culture in public sector organizations: Promoting change through training and leading by example. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(5–6), 492–502.
Schulman, J. (2010, Fall). Collaborative change: How ARTstor entices 1,300 educational institutions to work together. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2010, pp. 23–24.
Valle, M. (1999). Crisis, culture and charisma: The new leader’s work in public organizations. Public Personnel Management, 28(2), 245–257.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1997): Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Helisse Levine is associate professor in the MPA Program and director of the Advanced Certificate in Nonprofit Management at Long Island University, School of Business, Public Administration and Information Sciences. She earned her PhD in public administration from Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, in 2005. Her research interests include the role of economic and fiscal constraints on government organizations, social inequities in health care and government across race and ethnicity and public administration pedagogy, with emphasis on assessment as promulgated by NASPAA. Since entering academe she has contributed to many public administration and finance journals. She is co-editor of both the Handbook of Local Government Fiscal Health and Women in Public Administration: Theory and Practice.
492 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Nicole Christian has successfully combined her executive-based skills and knowledge to run a successful consulting firm that focuses on grant writing, business development, and executive development. She earned her BBA from Marymount University and her MPA and Advanced Graduate Nonprofit Management Certificate from George Mason University. Nicole is also an experienced adjunct professor at Dowling College, Long Island University, and Empire State College, teaching at both the graduate undergraduate level since 2007. Her research focuses on public administration and management, transformational leadership and employee satisfaction. She is a well-published scholar and is in the final stages of earning her PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences at Walden University.
Beverly Lyons is full professor. She is the director of the MPA and the Advanced Certificate in Gerontology Administration programs at the Brooklyn campus of Long Island University. She has clinical and administrative experiences from a variety of health care and corporate settings. She has a multidisciplinary back- ground involving gerontology, policy and program planning, social work admin- istration, and medical/community health nutrition. Dr. Lyons has authored publications focusing on disparities across the life course, including a book: Sociocultural Differences between American-Born and West Indian-Born Elderly Blacks. She is the recipient of a National Institute on Aging postdoctoral fellowship as well as a number of grants.
H. Levine, N. J. Christian, & B. P. Lyons
Journal of Public Affairs Education 493
Connecting Good Governance Principles to the Public Affairs Curriculum: The
Case of Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration
Peter F. Haruna Texas A&M International University
Lawrence A. Kannae Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration
ABSTRACT For more than two decades, good governance reform policy has swept through sub-Saharan Africa like a wildfire. Although government watchers have assumed that this reform initiative is critical for achieving development, little attention has been paid to how it affects and is affected by public affairs education and training. Drawing on the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), this article examines how the curriculum integrates unique local and regional conditions with good governance principles advocated by several inter- national entities. Then it compares the curriculum to the new NASPAA standards of public affairs education and training and assesses how well it matches those standards. The analysis shows that there is a substantial convergence between the GIMPA curriculum and NASPAA accreditation principles and standards. We question how these principles can be reconciled with local sociocultural conditions. We conclude by making observations about how to strengthen the curriculum and improve the quality of public affairs education and training for development management.
Keywords: governance, training, development, management
Since its rudimentary beginning at the turn of the 20th century, public administration in sub-Saharan African countries has undergone multiple reforms with significant implications for the education, training, and preparation of
JPAE 19 (3), 493–514
494 Journal of Public Affairs Education
individuals for practicing development management. The most recent of these reforms is good governance, a concept that the donor community has pursued and on which development assistance is increasingly being based (European Union [EU], 2006; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2007; World Bank, 2008; United Nations [UN], 2009; Van Doeveren, 2011). However, although good governance reform policies are well known and have been implemented throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the issue of how individuals are being educated, trained, and prepared to implement them has not received as much attention. Specifically, how is good governance operationalized and inte- grated in the public affairs curriculum of education to prepare individuals for effective public service? In a literature search, we found no systematic study that self-consciously examined the connection between good governance and public service education and training in sub-Saharan Africa.
As the African Capacity Building Foundation’s (ACBF) support for training and research progresses and as national performance evaluations expose institutional failures and gaps (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa [ECA], 2009), reflectively integrating governance principles in the public affairs education and training curriculum will become more critical in determining the outcome of governance reform policy implementation. Despite its multiple conceptualizations, analytics, and applications, the meaning of good governance has evolved to the point where general principles, values, and norms are beginning to crystalize that can be used for comparative studies (World Bank, 2008; Van Doeveren, 2011;) to gauge the extent to which it reflects in the education of individuals and the practice of development management.
We draw on the experience of Ghana with a focus on Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) to shed light on how good governance principles have been blended in the public affairs curriculum and what the results are. Ghana is of interest because it was among the first of sub-Saharan African countries to adopt good governance policies and to conduct an objective, independent, and nonpartisan self-assessment and evaluation under the African Peer Review Mechanism (Ghana Government, 2005–2006; ECA, 2009). Thus Ghana can serve as a unique case example of good governance reform that is worth critically examining with the view to sharing international, comparative, and cross-cultural experience.
Likewise, GIMPA, Ghana’s national flagship institution that has provided professional public service education and training for the past half century, was the first to host continent-wide, graduate-level training in governance under the ACBF’s program of support for research and training. Over the past two decades, GIMPA has gained much regional visibility and reputation, growing and expanding its student enrollment, degree program offering, and infrastructural development. In fact, GIMPA has striven during the past decade to become known as “a center of excellence for training in public and business administration” and the institution of choice in Africa (Ghana Government (GIMPA Law), 2008–2009, p. vi).
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 495
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
We begin with a brief historical overview to provide the context for analyzing the GIMPA curriculum. In the second section, we present an analysis of the curriculum based on critical examination of sample program brochures, syllabi, assignments, and feedback from faculty and students to gain an insight on how good governance principles and local socioeconomic conditions have been inte- grated. Also, the curriculum is compared to NASPAA standards. The final section examines the challenge of providing public affairs education and training for development management and suggests ways for strengthening the curriculum.
BACKGROUND OF GIMPA PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION AND TRAINING Planned professional public service education and training in Ghana has come
a long way since British colonial rule passed the Imperial Orders-in-Council (1901), which laid the foundation of the modern state, its mode of governance, and public administration (Adu, 1965). With the establishment of British-style politico-administrative institutions and processes in Ghana, the foundation of public administration was firmly transplanted there. Consequently, small-scale civil service education and training began with Oxford, Cambridge, and London Universities mounting “Tropical African Service” courses in the 1930s to prepare expatriate administrators to work for the British Colonial Empire abroad (Kirk- Greene, 1969).
The establishment of GIMPA on June 30, 1961, formed an important histor- ical milestone in the development of administrative education and training programs. Since then, GIMPA has enjoyed successive mandates culminating in Act 676 (2004), which empowered it to restructure itself into a free-standing, self-financing, and graduate-degree-granting university. For much of its existence, GIMPA took the bureaucratic perspective of management education and training based on the British civil service model that cherishes the values of a professionally neutral and loyal civil service system.
As a model of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, the Ghanaian government expected GIMPA to contribute to capacity building for self-govern ment and national development (Stone, 1969, as cited in Wereko, 1998, p. 2). The early training encouraged the preservation of the core civil service knowledge and value base: neutrality, expertise, and loyalty. Thus GIMPA training from the onset emphasized bureaucratic management, including courses in civil service rules and regulations, organization theory, local government, economic development, comparative administration, and personnel management. In fact, the academic literature spanning the 1960s and 1970s echoed the themes of professional exper- tise and neutrality both in administrative training and practice (Adu, 1965; Greenstreet, 1971). Adu emphasized the bureaucratic values of integrity, impartiality, efficiency of service, and loyalty to the government of the day. He also pointed out that in the British tradition permanent secretaries served government ministers
496 Journal of Public Affairs Education
loyally but objectively, which ought to be the model for the newly emerging states in Africa.
The string of administrative committees established to examine civil service problems and make appropriate recommendations emphasized the protection of professionalism and merit in the civil service (Ghana Government, 1967). The Mills-Odoi Commission, one of the best-known postcolonial administrative reform commissions, focused attention on how to fine-tune the civil service bureaucratic framework without undermining its core normative values. The overall effect was that bureaucratic orientation became established throughout Ghana, making the norms of neutral competence, professional expertise, and loyalty the cornerstones for training and building a bureaucratized public administration system. Thus the early scholarship represented an endorsement of the bureaucratic perspective of training, providing the rationale that by their access to education, training, and socialization, civil service employees possessed requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities for conducting public affairs and administration.
GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION AND TRAINING The governance perspective of public affairs education and training described
here and applied to examine the GIMPA curriculum grew out of reform initiatives that international and multilateral corporations have sponsored in sub-Saharan Africa. The most recent of these reforms is good governance, a concept that the donor community has pursued and on which development assistance is increas- ingly being based. In general, four good governance conceptualizations have shaped the experiences of Ghana and GIMPA since the 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration envisioned a world of “peace and security, development and poverty reduction, human rights, democracy and good governance” (Abdellatif, 2003). Although there are differences, they share principles and values that have guided the implementation of good governance reform and its application in the GIMPA curriculum (Table 1).
Political good governance of the United Nations Development Program involves exercising political, economic, and social authority for and on behalf of the public interest (1997, pp. 2–3). The underlying normative values framing political good governance include participation, transparency, the rule of law, consensus, accountability, effectiveness, equity, effectiveness, partnership, and sustainability (Van Doeveren, 2011). On the other hand, the World Bank’s eco- nomic good governance (1992) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) corporate good governance (2004) focus on the responsible management of economic and social resources. The World Bank’s 1989 and 1992 studies of African countries emphasized the need for “institutional reform and a better and more efficient public sector in sub-Saharan Africa” (Maldonado 2010, p. 4). In contrast, OECD principles promote economic performance, market integrity, and incentives for market participants.
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 497
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
Table 1. Governance Principles and Value Framework
Principle ACBF World Bank UN OECD ODI
Accountability X X X X X
Effectiveness X X X X
Efficiency X X X X X
Transparency X X X X X
Openness X X X X
Rule of law X X X
Participation X X X
Partnership X X
Sustainability X X X
Ownership X
Leadership X
Decency X
Fairness X
Poverty reduction X X X
Note. ACBF = African Capacity Building Foundation; UN = United Nations; OECD = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; ODI = Overseas Development Institute.
Source. Adapted from Van Doeveren (2011).
Consistent with political good governance, Ghana created a democratic, repre- sentative, and republican governing system in 1992 with separate legislative, executive, and judicial roles. It also created several independent oversight and regulatory institutions for protecting individual rights: Electoral Commission, National Commission on Civic Education, Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, Media Commission, Office of Accountability, Securities Exchange Commission, and Serious Fraud Office, among others. Likewise, economic and corporate governance is reflected in legislation, such as the Ghana Revenue Authority Act, Civil Service Reform Act, Financial Administration Act, Public Office Holder Act, and Public Procurement Law. In addition, Ghana signed the Charter for the Public Service in Africa (2001) and the African Union’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. Ghana became one of the first countries to be peer-reviewed as a test of adherence to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). The assessment, conducted by governance experts, found that Ghana was taking appropriate steps toward achieving good governance (Ghana Government, 2005). The assessment as a whole was just as rigorous as the NASPAA accreditation process.
498 Journal of Public Affairs Education
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (2000 and 2001) links the protection and enjoyment of human rights to good governance. The test of procedural good governance is the degree to which citizens have rights and access to basic services—what Brinkerhoff (2008, p. 987) describes as “rights-based development.” The concern is whether the governing process guarantees rights to justice, education, health, food, housing, liberties, economic opportunity, safety, and security, among others (Abdellatif, 2003). In this regard, Ghana has imple- mented policies that promote procedural good governance, including Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy; Free, Compulsory, and Universal Basic Education; National Health Insurance Scheme; and National Youth Employment Program to achieve balanced and equitable development.
From this perspective, public affairs education and training ought to emphasize accountability, performance management, privatization, less bureaucratization, and budget austerity, to name just a few. In Ghana, public service training is required to improve the planning and analysis capability of government ministries, depart- ments, agencies, as well as municipal and metropolitan jurisdictions. A new breed of public administrators and analysts is needed to both understand and implement the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s programs involving cutbacks and austere public management (Dia, 1996; Hutchful, 1996; Larbi, 1999). In short, administrative training is supposed to build and enhance “the requisite human and institutional capacity” for formulating and implementing development strategies, policies, and programs (Ogiogio & Ongile, 2002, p. 85).
For more than two decades, Ghana has implemented a variety of short- and long-term training programs that have aimed to create awareness of the new governance reform environment, impart knowledge, develop new attitudes, and upgrade skills among civil and public service employees (Ghana Government, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1997). Short-term training includes in-service orientation, induction, workshops, conferences, budget seminars, and dialogue sessions. The new Civil Service Act provides a new legal framework and ethical code for guiding and ensuring appropriate public conduct in accordance with good governance. The act also mandates training in new management techniques and reassigning responsibilities to improve decision making. The act establishes performance contracts and job inspections, along with computer training toward the enhance- ment of speedy and accurate decision making (Hutchful, 1996). Other short-term training programs have involved acquainting civil service employees with responsi- bilities associated with the restructuring, rationalizing, and decentralizing of gov- ernment functions.
As a consequence, the professionalism, impartiality, loyalty, and representative- ness espoused by the bureaucratic training perspective have shifted to a different set of managerial and market-based values related to that of good governance, including efficiency, effectiveness, competition, productivity, value-for-money, customer orientation, and profitability. Despite the differences surrounding the
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 499
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
meaning and usage of good governance, core principles are beginning to coalesce that can be applied for public affairs education and training purposes (OECD, 2008; Osborne, 2010; Van Doeveren, 2011). For example, the African Capacity Building Foundation initiative for training and research supports the training of top-rated economic policy analysts and development managers, which has broadened the scope of the framework to include partnership, participation, sustainability, poverty reduction, ownership, and leadership (Ogiogio & Ongile, 2002, pp. 91–92).
The World Bank’s conceptualization of good governance remains as the most dominant (Van Doeveren, 2011, p. 304), even though its own definition of the concept has evolved since it was first applied in the study of development in sub- Saharan Africa (Maldonado, 2010, pp. 4–5). Nonetheless, there has been a consistent focus on a six-dimensional framework, Worldwide Governance Indicators, to measure differentials in the quality of governance: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. These indicators are not only the best known, but also the most widely discussed (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011, pp. 127–129).
Without ignoring the differences in perspectives, good governance principles are crystalizing steadily, especially from the standpoint of the international development community. Analytic frameworks indicate a convergence around accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, openness, transparency, and the rule of law (Van Doeveren, 2011). The UN (2009), OECD (2007), World Bank (2008), and Overseas Development Institute (2009) either emphasize all or most of these principles. To a large extent, the commonalities imply that meaning and understanding of good governance are becoming shared among donors. This is not to suggest that they all agree on what the principles should entail in practice. While the World Bank emphasizes economic management to ensure returns for projects and sustained economic growth, the OECD focuses on the promotion of economic performance, market integrity, and market incentives.
To summarize, a broad good governance theoretical framework can be deduced from the literature that is shaping public affairs education and training in Ghana. The principles and value framework reflect a nascent “global consensus” of what constitutes good governance from the perspective of several major international development partners. Like all value frameworks, these principles are not only mutually reinforcing, but also generate tensions, conflicts, and trade-offs. This not only calls for different mind-sets, conceptual tools, and strategies, but also different theoretical orientations, and analytical and critical thinking abilities beyond those required for bureaucratic public administration thought and practice. From the standpoint of good governance education and training then, governmental performance largely depends on and is interrelated with environ- mental influences, internal processes, administrative structures, and managerial strategies that practitioners and analysts must know and be able to apply.
500 Journal of Public Affairs Education
GIMPA Public Affairs Curriculum of Education and Training The GIMPA Act (Ghana Government, 2004) authorizes and mandates it to
pursue and promote professional education, training, consultancy, and service “in the fields of leadership, business management and administration.” Consistent with this mandate, the GIMPA mission includes the requirement
to maintain a Center of Excellence for training in public and business administration, by continuously enhancing the capability of middle and top level executives in public and private sectors, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) both in Ghana and internationally to manage their institutions and enterprises efficiently and effectively. GIMPA’s overall goal is to become the best Management Development Institute in Sub-Saharan Africa, known for quality program delivery in Leadership, Management and Administration. (GIMPA Annual Report, 2008–2009, p. iv)
The GIMPA public affairs curriculum of education and training consists of four separate master’s degree programs: Master of Public Administration (MPA), Master of Governance, Leadership, and Public Management (MGLPM), Master of Development Management (MDM), and Master of Public Sector Management (MPSM). All four degree programs aim to provide substantive knowledge, skills, and abilities to practitioners through instruction in administrative-managerial courses, governance principles and practices, and development management courses (Table 2). This structure is evident in both long-term degree-granting and short-term competency-based courses designed to address specific ministerial, departmental, and/or organizational need.
The administrative-managerial core that the degree programs share includes Public Administration/Management, Human Resources Management, Economics, Public Finance, Policy Making, Public Legal Framework, and Research Techniques. Governance-related courses have expanded the curriculum to include Strategic Management, Economic Development, Governance, Leadership, Globalization, Negotiation, Decentralization, International Relations, and Management Informa- tion Systems. Likewise, the development management major shares in some of the administrative-managerial core, while emphasizing Local, Regional, Agricultural, and Rural Development, and Environmental Management (GIMPA Brochures, 2009–2010).
While the content of training reflects academic flavor that is grounded in theories, concepts, and insights derived from disciplines such as international relations, management, economics, and political science, the programs have a predominantly practical, service-learning, and problem-solving orientation. In fact, elective courses in the public administration program of study are taught at the ministerial and departmental levels by experienced practitioners to focus attention on job-related practices and applications. Faculty encourage course
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 501
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
Table 2. Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) Public Affairs Curriculum
Course Component MPA MGLPM MDM MPSM
Public administration/management X X
Human resources management X X X
Economics X X X
Public finance X X X
Public policy making X X X X
Public accounting X
Public sector legal framework X X X
Community organization X
Land administration X
Agricultural economics X
Development strategies X
Research techniques X X
Strategic management X X X
Entrepreneurship X
Governance X X X
Political systems X
Leadership X X
Globalization X
Decentralization X X X
Regional cooperation X
International relations/diplomacy X X X
Management information system X X X
Negotiation X X
Rural development X
Environmental management X
Local government X
Agricultural development X
Political economy X
Project planning/management X X
Economic development X X
Municipal administration X
Performance management X
Conflict management X
Ethics and professionalism X
Note. MPA = Master of Public Administration; MGLPM = Master of Governance, Leadership, and Public Man- agement; MDM = Master of Development Management; and MPSM = Master of Public Sector Management.
Source. From Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration Course Brochures (2009–2010).
502 Journal of Public Affairs Education
participants to complete research projects and theses with practical implications for, and applications in, their work. This orientation is understandable because it enables faculty to connect experience-based knowledge to, and balance it with, theory and conceptual classroom instruction.
GIMPA applies the semi-residential modular education and training format, in which course material is logically organized, segmented, and delivered. The modular or sandwich format enables public managers to combine work with study in a manner that minimizes the losses in man-hours while maximizing education and training. Both the Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Governance and Leadership (MGL) programs consist of 10 modules each, two of which are completed over a 3-week period once every 5 months. Each module requires 120 hours of face-to-face instruction and another 8 hours of group work. A supervised project, arranged between residential sessions, enables faculty to guide course participants toward completing focused and applied research projects.
Likewise, both Master of Development Management (MDM) and Master of Public Sector Management (MPSM) are organized and delivered in modules to accommodate “the busy schedule” of target groups. The MDM program consists of 12 courses that are organized in five 3-week sessions, and the MPSM includes 20 courses delivered in four modules. Because participants are adult learners, they are able to cope with the intensity and compressed modular time frame. Active and participatory training techniques, including brainstorming, case study analyses, group sessions, game playing, simulations, group exercises, and field visits are standard practices in GIMPA public administration education and training. Program expectations include demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the substantive subject areas through examinations and demonstrating analytical ability by successfully completing practical projects.
GIMPA Curricular Standards, Principles, and Values What kinds of standards, principles, and values can be distilled from the
GIMPA curriculum? Like all other institutions of higher education, GIMPA provides education and training that enable individuals to qualify for professional positions in the civil and public services. The National Accreditation Board is responsible for regulating and assuring that programs conform to accreditation standards and national development priorities. The public affairs programs are fully accredited. GIMPA emphasizes three major goals consistent with its mission: educating practitioners in the best ways of maintaining organizational vitality and integrity, facilitating public-private partnership, and assisting agencies to achieve efficiency through better management, increased productivity, and more effective cost control (Ghana Government, 2004; Ghana Government, 2009). In more recent years, GIMPA has witnessed much transformation, resulting in a broad mission that encompasses good governance ideals, principles, and practices.
The GIMPA curriculum reflects three broad sets of principles and values based on bureaucratic, good governance, and development management perspectives.
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 503
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
Bureaucratic-oriented values have followed the contours of public affairs education and training as they have evolved in Anglo-American society throughout the 20th century, emphasizing the public service ethos, civic virtues, and professional and constitutional standards (Hart & Wright, 1998; Cooper, 2004). This value orientation is associated with public administration core courses, including Public Policy Making, Human Resources Management, Administrative Law, and Administrative Ethics. However, while they may be covered in other courses, these values are being deemphasized because courses in Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Organization and Methods, and Organization Theory have not received much attention in the public affairs curriculum in recent times.
On the other hand, the second set of principles and values derives from mana- gerialism, pro-market, and neoliberal economics, which are consistent with or at least do not diverge from good governance reform policies, including efficiency, productivity, competition, profitability, and entrepreneurship (Osborne, 2010; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). GIMPA courses such as Performance Management, Strategic Management, Environmental Management, Project Planning and Management, Conflict Management, and Economic Development are attuned toward this value orientation. These courses and their mode of delivery require students to master generic/technical competencies and broad-based analytic frame- works for studying good governance as it applies to policy making and manage- ment. Although the readings are drawn from a variety of sources, a good majority comes from the international development literature. The predominant conceptual tools focus more on performance, effectiveness, and competition and less on inter- institutional, inter-organizational, and inter-jurisdictional collaboration.
The third and final set of curricular principles and values are oriented toward development management, which includes sustainability, development, partnership, capacity building, and poverty reduction among others. These principles and values are reflected not only in course names, but also in course brochure outlines, syllabi, and reading materials. They add uniqueness to the curriculum and reinforce the African Capacity Building Foundation’s vision of developing “sustainable human and institutional capacity for good governance and poverty reduction in Africa” (Ogiogio & Ongile, 2002, p. 91). Of particular relevance are courses relating to regional cooperation, land administration, rural development, and development strategies, which focus attention on understanding and analyzing development opportunities and challenges.
Development management courses are intended to analyze local and regional socioeconomic conditions with the view to promoting policies and programs that transform life in rural communities. Most of the coursework emphasizes community-based and problem-solving activities, using approaches that involve “modernizing” the traditional way of life—introducing mechanized farming and increasing agricultural productivity. The courses are designed as if to suggest that good governance principles and practices can replace traditional society’s age-old
504 Journal of Public Affairs Education
norms and belief systems. To a large extent, this reflects a narrow conceptualization of development management based on modernization theory. To be sure, good governance principles and values require broad-based participation and inclusion of all segments of society, but the priority for growing the economy and improving material welfare is unmistakably clear.
At least three pieces are missing in the development management program. First, a culture-based course is required to enlighten understanding of how to align good governance principles with the indigenous sociocultural institutions to minimize potential conflicts entailed in “institutional dualism” (Brinkerhoff & Goldsmith’s (2005, pp. 199–200). Second, another course is needed that will critically examine how to borrow and adapt Westernized concepts and theories to local conditions. Finally, a gender-based course is needed, one that will focus on and systematically analyze the socioeconomic conditions of women and propose practical solutions for closing or at least substantially narrowing the gender gap in public service leadership and top management positions, especially in govern- ment ministries, departments, and agencies.
Comparing the GIMPA Curriculum With NASPAA Principles and Standards How does the GIMPA curriculum compare with the National Association of
Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) principles and standards? Because NASPAA principles and standards constitute some of the best-known criteria for judging the quality of public affairs degree programs, the closer the match between GIMPA and NASPAA principles, presumably, the higher the degree of professionalism for maintaining integrity and reputation. While NASPAA is focused on U.S. institutions, it is also committed to helping other countries to develop and maintain high-quality public affairs education and training programs (Mazmanian, 2005; Berry, 2011). In fact, NASPAA has changed its bylaws to help international institutions to apply for full membership. Thus the comparison between GIMPA and NASPAA is in the overall interest of international exchange that can advance the work of both institutions.
NASPAA principles have evolved from what Berry described as “first generation” through “second generation” to “third generation” standards with increasing attention to “mission-based, outcome-oriented, and student learning objectives” (2011, p. 2). Anchored by public service values, the 2009 NASPAA principles and standards specify and define seven criteria that public affairs programs should meet to merit accreditation. In fact, public service values should constitute the “intellectual center of gravity” to guide “professional education for public service” (Henry, Goodsell, Lynn, Stivers, & Wamsley, 2009, p. 118). NASPAA emphasizes managing strategically: specifying mission and goals, gathering data, and evaluating outcomes. Programs are expected to systematically apply information about their performance in a manner that guides the evolution of their respective missions and continuous improvement.
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 505
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
While recognizing the importance of flexibility in curriculum design, NASPAA principles and standards reflect core value elements that public affairs and administration programs should share in common: public service, social equity, public service leadership, legal governance, transparency, and accountability. Thus under these principles and standards:
NASPAA expects an accredited program to be explicit about the public service values to which it gives priority; to clarify the ways in which it embeds these values in its internal governance, and to demonstrate its students learn the tools and competencies to apply and take these values into consideration in their professional activities. (NASPAA, 2009, p. 4)
In comparing GIMPA and NASPAA, it is worth noting that Ghana’s admini- strative history has a long-standing connection with Anglo-American philosophies, theories, and concepts about public affairs education and training. This historical connection has grown stronger with administrative globalization: widespread application of a single administrative model based on the culture of the market, management principles, and neoliberal economic ideals (Haque, 2002; Haruna, 2004). Most of the GIMPA curriculum grew out of this tradition with grounding in good governance reform policy that draws on Anglo-American values from the perspective of international agencies and multilateral corporations and organizations.
In this context, there is an apparent convergence of administrative principles, especially in regard to the value framework undergirding public affairs education and training (Table 3). The GIMPA values framework, informed by good govern- ance, reflects the common value elements that NASPAA-accredited programs share: accountability, transparency, legal governance, public service leadership, and social equity, which are among the most enduring values of Anglo American-style public administration. Although GIMPA is not a NASPAA-accredited program, such values and expected technical and managerial competencies can be extrapolated from the existing public affairs education and training curriculum.
Of interest here is NASPAA’s concern for social equity because it resonates well with Ghana’s poverty reduction strategy and GIMPA’s rural development training program that aim to create a more equitable society. Social equity has not only established itself as one of the four pillars of US public administration, but also has gained increasing attention among scholars and theorists as the basis for building a just and democratic society (Gooden & Wooldridge, 2007). Several Several conference symposia have been and continue to be held to give reflective attention to how programs can embed and teach issues of social equity along with gender, ethnic, and international diversity (Gooden & Myers, 2004; Frederickson, 2008). If equity is an issue in an advanced democracy such as the US, it is certainly more so in Ghana, where the context of public affairs education and training is characterized by visible political, social, and economic marginalization.
506 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Table 3. GIMPA Curricular Representation and Learning Outcomes
Course Component
Generic Managerial Values
Generic Managerial Competencies
Ethics and Professionalism Accountability Reasoning ability
Performance Management Accountability Analytical thinking ability
Rural Development Social Equity Analytical thinking ability
Decentralization Transparency Coordinating skill and ability
Leadership Accountability Collaborative skill and ability
Governance Transparency Collaborative ability
Public Legal Framework Legal governance Legal analytical ability
Strategic Management Accountability Managerial ability
Public Policy Making Transparency Decision-making ability
Research Techniques Effectiveness Problem-solving skill
Human Resources Effectiveness Motivational skill and ability
Development Strategies Effectiveness Analytical thinking ability
Conflict Management Public service leadership Consensus-building ability
Negotiation Public service leadership Consensus-building ability
International Relations Public service leadership Collaborative ability
Source. Compiled by authors (2010–2011).
CHALLENGES FACING GIMPA PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION AND TRAINING The preceding section argued that there is an apparent value convergence,
one that enables GIMPA to draw on NASPAA institutional experience in pro- viding the professional value orientation and competency for public service. Although much has been achieved, challenges remain as development management makes a difficult transition from its bureaucratic and managerial posture to that of good governance. It is true that resource constraint hampers the quality of professional public service education and training delivery as Sawyerr (2003) rightly has argued. But the challenge of public affairs education and training is more deeply rooted than is often admitted. Public affairs programs face the challenge of how to manage strategically along NASPAA lines by clarifying their missions and connecting the curriculum to the social, political, and economic experience of the population of students that they intend to serve.
The common approach to the challenge of public affairs education and training typically emphasizes resource scarcity (Sawyerr, 2003) and a difficult administrative terrain that makes it hard, if not impossible, to accomplish change and reform
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 507
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
(Blunt & Merrick, 1992). Of course, as one of the poorest regions, one with the lowest gross domestic growth rates, dramatic population growth, and rampant cycles of violence and conflict, sub-Saharan Africa can hardly be described as the friendliest professional education and training environment. That being said, the challenge is exactly that: how to make a meaningful connection between the public affairs education curriculum and the reality of the lived experience of society under those difficult conditions.
Most of the GIMPA curriculum responds to external pressures, offering inter- nationally acceptable courses that provide students with generic managerial and technical managerial competencies comparable to global standards. This is parti- cularly the case with bureaucratic education and training that prepares students for managing restrictive and short-term organizational goals. To be sure,internation- alizing the curriculum is most welcome given the trend toward globalization, but the curriculum is skewed more toward global standards. As a result, education and training produce professionals who are somewhat disconnected from society and a knowledge gap between classroom learning and local socioeconomic conditions.
The need for public affairs education and training to respond more to domestic and community-level dynamics is supported by scholarly interest in communitarian approaches to public service and nongovernment provision of services, including varieties of participatory mechanisms for complementing public administration (King & Stivers, 1998; Clark & Menifield, 2005). This is especially suited to GIMPA because Ghana is immersed in unique communo-ethnic diversity, a sense of localism, and a huge urban-rural disparity (Ayittey, 1992; Boamah-Wiafe, 1993; Gyekye, 2010). Government is perceived in terms of local community—the organic unit for cultural, social, and political organization (Ayittey, 1992; Haruna, 2008). As well as being politicized, sociopolitical connections affect recruitment, promotion, scholarships, and budget allocation decisions, creating a sense that government is not treating everybody fairly. Thus public affairs education and training ought to build knowledge and the ethic for administering in the unique context of Ghana.
In addition to more strongly connecting the curriculum to the sociocultural conditions of Ghana, another challenge GIMPA faces is how to rationally connect the curriculum to the larger field of public administration and management. This is both a critique and challenge that schools of policy and administration in general should address. For example, Henry and coworkers (2009) have observed that public administration faculty often “provide education and socialization in an academic discipline” rather than “provide professional education for public service.” They also argue that because courses are not well coordinated, students fail to develop a holistic appreciation for the field (p. 118), which is the exact challenge facing the GIMPA curriculum.
To address these challenges and attempt to reconcile NASPAA and good governance principles with the GIMPA curriculum, a composite curriculum is proposed with components that integrate good governance ideals while grounding
508 Journal of Public Affairs Education
public affairs education and training in the larger society (Table 4). Specific course components are suggested not only to address local conditions, but also to foster unique competencies tailored to development management. Similarly, a course in Western theories is included as a way of selectively borrowing from and adopting them to the requirements of the unique sociocultural conditions. However, such a curriculum requires support from professional associations, similar to NASPAA and ASPA with clear goals for promoting excellence in public service (Haruna, 2008).
Table 4 Sample Public Affairs Education and Training Curriculum for Development Management
Good Governance
Domain
Core Curriculum Components
Generic Managerial Principles and Values
Generic/Technical Managerial
Competencies
Political Good Governance
National History Indigenous Institutions Culture/Gender Studies Western Theories/Concepts Political Theory International Relations
Patriotism Consensus Cooperation Leadership Community Responsibility
Critical Thinking Analytical Thinking Cultural Competence Cultural Sensitivity Decision Making
Economic Good Governance
Development Policy Development Economics Development Finance Rural Development Agricultural Development Environmental Conservation Land Administration
Poverty Reduction Development Redistribution Devolution Growth Decentralization Public Good Transparency
Analytical Thinking Strategic Thinking Facilitating Ability Communication Skill Decision Making Collaboration Skill Research Skill Fiscal Analysis
Corporate Good Governance
Rule of Law Monitoring and Evaluation Research Methods Strategic Management Information Technology Leadership/Decision Making
Competition Regulation Planning Development Public Good Transparency
Decision Making Skill Collaboration Skill Research Skill IT Application Budgeting Skill
Procedural Good Governance
Constitutionalism Rule of Law Human Rights International Law Conflict Prevention Conflict Resolution Social Justice Morality and Ethics
Equity Equality Ethics Justice Fairness Equal Opportunity Tolerance Accountability
Judgment Skill Collaboration Skill Mediation Skill Negotiation Skill Critical Thinking Analytical Thinking Reasoning Ability
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 509
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS For a half century, GIMPA has provided public affairs education and training
to meet the national need of coping with the problems of development manage- ment. Initially conceptualized based on a restrictive path of public affairs education and training, the curriculum has grown and expanded in response to the quest for answers to the problems of development. This has resulted in an emphasis on responding to global and international pressures to produce “world-class human resources” based on good governance values and principles. The perspective taken here considers a more balanced, composite curriculum framework, one that care- fully balances global and international issues and interests with unique needs and demands of a developing society.
The comparative sketch between NASPAA and GIMPA shows that values are converging, dominated by good governance principles. These principles do not only link the GIMPA curriculum to Westernized forms of public administration, but also highlight tensions and conflicts in the cross-cultural transfer of theories and concepts (Heady, 2002). The GIMPA experience indicates that developing a curriculum focused on NASPAA and good governance principles as opposed to one based on the National Accreditation Board’s priorities reflects tensions similar to those with which comparative theorists wrestle. The tension arises from the question of how much of the curriculum should be devoted to good governance and how much of it should depend on local conditions. It also raises the question of what the focus of good governance should be or what the content and competency should entail. A future research question then will be one that assesses the extent to which the public affairs curriculum should be culturally unique and identifies common principles that make comparative studies fruitful.
The challenge facing GIMPA focuses on designing a composite public affairs curriculum appropriate to and useful for a developing nation. The impetus is not cynicism about the good governance model of public affairs education and training, but the recognition that public administration education and training must include its “ecology,” just like the study of public administration itself (Broadnax, 1997; Stillman, 2000). It is critical to make theoretical connections between classroom instruction and development management. Such an effort entails making compromises between domestic conditions and external pressures and demands.
A normatively comprehensive curriculum is suggested, one that is informed by local material conditions and remains sufficiently attentive to global and interna- tional awareness. Such a curriculum should aim first to clarify the understanding of the context in which public affairs education and training occurs and then develop courses that have relevance and meaning to the lived experience of the people, including seminars in African History, Cultures, and Nation-Building experiences. This will serve as a basis for developing a truly global curriculum of public affairs education and training to prepare future generations of public administrators and development managers for working in a diverse and rapidly changing world (Pires, 2000).
510 Journal of Public Affairs Education
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors conducted this study while the first author served as a Fulbright Senior Scholar at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (2010– 2011). He is grateful to the U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program, Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration, and Texas A&M International University for jointly supporting his research and teaching there. However, the authors remain responsible for any errors and omissions contained in the study.
REFERENCES Abdellatif, A. M. (2003). Good governance and its relationship to democracy and economic development.
Paper presented at the Global Forum III on fighting corruption and safeguarding integrity, Seoul, South Korea.
Adu, A. L. (1965). The civil service in the new African states. London, UK: G. Allen Unwin
African Capacity-Building Foundation. (2001). Strategic medium term plan. 2001–2006. African Capacity-Building Foundation: Harare, Zimbabwe.
African Peer Review Mechanism. (2005). Country review report and program of action of the Republic of Ghana. Midrand, South Africa: African Peer Review Mechanism Secretariat.
Ayee, J. R. (1994). Anatomy of public policy implementation: The case of decentralization policies in Ghana. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Ayittey, G. B. (1992). Africa Betrayed. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Berry, F. S. (2010). The changing climate of public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(2), 1–6.
Blunt, P., & Merrick, J. (1992). Managing organizations in Africa. New York, NY: De Gruyter.
Boamah-Wiafe, D. (1993). Africa: The land, people, and cultural institutions. Omaha, NB: Wisdom Publications.
Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2008). The State and International Development Management: Shifting Tides, Changing Boundaries, and Future Directions. Public Administration Review, 68(6), 985–1001
Brinkerhoff, D. W. & Goldsmith A. A. (2005). Institutional Dualism and International Development: A Revisionist Interpretation of Good Governance. Administration and Society, 37(2), 199–244.
Broadnax, W. (1997). Educating tomorrow’s public administrators: Embracing theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Education, 3(2), 391–396.
Clark, C., & Menifield, C. E. (2005). The dynamics of NASPAA accreditation: A challenge for organizational expansion? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(1), 35–43.
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 511
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
Cooper, T. L. (2004). Big questions in administrative ethics: A need for focused, collaborative effort. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 395–407.
Dia, M. (1996). Africa’s development management in the 1990s and beyond. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). 2009. Striving for Good Governance in Africa: Synopsis of the 2009 African Governance Report. Addis Ababa: African Development Forum, African Union.
European Union. (2006). The European consensus on development. Official Journal of the European Union, C46.
Frederickson, H. G. (2008). Social equity in the twenty-first century: An essay in memory of Philip J. Rutledge. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(1), 1–8.
Gallup International Poll. (2005). Corruption perceptions survey. Retrieved from http://www. ghanaweb.com
Ghana Government. (1967). Mills-Odoi Commission Report. Accra, Ghana: Author.
———. (1993a). Civil service law, PNDC Law 207. Tema, Ghana: Author.
———. (1993b). The civil service management handbook (Vol. 1). Accra, Ghana: Universal Printers.
———. (1994). National Institutional Renewal Program. Accra, Ghana: Author.
———. (1997). Civil Service Performance Improvement Program. Accra, Ghana: Author.
———. (2004). GIMPA Law, Act 676. Accra, Ghana: Author.
______. (2005). Country Review Report and Program of Action of the Republic of Ghana. Accra, Ghana: Author.
———. (2009). Implementation of the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2006–2009. Accra, Ghana: National Development Planning Commission.
Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration. (2010). Annual Report: 2008–2009. Achimota-Accra, Ghana: Author.
———. (2010). Brochures: 2009–2010). Achimota-Accra, Ghana: Author.
Gooden, S. T., & Myers, S. (2004). Social equity in public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(2), 91–97.
Gooden, S. T., & Wooldridge, B. (2007). Integrating social equity into the core human resources management course. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(1), 59–77.
Greenstreet, D. K. (1971). The post–World War II integration of departments with ministries in the Commonwealth States of Africa. Journal of Management Studies, 5(1), 15–22.
Gyekye, K. (2008). Our cultural values and national orientation. In K. Gyekye (Ed.), Ghana@50 Anniversary Lectures (pp. 103–131). Accra, Ghana: National Planning Committee of the Golden Jubilee Celebrations.
512 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Haque, M. S. (1998). Impact of globalization on the role of the state and bureaucracy in Asia. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 20(4), 439–451.
———. (2002). Globalization, new political economy, and governance: A third world viewpoint. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24(1), 102–124.
Hart, D., & Wright, D. (1998). The civic good: The public interest of civic humanism. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 20(4), 406–421.
Haruna, P. F. (2004a). Rethinking administrative globalization: Promises, dilemmas, and lessons in Ghana. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 26(2), 185–212.
———. (2004b). Training public administrators in Africa: A case study of civil service employees in Ghana. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(3–4), 171–195.
———. (2007). The globalization of public administration: Rhetoric, reality, and reason in Ghana. In A. Farazmand & J. Pinkowski (Eds.), Handbook of globalization, governance, and public administration (pp. 861–885). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
———. (2008). Recovering integrity in Ghana’s governance: A transcultural study in public service ethics. Public Integrity, 10(2), 113–132.
Henry, N., Goodsell, C. T., Lynn, L. E., Stivers, C., & Wamsley, G. L. (2009). Understanding excellence in public administration: The report of the task force on educating for excellence in the Master of Public Administration degree of the American Society for Public Administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(2), 117–133.
Hutchful, E. (1996). Ghana: 1983–94. In P. Engberg-Pederson, P. Gibson, P. Raikes, & L. Udsholt (Eds.), Limits of adjustment in Africa: The effects of economic liberalization, 1986–1994 (pp. 144–214). Copenhagen: Center for Development Research.
Hyden, G., & Court, J. (2002). Comparing governance across countries and over time: Conceptual challenges. In D. Olowu & S. Sako (Eds.), Better governance and public policy: Capacity building and democratic renewal in Africa (pp. 13–33). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Kaufman, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2008). The Worldwide Governance Indicators Project: Answering the critics. World Bank Policy Research. Working Paper No. 4149.
Kettl, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (Eds). (1998). Government is us: Public administration in anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kirk-Greene, A. H. (1969). Administrative training in Africa: The Northern Nigerian experience and beyond. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2(2), 20–22.
Kljn, E. H. (2002). Governing networks in the hollow state: Contracting out, process management or a combination of the two? Public Management Review, 4(2), 149–165.
Larbi, G. A. (1999). The new public management approach and crisis states. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute on Social Development, Discussion Paper No. 112.
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 513
Connecting Good Governance Principles to PA
Maldonado, N. (2010). The World Bank’s evolving concept of governance and its impact on human rights. Paper presented at a Doctoral Workshop on Development and International Organizations, Stockholm, Sweden.
National Association of Public Affairs and Administration. (2009). Accreditation standards for master’s degree programs. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/doc/NS2009FinalVote 10.16.2009.pdf
Mazmanian, D. (2005). NASPAA in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/about_ naspaa/about/presidential_address/Dan_Nazmanian.pdf
Ogiogio, G., & Ongile, G. (2002). The ACBF-PACT model as a best practice model for capacity building. In D. Olowu & S. Sako (Eds.), Better governance and public policy: Capacity building and democratic renewal in Africa (pp. 85–106). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Olowu, D. (2002). Introduction: Government and policy management in Africa. In D. Olowu & S. Sako (Eds.), Better governance and public policy: Capacity building and democratic renewal in Africa (pp. 1–9). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Glossary of statistical terms: Good governance. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail
Osborne, S. P. (2010). The (new) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.
Overseas Development Institute. (2009). World governance assessment. Retrieved from http://www. odi.org.uk/projects/00-07-world governance assessment
Pires, M. (2000). Study abroad and cultural exchange programs in Africa: America’s image of a continent. African Issues, XXXVIII, 39–45.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sawyerr, A. (2004). Challenges facing African universities: Selected issues. African Studies Review, 47, 1–59.
Sorensen, E. (2006). Meta-governance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 98–114.
Stillman, R. J. II. (2000). Public administration: Concepts and cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Stone, D. (1969). Organizing schools and institutes of administration. Washington, DC: USAID.
Transparency International. (2005). Ghana corruption perceptions index. Retrieved from http:// transparency.org/country#GHA
United Nations. (2009). What is good governance? Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance/asp
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. (2009). The Africa governance report II. Addis Ababa: African development forum, African Union.
514 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Van Doeveren, V. (2011). Rethinking governance identifying common principles. Public Integrity, 13(4), 301–318.
Wereko, T. (1998, February). Role of the management development institution in the reform process in Ghana. Paper presented at the workshop on the role of management development institutions in the reform process in Maseru, Lesotho.
World Bank. (2008). Governance matters VII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996– 2007. World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper 4654.
Peter Fuseini Haruna is an associate professor of public administration and MPA program director at Texas A&M International University. He is also 2010–2011 Fulbright Senior Scholar to Ghana. His research interest focuses on comparative public administration and public service education and training. His previous research work has appeared in Public Administration Review, Administrative Theory & Praxis, and Public Integrity, among other journals.
Lawrence Akanweke Kannae is deputy chair of the Ghana Public Services Commission. He has previously served as deputy rector at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration. His research interest centers on change management, management development, and public sector monitoring and evaluation. He has published in the Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Journal of Asian and African Studies, and Greenhill Journal of Administration.
P. F. Haruna & L. A. Kannae
Journal of Public Affairs Education 515
Teaching Grammar and Editing in Public Administration: Lessons Learned from
Early Offerings of an Undergraduate Administrative Writing Course
Claire Connolly Knox University of Central Florida School of Public Administration
ABSTRACT College graduates need to possess strong writing skills before entering the work- force. Although many public administration undergraduate programs primarily focus on policy, finance, and management, we fall short of a larger goal if students cannot communicate results to a variety of audiences. This article discusses the results of a national survey, which concludes that few undergraduate public affairs programs require an administrative/technical writing course. Based on pedagogical theories, this article describes the design of a newly implemented, undergraduate, administrative writing course. The article concludes with lessons learned, provides recommendations for programs considering requiring an administrative writing course, and discusses future research.
Keywords: administrative writing, Plain Language Movement, discourse community, undergraduate course design
“Administrators not only need to know about communications, they need to be able to communicate” (Denhardt, 2001, p. 529). Public administration under- graduate students learn the importance of communication within organizations in leadership, human resources, or organizational management courses; however, practical instruction in communication skills, such as effective, audience-centered writing, are lacking. Scholars (e.g., Cleary, 1990, 1997; Lee, 2000; Raphael & Nesbary, 2005; Waugh & Manns, 1991) have noted this lack of required commun- ication and writing courses in public administration curriculum. The majority of administrative writing literature is from the late 1980s and early 1990s when universities began implementing Writing Across the Curriculum programs (i.e.,
JPAE 19 (3), 515–536
516 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Londow, 1993; Stanford, 1992). The limited discussions and conclusions coincide with private and public sector trends—newly hired students’ writing skills are lacking (Hines & Basso, 2008; National Commission, 2005).
A survey by the National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges (2005) reported that approximately 80% of public sector human resource directors seriously considered writing skills when hiring professional employees and assumed new employees obtained these skills in college. Increasingly, public managers require employees to attend writing and communication trainings, which cost governments approximately $221 million annually (National Commis- sion, 2005). In fact, the public sector (66%) is more likely to send professional/ salaried employees for writing training than the private sector (40%; National Commission, 2005). Public, private, and nonprofit sector organizations certainly should continue providing education in writing, and scholars (e.g., Coplin, 2003; Hines & Basso, 2008; Quible & Griffin, 2007) agree that newly graduated students should enter the workforce with a solid writing foundation.
For the past 30 years, statistics, policy, finance, and management remained the primary focus in many public administration undergraduate programs (Dougherty, 2011). Yet, we fall short of a larger goal if students cannot communicate program evaluation and policy analysis results to a variety of audiences. Researchers (i.e., Pincus, 1997; Raphael & Nesbary, 2005) have studied the lack of communication courses in Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Business Admini- stration programs, but undergraduate public administration program design and content has received less attention (Dougherty, 2011). This article adds to the liter- ature in two ways: by continuing the limited discussion of writing/communication skill development among public administration students at the undergraduate level and by offering an administrative writing course design that mixes peda- gogical approaches.
Specifically, this article proposes that passage of the Plain Writing Act of 2010 and high costs for writing skills training for new employees support the need for these undergraduate programs to add a technical/administrative writing course in the curricula. The recommendation aligns with the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration’s (NASPAA) core competency accreditation requirement: “Development of communication abilities and skills—written, oral, and electronic” (1997, p. 6). This article briefly reviews the Plain Language Move- ment history and passage of the Plain Writing Act of 2010. The subsequent sections discuss survey results about writing requirements from NASPAA-accredited U.S. undergraduate public affairs programs, and grammar and writing pedagogical theories and best practices that informed and grounded the development of a newly designed administrative writing course. The conclusion provides pedagog- ically based recommendations for future changes to the writing course, and outlines future research.
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 517
Teaching Grammar and Editing
BRIEF HISTORY OF PLAIN LANGUAGE MOVEMENT In the early 1950s, the U. S. federal government slowly integrated the Plain
Language Movement with the goal of well-written, concise, and audience-centered documents. Advocates for this new movement became more vocal after World War II and stressed that overly technical writing was an impediment to a citizen’s understanding and participation in government goods and services (Law: Waging, 1978). Yet, it was not until after 1970 that the Plain Language Movement received federal and state government support through executive orders, memorandums, and legislation (Table 1). Two main reasons for this support are (a) the expanding size of the federal government, which consequently increased paperwork, and (b) an increasing national focus on consumer activism (Redish, 1985).
Table 1. Brief History of the Plain Language Movement from Nixon to Obama Administrations
Presidential Administration
Year Action
Nixon 1972 Formal request to use layperson’s language in the Federal Register with sentences written clearly and in the active voice.
Carter 1978 Executive Orders 12044 and 12174 stated government regulations should be written clearly and without jargon.
Reagan 1981 Rescinded the executive orders in Section 10 of Executive Order 12291.
Clinton 1998 Presidential Memorandum for federal government documents to be written in layperson’s terms.
Obama 2010 Plain Writing Act of 2010 created formal legislation requiring federal agencies to use an audience-centered approach and produce reader-friendly documents for the public.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 transitioned the Plain Language Movement from a voluntary to mandatory action. The act’s purpose is to “improve the effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies to the public by promoting clear Government communication that the public can understand and use” (Plain Writing Act, 2010, ¶ 4). Section 3.3 of the act defines plain writing as “writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience” (Plain Writing Act, 2010, ¶ 7). Although this legislation provides no enforcement mechanism, agencies must designate a senior official as the Plain Writing liaison, explain new requirements to staff members and train them to comply with the new regulation, and design agency-specific implementation procedures and a plain language webpage whose web link is available on the homepage (Hasselkus, 2010).
518 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Overall, passage and implementation of this legislation stresses the increasing need to educate future public administrators to write more concisely while remain- ing focused on the document’s audience(s). The combination of public policy and workforce demands support the recommendation to require administrative or technical writing courses in undergraduate public administration curriculum.
UNIVERSITY APPROACHES The challenge of improving undergraduate student writing skills is not unique
to the public administration discipline; undergraduate programs across the United States struggle to incorporate writing assignments in their courses (Glenn, 2011). Some public administration, public affairs, and public policy programs have institutionalized solutions. The following section discusses results from a survey completed by NASPAA-accredited U.S. undergraduate public affairs program directors and coordinators.
Undergraduate Program Survey A five-question e-mail survey was sent to academic coordinators in 72 under-
graduate programs associated with member schools listed on NASPAA’s website (National Association, n.d.; see Appendix A of this article). The survey asked the undergraduate program coordinators to provide information about any admini- strative or technical writing course offered within or outside their department. Following Dillman’s (2007) approach, non-responsive programs received a reminder e-mail 1 week later and a phone call 3 weeks after the initial e-mail. Of the 72 programs, 53 responded, for a response rate of 74%.
Twelve undergraduate programs are no longer active, are suspended, or are listed incorrectly on the NASPAA website. Of the remaining 41 programs, 32% (13 out of 41) required an administrative and/or technical writing course in the program; two programs have a designated writing course in the department, while 11 programs recommend technical writing courses in the English, Communications, or Business departments (Table 2). Ten programs (24%) have modified existing core courses as writing-intensive courses (Table 3). Eighteen programs (44%) did not require an administrative and/or technical writing course. These results alignwith Raphael and Nesbary’s (2005) study of communication courses in MPA programs. Should a public administration program offer an administrative writing course, or should the program refer students to technical writing courses in a Business, English, or Communications department? Concerns include evaluating the level of technical writing skills of public administration faculty and their ability to teach a writing course, as well as adopting a newly required writing course in an estab- lished program curriculum. Although 85% of responding programs require technical writing courses outside the program (primarily in the English department), there are benefits to creating a discipline-specific administrative writing course and potentially hiring an adjunct instructor with a technical writing background. Grammar is constructed; it depends on the discourse community that you belong
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 519
Teaching Grammar and Editing
to and what the community considers acceptable usage (Northedge, 2003). Each discipline and field has its own discourse community (i.e., engineering, law, journalism, medicine, government, etc.).
Although this type of course reviews different genres of professional writing (e.g., memos, reports, executive summaries, website evaluation), it also focuses on genres (e.g., grant proposals, press releases, federal rule evaluation) and characteristics unique to the public and nonprofit sector discourse community.
Table 2. Required Writing Courses in Undergraduate Public Administration, Public Affairs, or Public Policy Programs
University Writing Course in Public Administration Department
Writing Course in Other Department
Arizona State University ENG 216: Persuasive Writing on Public Issues
Auburn University at Montgomery
ENG 3050: Advanced Exposi- tory Writing
California State University, Bakersfield
COMM 304: Technical and Report Writing
California State University, San Bernardino
MGMT 306: Expository Writing
Indiana University, Bloomington
ENG-W 231: Professional Writ- ing Skills; BUS-X 204: Business Communications
Indiana University–Purdue University, Ft. Wayne
ENG W232: Introduction to Business Writing; ENG W233: Intermediate Expository Writing
Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
ENG-W 231: Professional Writing Skills; BUS-X 204: Business Communications
University of Central Florida
PAD 3733: Administrative Writing in the Public Sector
University of Maine PAA 390: Technical Writing and Communication for Public Service
University of Maine at Augusta
ENG 317w: Advanced Technical Communication
University of North Dakota ENG 125: Technical and Business Writing
University of North Texas TECM 2700: Technical Writing
University of San Francisco INTD 307: Experience and Critical Writing; INTD 308: Advanced Expository Writing
520 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Table 3. Writing Intensive Courses in Undergraduate Public Administration, Public Affairs, or Public Policy Programs
University Writing Intensive Course in Public Administration
Department
Writing Intensive Course in Other Department
College of William and Mary Major Writing Requirement in an Economics course
Duke University PUBPOL 114: Political Analysis for Public Policy Making
Florida Atlantic University PAD 4935: Senior Seminar (writing intensive); PAD 4933: Capstone Seminar in Public Management
Georgia State University PMAP 3311: Critical Policy Issues; PMAP 4051: Evaluating Public Policy
James Madison University PPA 420: Public Management
Michigan State University Tier II Writing Course
Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg
PUBPL 304W: Public Policy Analysis
Rutgers University–Newark PAD 302: Global Urban Experi- ence
Stephen F. Austin State University
PBA 305: American Public Policy; PBA 405: Policy Analysis
University of Albany, SUNY RPUB 499: Senior Seminar
Additionally, the course reinforces grammar, editing, and APA style rules and techniques, all of which aligns with best practices from the communications liter- ature (e.g., Hines & Basso, 2008). The next section provides an overview of pedagogical theories that informed and grounded the development of the admin- istrative writing course.
DESIGNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE WRITING COURSE The School of Public Administration at a large university located in a south-
eastern, metropolitan city created a mandatory, undergraduate administrative writing course within the program curriculum. Faculty members, advisory board members, and local public sector leaders and employers identified writing deficiencies among current and former students: grammar (specifically incomplete sentences, run-on sentences, incorrect use of punctuation), wordiness, formatting and structure, plagiarism and improper use of APA style, and passive voice. To address many of
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 521
Teaching Grammar and Editing
these writing deficiencies, the course design used a blended pedagogy with multiple grading mechanisms (i.e., exams, online modules, peer editing, group work, and individual writing assignments). The course also incorporated professional technical writers as guest speakers (e.g., the county’s communication director, the city’s public information officer, a local government website designer, and a federal grant writer/ reviewer) who provided students with writing examples from their organizations.
Stanford (1992) provides some best writing practices for MPA programs: incorporating many short writing assignments instead of one lengthy research paper; writing for multiple audiences; setting clear writing goals and competencies for students in the course; evaluating students’ writing and providing feedback; and handling students’ writing workload, which can overwhelm writing instructors. The next sections discuss these best practices, as well as some pedagogical theories for grammar and writing, in more detail as they relate to the undergraduate admin- istrative writing course design.
Grammar Review Although not discussed by Stanford (1992), the course began with a brief
grammar review. Hines and Basso’s case study stresses the need for grammar review in communication/writing courses: “At the heart of all written communication remains the proper use of the rules of English Grammar. … Incoherent sentences and ambiguous thoughts doom writing to fail at its most fundamental and im- portant level, communicating ideas” (2008, pp. 294, 297). The grammar review incorporated a mix of the rules-based and content-based approaches. The rules- based approach to teaching grammar (also known as deductive approach and traditional school grammar approach) is a teacher-centered approach focusing on grammar definitions and rules, and then requiring students to apply those rules to specific isolated exercises (Weaver, 1996). Examples of this approach include diagramming sentences and memorizing definitions (e.g., predicates, fragments, subordinate clauses).
The content-based, or inductive, approach gained popularity in the 1960s and applies grammar definitions and rules to students’ writing (Quible & Griffin, 2007). Through this student-centered approach, students discover grammar rules, concepts, and exceptions while writing or editing their assignments. Weaver (1996) advocated for the content-based approach for teaching grammar and citied many studies (i.e., Calkins, 1980; DiStefano & Killion, 1984; Harris & Rowan, 1989; Noguchi, 1991) conducted on elementary through college-aged students. Specifically applicable to the design of the administrative writing course is Harris and Rowan’s (1989) study of undergraduate students’ understanding of grammar concepts. The authors concluded that students needed the application of grammar concepts in their writing, in addition to knowing grammar rules and definitions. Specifically, students in the study could define a sentence, but failed to differentiate between a fragment or run-on sentence and a grammatically correct sentence (Weaver, 1996).
522 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Scholars (i.e., Hartwell, 1985; Kolln & Gray, 2009) note that teaching grammar out of context largely has no impact on improving students’ writing.
Although the debate between rules-based and content-based approaches to teaching grammar continues (Quible & Griffin, 2007), this article recommends a combination of the two approaches, especially when there is a mix of students from different generations and with varied learning styles. The course design in- cluded the combined approaches because feedback on student deficiencies from faculty indicated the need for a grammar rules review before applying the rules to writing. For the first 2 weeks of the course, I created grammar and editing assignments based on the rules-based approach (e.g., separate grammar exercise worksheets on specific rules), which provided the needed foundation for future writing assignments. Students requesting additional instruction in grammar rules received sources for self-study.1
After the grammar review, the class reviews the American Psychological Association’s (APA) writing and formatting style. This style is required in every public administration core course in our school, yet few students had received formal training. The students were mostly familiar with the Modern Language Association writing style, which the Liberal Arts commonly use in English courses. I reviewed common differences between the two styles and taught APA style in more detail, and then required students to complete an interactive APA online module offered through the university’s library Obojobo system.2 The module is easily incorporated into any course with the website link provided in the syllabus, and the system grades the concluding quiz. As discussed later in this article, including a university’s library or writing center online grammar, writing, or editing module helps overcome the large amount of time required to evaluate students’ writing and use of grammar. Then the course focus shifted for the remainder of the semester to a content-based approach where students apply grammar rules and concepts in their writing assignments.
Multiple Short Writing Assignments In most public administration courses, writing assignments consist of long
research papers. Although this skill is useful to develop if a student is interested in attending graduate school, it is not as useful in the practitioner world (Stanford, 1992). Professional writing consists of brief writing, such as memos, letters, reports, executive summaries, and press releases. When students are being introduced to a new discourse community, Northedge (2003) recommends small, frequent writing assignments that allow students to “position themselves within the discourse” (p. 178). Zeiser (1999) recommends modifying current course writing assignments from research papers to shorter writing assignments, thus allowing students to receive more feedback from the instructor on their writing and formatting.3 Another option is to add small writing elements to a research paper, such as an executive summary, press/news release, twitter feeds, or business letter. These
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 523
Teaching Grammar and Editing
smaller assignments can be completed before writing the research paper and provide students additional opportunities for grammar, formatting, editing, and content feedback.
All assignments in the administrative writing course are examples of writing genres realistic to the public and nonprofit sector. I designed individual and group assignments to mimic the work environment I experienced as a technical writer for 11 years in the federal and local government and the private and nonprofit sectors. Students were encouraged to use a variety of media to complete and submit their assignments, including hard copy and electronic collaborative learning tools (i.e., Google Docs, discussion threads). The eight genres of government and nonprofit writing covered include Rules, Regulations, and Administrative Procedures; Executive Summaries and Abstracts; Policy Handbooks and Guides; Memorandums; Press Releases; Professional Report Writing; Grant Proposal Writing; and Government/ Nonprofit Websites.
Most of the assignments were modified from the course textbook, Writing for the Government (Allison & Williams, 2008), and students could customize the topic of the assignment (e.g., the final assignment could evaluate a nonprofit organization website). (See Appendix B). As discussed further in the conclusion, future modifications to assignments should include more peer editing and require students to provide recommendations when reviewing government documents and websites.
Writing for Multiple Audiences Audience-centered writing is a common pedagogy in technical writing courses
and an important one to incorporate in an administrative writing course. Public administrators frequently write for multiple audiences, including internal (i.e., employees, volunteers, supervisor/managers, board members) and external stakeholders (i.e., public, interest groups, community partners, elected officials) in various programs (Lee, 2000; Raphael & Nesbary, 2005). These audiences have different needs and levels of understanding. For the writing assignments, I require students to consider and include the intended audience at the top of the document. For about half of the assignments, I give the document back to the student without reviewing it and ask them to rewrite the document for a different audience. Then students submit both documents—same topic but different audiences—for grading. For example, a memo about a potential public health threat for children will contain varying levels of detailed information when written for parents versus principals of local schools.
Writing Goals and Competencies As with any course, clear learning objectives should be included in the syllabus
and reviewed with students at the beginning of the semester. Some learning goals for the administrative writing course have been discussed (i.e., analyze writing samples for grammar and formatting using editing notations; apply the principles
524 Journal of Public Affairs Education
of understanding an audience and modify the document to better fit the in- tended audience).
As potential managers, students need to learn editing techniques in addition to having a good grammar foundation. Therefore, training students to become better editors is a goal of this course and ties into the recognized deficiencies. Students spend time learning to reduce redundancy, wordiness, and use of clichés and slang. Nearly every writing assignment incorporates editing techniques requiring the student to submit more than one copy of the assignment. I created an APA style editing checklist for the course, which is posted on the school’s website for all public administration students to access (see Appendix C). Instructors could require students to use this checklist, or something similar, when completing writing assignments to encourage incorporating the editing and polishing stage of the writing process.
Evaluating Student Writing A common complaint about incorporating additional writing assignments
is the amount of time it takes for instructors to provide individual feedback. Although a writing course requires more time commitment for the instructor, the literature recommends a number of options to decrease the time commitment (e.g., peer editing, freewriting, online modules, short assignments, group work; Stanford, 1992). As discussed previously in this article, the administrative writing course incorporated some of these options throughout the semester.
Studies of student peer-editing and peer-reviewing exercises have concluded with increased results in student writing and editing skills (Cho & Cho, 2011; Diab, 2010). I incorporated peer editing not only to reinforce editing, grammar, and APA formatting skills but also to reduce the amount of my editing time. Students distributed copies of their writing assignment to two classmates and used the APA-specific editing checklist I created as a guide in the peer-editing process. I recommend students peer edit at least two other papers and include the edited drafts with the final paper. Additionally, students worked in groups on some assignments (i.e., basic grammar, memo, and report assignments); this activity not only lightened my grading load but also mimicked a real-world task.
Pre- and Post-Test Results Results from pre- and post-tests over the first four semesters of the course show
an increase of between 14 and 22.6 percentage points in students’ application of grammatical and formatting rules (Table 1). The pre- and post-tests measured students’ learning with the rules-based approach and included nine grammar questions and 11 APA formatting questions. Grammar questions focused on fragments, comma splices, fused sentences, subject-verb agreement, and pronoun agreement. The APA style and formatting included test questions on quotations and quotation marks, in-text citations, capitalization, and punctuation.
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 525
Teaching Grammar and Editing
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0% Spring 2011 Summer 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012
17.5% 14.7% 22.6%
14.0%
Figure 1. Pre- and Post-Test Percentage Increase Results
Although the students’ post-test scores show a measurable increase, there is room for improvement (Figure 1). One way to increase students’ grammar and formatting knowledge is modifying the course design. I taught the rules-based grammar approach during the first 2 weeks of the course; the remaining weeks implemented the content-based approach. Students complete the post-test during the final exam review in the second-to-last week of the semester. A lesson learned is not separating the two approaches, but integrating them throughout the entire semester. A potential solution is to add mini lessons once a week to review commonly missed grammar and formatting rules in that week’s assignment (Weaver, 1996). The first 10 to 15 minutes of class could be set aside for this task and include questions from students. The following section includes additional recommend- ations based on pedagogical literature and future research.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Public administration graduates need to possess well-written, concise, and
audience-centered writing skills as well as understand government and the non- profit sector’s discourse community. Implementation of the Plain Writing Act of 2010 and the increasing costs of writing training for new employees provide an opportunity to reevaluate the writing and communication skills of public admin- istration students as well as the writing requirements for these undergraduate programs. This article recommends that undergraduate public administration programs require a technical/administrative writing course in the core curriculum, whether taught in-house or in another department. This article also discusses the design of a discipline-specific administrative writing course and related pedagogical theories. The course design included two approaches to teaching grammar and writing; however, other approaches are available, including sentence-combining
526 Journal of Public Affairs Education
approach and process approach. Improving the course design and assignments could increase students’ knowledge and application of grammar, formatting, and writing skills.
The literature discusses other types of writing exercises (i.e., freewriting, zero draft, journals) that an administrative writing course could incorporate. Freewriting can be a non-graded writing assignment allowing students the opportunity to overcome writer’s block or practice a new grammatical concept, such as using semicolons to combine short, related sentences. Freewriting exercises are less stressful, can last 10 to 15 minutes, and are for the student (Stanford, 1992).
Although the administrative writing course did not incorporate a writing portfolio until the second year, students should create a portfolio and self- reflect on how their writing style and ability change over the semester. As Paulson, Paulson, and Meyer (1991) explain, portfolios allow students to take ownership of their learning experience. Writing assignments and feedback from peers and the instructor are included in the final portfolio. Based on this material, students reflect and self-assess their progress, specifically their growth as a writer. This includes listing writing strengths and weaknesses for them to continue working on after the course ends. Completing a writing portfolio with self-reflection at the end of the semester allows the instruction and assessment to blend (Paulson et al., 1991).
Limitations and Future Research This article had some limitations; namely, the pre- and post-test results
reported on the students’ knowledge of grammar and formatting rules (rules- based approach) and not on the increase in general writing skills (content-based approach). Although the course implemented both pedagogical approaches, future research should measure the effectiveness of students’ use of peer editing and portfolio techniques on their writing skills. This article focused on the creation and initial implementation of an undergraduate public administration writing course, but future research should include intermediate and long-term outcome measures to test changes in students’ writing skills under the rules- based and content-based approaches.
Another limitation was that the brief survey to the program directors did not allow them to elaborate on the learning objectives in the administrative or technical writing course. Future research could study the commonalities and differences in learning objectives and class structure of administrative writing courses implemented in public administration programs. On a related note, a broader research question based on the survey results in this article should delve into the effects of an administrative writing course taught within a public administration program versus in a Business, English, or Communica- tions department.
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 527
Teaching Grammar and Editing
FOOTNOTES 1 Grammar and writing resources include Barzun’s Simple & Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers (2001),
Bernstein’s Watch Your Language (1976), William and Colomb’s Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (2010), Sabin’s The Gregg Reference Manual: A Manual of Style, Grammar, Usage, and Formatting (2005), Strunk’s Elements of Style (2012), and Simmons’ Grammar Bytes website: http://www. chompchomp.com/menu.htm
2 Obojobo is an interactive online learning system created by the University of Central Florida. For additional information about this system, see https://obojobo.ucf.edu/
3 For additional information on short assignments and providing student feedback, see Bean (2011).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to the public administration, public affairs, and public policy program coordinators and directors who completed the survey. Additionally, I would like to thank Vanessa Lopez-Littleton, David Dadurka, the anonymous JPAE reviewers, and the editor for their valuable feedback.
REFERENCES Allison, L., & Williams, M. F. (2008). Writing for the government. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Barzun, J. (2001). Simple & direct: A rhetoric for writers (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Bean, J. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bernstein, T. M. (1976). Watch your language. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Calkins, L. M. (1980). When children want to punctuate: Basic skills belong in context. Language Arts, 57, 567–573.
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
Cleary, R. E. (1990). What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed? Public Administration Review, 50(6), 663–669.
———. (1997, June). From the section chair. SPAE Forum, 7, 1, 9.
Coplin, B. (2003). 10 things employers want you to learn in college: The know-how you need to succeed. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press.
Denhardt, R. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 526–534.
528 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38(1), 85–95. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.12.2008
DiStefano, P., & Killion, J. (1984). Assessing writing skills through a process approach. English Education, 16(4), 98–101.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dougherty, G. W., Jr. (2011). A place for undergraduate public administration education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(3), 325–341.
Glenn, D. (2011, January 18). Writing assignments are scarce for students in two majors at Texas Colleges. Chronicles of Higher Education, 57(21). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ Writing-Assignments-Are-Scarce/125984/
Harris, M., & Rowan, K. E. (1989). Explaining grammatical concepts. Journal of Basic Writing, 8(2), 21–41.
Hasselkus, A. (2010, November 23). Law requires plain writing in federal documents. ASHA Leader, 15(14), 11.
Hartwell, P. (1985). Grammar, grammars and the teaching of grammar. College English, 47(2), 105–127.
Hines, R., & Basso, J. (2008). Do communication students have the “write stuff ”? Practitioners evaluate writing skills of entry-level workers. Journal of Promotion Management, 14, 293–307.
Kolln, M., & Gray, L. (2009). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects (6th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Law: Waging war on legalese. (1978, January 16). Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/ magazine/article/0,9171,919278,00.html
Lee, M. (2000). Public information in government organizations: A review and curriculum outline of external relations in public administration. Public Administration & Management: An Interactive Journal, 5(4), 214–246.
Londow, D. Z. (1993). Writing in political science: A brief guide to resources. PS: Political Science and Politics, 26(3), 529–533.
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (1997). Guidelines for Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Public Affairs/Public Administration. Washington, DC: Author.
———. (n.d.). Undergraduate programs. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/about_naspaa/members/ full/roster_loc/bs_programs.asp
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. (2005). Writing: A powerful message from state government. College Board. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard. com/prod_downloads/writingcom/powerful-message-from-state.pdf
Noguchi, R. R. (1991). Grammar and the teaching of writing: Limits and possibilities. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Northedge, A. (2003). Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 169–180.
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 529
Teaching Grammar and Editing
Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60–63.
Pincus, J. D. (1997). To get an MBA or an MA in communication? Communication World, 14(3), 31–34.
Plain Writing Act of 2010, H.R. 946, 111th Congress. (2010). Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access. gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h946enr.txt.pdf
Quible, Z. K., & Griffin, F. (2007, September/October). Are writing deficiencies creating a lost generation of business writers? Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 32–36.
Raphael, D. M., & Nesbary, D. (2005). Getting the message across: Rationale for a strategic communi- cations course in the public administration curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(2), 133–146.
Redish, J. C. (1985). The plain English movement. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The English Language Today (pp. 125–138). Oxford, England: Pergamon Institute of English.
Sabin, W. A. (2005). The Gregg Reference Manual: A manual of style, grammar, usage, and formatting (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Simmons, R. L. (n.d.). Grammar Bytes. Retrieved from www.chompchomp.com/menu.htm
Stanford, K. A. (1992). Disarming the hunter: Improving administrative writing in the classroom. PS: Political Science and Politics, 25(4), 696–699.
Strunk, W., Jr. (2012). Elements of style. New York, NY: Tribeca Books.
Waugh, W. L., Jr., & Manns, E. K. (1991). Communication skills and outcome assessment in public administration education. In P. J. Bergerson (Ed.), Teaching public policy: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–143). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. English Journal, 85(7), 15–24.
William, J. M., & Colomb, G. G. (2010). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (10th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Zeiser, P. A. (1999). Teaching process and product: Crafting and responding to student writing assign- ments. PS: Political Science & Politics, 32(3), 593–595.
Claire Connolly Knox is an assistant professor and coordinator of the Emergency Management and Homeland Security Program in the University of Central Florida’s School of Public Administration. Her research interests include environmental policy and management, critical theory, and environmental vulnerability and disaster response. She has published in the Journal of Public Affairs Education, Public Administration Review, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, and Journal of Emergency Management.
530 Journal of Public Affairs Education
APPENDIX A
E-mail Survey to Public Administration, Public Affairs, and Public Policy Programs
You are receiving this short email survey because NASPAA lists your under- graduate public administration program on its website. I am conducting research and writing an article about the status of writing course requirements for under- graduate public administration programs in the U.S. Although I was able to answer some questions using your department’s website, I would like to confirm this information with your input. If you could answer the following five questions at your earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it.
Question 1: Does your undergraduate public administration program require an administrative and/or technical writing course that is separate from any required lower division general English course? (If yes, please continue to question 2. If no, please stop here and email your survey response back to me. Thank you for your time.)
Question 2: Is this administrative and/or technical writing course listed as a core requirement or as an elective in your program?
Question 3: Is this course taught in the Public Administration Department? (If yes, continue to question 4; If no, continue to question 5).
Question 4: What is the name and number of the course offered in your department? For example, PAD 3XXX—Administrative Writing
Question 5: What is the name and number of the course offered in a different department? For example, ENG 4XXX—Technical Writing or BUS 4XXX— Business Writing
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 531
APPENDIX B
Administrative Writing Course Assignments
Two Grammar Exercise Assignments—Students will complete grammar worksheets based on material covered in the grammar handout individually and in class with other students.
Editing Assignment—This individual exercise will test the student’s ability to simplify wordy phrases and sentences.
Citing with APA and Avoiding Plagiarism Library Module—Students will complete the library’s Citing with APA and Avoiding Plagiarism modules in the Obojobo system and complete the assessment quiz individually. If you completed this module for a previous class, you cannot import your grade for this assignment.
Library Assignment—The librarian will distribute a worksheet that will test your ability to search and locate books, journals, and journal articles on the library’s online database systems.
Grant Assignment—The website link to the Corporation for National and Community Service grant application is www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/10_0430_ ncbp_nofa_final.pdf Using the proposal guidelines, create a detailed outline to help you write a competitive grant proposal. Complete the following tasks:
a. Search the proposal guidelines for mention of particular sections that the proposal reviewers would expect to see. These sections will serve as section headers in your proposal.
b. After you have identified the sections, arrange the sections in your proposal outline in the same order that they appear in the proposal guidelines.
c. Under each section, brainstorm or list the data or evidence that you believe proposal reviewers will find persuasive. For example, under the “program design” section, jot down a list of important facts about your organization or project that would give the proposal audience the background information that they would need.
d. Make a list of forms or attachments that you are required to include in the proposal.
e. If available, consult proposal writing resources listed on the funding agency’s website for help with unfamiliar terminology in the proposal guidelines or on forms (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 151).
Teaching Grammar and Editing
532 Journal of Public Affairs Education
In Class: Memo Assignment—“In groups of three or four, use the Toulmin model to write a one-to-two-page, double-spaced policy memorandum that argues for at least one major change to your course syllabus” (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 105). You will submit two items: a diagrammed model of your argument and a policy memorandum.
Rules Assignment: Part 1—“Go to www.regulations.gov and find a proposed rule that allows you to submit a public comment to a proposed rule online [the public comment period needs to be open through the end of the semester]. Select a proposed rule that you have some stake in and would therefore be considered a stakeholder” (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 57). Print out the first page of the proposed rule and highlight the end date of the public comment period (worth one of the five points for this assignment). Part 2—First, in two to three sentences explain who is the audience and potential stakeholder for the rule. Second, respond to the proposed rule with a 150 to 200 word (maximum) public comment and consider the following questions: “Do you agree with the rule? Is it clear? Your comment can be complimentary or critical, but it must be professional and well written. Your comment can also be in response to the content of the rule and/or the way the rule is written” (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 57). Before submitting your assignment, we will discuss all comments in class. You are not required to submit your comment on www.regulations.gov, but it is a great opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
Press Release Assignment—Students will write a one-page press release for a real or fake event or announcement. If you volunteer with an organization, this is a great opportunity to create a press release for an upcoming event. Grading will focus on proper press release formatting, correct use of the inverted pyramid, and grammar structure.
In Class: Report Writing—Experts are the intended audience for Figure 6.8 CDC Influenza Weekly Report, which includes “language and statistics that most non-expert audiences would not understand. In a group, identify a non-expert audience (elementary school teachers, school principles, day care workers, etc.)” who would find the report useful (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 128). Then, re- write the CDC report as a one-page, single-spaced document to your identified non-expert audience, while considering the following questions:
a. What information is important to this audience? b. What type of evidence (statistics, stories, examples) might this
audience need to understand the report? c. Is the tone and word choice in the original report appropriate
for the new audience? d. What information needs to be deleted or left out of the report? e. What information needs to be added for this audience? f. What constraints might make rewriting this report for a new
audience difficult? (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 128).
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 533
Website Evaluation Assignment—Go online and review government or non- profit websites. Then choose one website to evaluate for this assignment. You will apply the principles of audience-centered writing and evaluate the cultural context, and will complete the assignment in an essay format (third person) with the following five sections:
a. Introduction:
b. Audience:
audience members?
what features make you think it is inviting or not?
audience (such as acronyms)? If it does, provide some examples.
(Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 198).
c. Purpose:
features, and do you think users would recognize them and be able to use them naturally without hesitating to think about them?
for the user? (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 198).
d. Cultural Context:
technological aspects do you believe contribute to the usefulness of the site (or it not being useful)? For instance, is the site accessible for the disabled? Does it have features for non-native English speakers? What kinds of technological features does it offer? Do those help communicate its messages or get in their way? How so?
attribute to that change?
If it is a federal government site, does the site include the various recommend ations listed on the ICGI checklist in Figure 8.28? (Allison & Williams, 2008, p. 198).
e. Conclusion:
Teaching Grammar and Editing
534 Journal of Public Affairs Education
APPENDIX C
Editing Techniques and Advice
This handout is a short checklist of common grammatical and formatting errors made by undergraduate and graduate students. All of the page numbers reference APA Style Guide 6th Edition. Although this handout provides APA-specific guide- lines for editing your document, always follow any specific requirements set forth by your professor.
Check Formatting A correctly formatted cover page (p. 23). Heading and page numbers are required at the top of each page, including the cover page. All margins are 1 inch. Word 2007 and 2010 default to 1.25 inches. Do not include extra spacing between paragraphs. This is another common default in Word. Use a font size of 12 and Times New Roman style throughout the entire document. Avoid one-sentence paragraphs. Avoid one-page paragraphs (each paragraph should be four to five sentences long). Include section headings to guide your reader through your document (pp. 62–63). Do not orphan headings or sentences at the bottom of a page. Everything in the document is double spaced, including the references. References start on a separate page and sources are listed alphabetically (Ch. 7).
Check for Plagiarism (Ch. 6) Paraphrasing
Include in-text citations for all paraphrased material (Table 6.1 on p. 177). For example, (Brown, 2010). Include these sources in the reference list. All sources cited in your document have to be in your reference list.
Direct Quote In-text citation with page or paragraph number, as well as quotation marks, is required for all direct quotes. For example, (Brown, 2010, p. 45). If your direct quote is more than 40 words, then make it into a block quote (p. 171). Include this source in the reference list.
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 535
Check for Sentence Structure Avoid writing in the first person (e.g., I, me, us, you, we). Write in third person. Avoid starting a sentence with a conjunction (e.g., and, or, but), number, acronym, or “because” in professional writing. Avoid using contractions (e.g., can’t, don’t, won’t, shouldn’t) in professional writing. Use action verbs, check for subject-verb agreement, and use the correct verb tense (pp. 77–79). Avoid slang or clichés (e.g., benefit of the doubt, dime a dozen, fell on deaf ears). Write concisely by removing duplicating words and/or phrases (e.g., small in size, brief in duration, a total of 152 participants) (p. 67). Use concrete words instead of abstractions (i.e., an “animal” could be a cat, dog, bear, tiger, or horse). Clarify all pronouns by including the antecedent near the referencing pronoun. Avoid starting a sentence with “this,” “that,” “it,” “these,” or “those” without including the antecedent (pp. 79–80). Use correct punctuation (Ch. 4). Spell out an acronym the first time you use it in a document and then place the acronym in parentheses, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (p. 107). Fix all run-on sentences in one of these ways:
create two separate sentences, link two independent clauses (clauses that are complete sentences) with a semicolon, combine independent clauses with a comma and coordinating conjunction (e.g., and, but, or, nor, yet, so, for), or subordinate one of the independent clauses by using a subordi- nating conjunction (e.g., before, unless, whenever, while, whether).
Last but not least… Read your paper backwards. This old journalism trick works well. Many times we memorize our document by repeatedly reading it from start to finish. By reading the last sentence, and then the sentence before the last sentence, each sentence stands out. This method allows you to read this document like it is the first time. Always have someone else read over your paper. They do not need to be a subject-matter expert, but another person can catch the missing verb in a sentence or an unclear pronoun. After printing the final paper, review it again. Sometimes headings get orphaned and/or margins get reset that can affect the final format of the document.
Teaching Grammar and Editing
536 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Website and Book References Here are selected websites available to students learning and applying APA citation and formatting guidelines:
APA website: http://apastyle.org/ OWL website: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ Additionally, here are selected references and websites to use for grammar review: Sabin, W. A. (2005). The Gregg Reference Manual: A Manual of Style, Grammar, Usage, and Formatting (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Grammar Review Website: http://www.newsroom101.com/NR2/grammar/
C. Connolly Knox
Journal of Public Affairs Education 537
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross-Disciplinary Graduate Programs
G. L. A. Harris Mark O. Hatfield School of Government
Portland State University
Dannelle D. Stevens Graduate School of Education
Portland State University
ABSTRACT End-of-course student evaluations are frequently used to evaluate university faculty teaching. However, employing midterm student feedback has been found to be instrumental in informing faculty about instructional quality and improving student learning outcomes. This study examined and compared the effects on classroom instruction of using a midterm student feedback (MSF) survey in the graduate courses of two faculty, an untenured professor in public administration and a full professor in education. The researchers gathered data from 122 students over two years for three courses in 6 classes—4 in public administration, 2 in education. Results indicate that midterm student feedback offered insight for faculty at both levels. In addition, when faculty make instructional changes based on MSF data, students’ responses improve. Implications for future research are also discussed.
Keywords: midterm student feedback, end-of-course evaluations, cross-disciplinary, graduate programs
While much has been debated about the kind of feedback that facilitates student learning (Campbell, Steiner & Werdes, 2005; Giles & Pascoe, 2004; Kember, Leung, & Kwan, 2002; Murray, 1987; Richardson 2005; Whittington, 2001), all would agree that students benefit from some feedback (Gallagher 2000; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hobson & Talbot 2001; Sojka, Gupta & Deeter-Schmelz, 2002). But what about the faculty? When do faculty members receive feedback
JPAE 19 (3), 537–558
538 Journal of Public Affairs Education
about their teaching? It is customary for faculty to receive student evaluations at the end of the course (Giles & Pascoe, 2004, Keutzer, 1993). However, there are some questions about the value of these end-of-course evaluations in making teach- ing improvements (Gray & Bergmann, 2003, Senior 2000; Wolfer & McKnown Johnson, 2003). Therefore, faculty members are employing other options like midterm student feedback (MSF) to make corrections to improve a course before the end of the term (Austin & Austin; 2002; Davis Bullock, 2003; Diamond, 2004; Keutzer, 1993; Overall & Marsh, 1979).
The purpose of this study was to examine student midterm survey results in three courses over two successive terms (six classes in total) and within two different disciplines (public administration and education). Two faculty members conducted this research: one faculty was untenured (at the time) from a School of Government within a larger college, while the other faculty member was a tenured full professor in a Graduate School of Education at the same university. Neither one of us as faculty had used midterm student feedback (MSF) before, and we were both interested in collaborating on the administration and analysis of the results of this type of survey. Given the brevity of a quarter system and the time that it takes for cross-discipline collaboration, we administered the survey in one term for specific courses. Then, the next time we taught the same courses, we implemented the student recommendations from the survey of the first course and re-administered a second midterm student survey when the same course was subsequently taught. We know this is not the typical approach to using midterm student surveys and realize that this type of administration has limitations. In doing so, we addressed the following questions: First, “How does a different group of students in the same course respond to instructional changes based on the mid- term survey results from a previous term?” And second, “What kind of course corrections were made based on the MSF results, and how do these align with effective instructional practices?”
LITERATURE REVIEW Hattie and Timperley (2007), in their literature review on feedback, describe
feedback as a powerful tool that can positively and negatively affect learning and achievement. The teacher functions as an agent who bestows information upon the student and provides feedback as a “consequence” of the student’s performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). Others, like Gallagher (2000) and Hobson and Talbot (2001), regard student teaching evaluations as an integral mechanism for measuring effective instruction. Accordingly, these student evaluations of teach- ing effectiveness (SETE) constitute a formative approach for students to inform faculty about their teaching and in turn for faculty to use such information to improve instruction (Hobson & Talbot, 2001). However, the degree to which the student evaluation is accepted and acted upon depends solely on the faculty. The more readily the faculty member accepts the student evaluation as such, the more likely the faculty member will view the evaluation as instrumental to teaching
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 539
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
(Gallagher, 2000) and to improving student learning outcomes. In other words, student evaluations should not be summarily dismissed by faculty as either unimportant or questionable in nature (Gallagher, 2000; Murkison & Stapleton, 2001) because, in the end, both faculty and students can benefit from their use. Yet, despite the perceived benefits of student evaluations, there are also some accompanying concerns.
The research on the value of the end-of-course evaluations is mixed. Typically, the administration of student evaluations comes at the end of a term or semester of teaching a course (Giles & Pascoe, 2004; Keutzer, 1993). While these evalua- tions inform faculty about their teaching performance, faculty cannot make timely adjustments until the next time the course is taught. Other researchers have ques- tioned the value of the end-of-course feedback as ineffective (Gray & Bergmann, 2003) in that better measures of student performance are available. Baker (1992) asserts that obtaining feedback is wasteful and results in grade inflation. Furthermore, Armstrong (1998) notes that end-of-term evaluations shift the responsibility for learning from the students to the faculty. A more recent study by Langbein (2005) considers that student evaluation of the teaching tool is not only a faulty measure of teaching performance, but that the implications for this measure can be unin- tentionally negative. Moore (2009) goes even further and maintains that student evaluations are notorious for problems that include manipulation, are not linked to student learning outcomes, provide students with leverage over faculty, and unnecessarily induce stress on the faculty being evaluated. Similarly, traditional end-of-course measures continue to be widely used even though they are considered by some to be “crude judgments of instructional effectiveness” (Abrami, d’Apollina, & Rosenfeld, 2007; Wolfer & McKnown Johnson, 2003, p.117).
Like Moore (2009), some researchers question the reliability and validity of end-of-course evaluations, because such results may be strongly influenced by confounding variables like class size, faculty likability, gender, and type of course— elective or required (Hobson & Talbot, 2001; Langbein, 1994; Marsh & Roche, 1997). Moreover, Slocombe, Miller, and Hite (2011) found that likability is a moderating variable that influenced students’ end-of-course evaluations. In essence, the more that students like the instructor, the greater the likelihood of favorable end-of-course evaluations for that course and thus for the faculty teaching the course. Smaller class size, or the number of students rating a course, for example, is said to more positively skew the reliability of student evaluations (Marsh & Roche, 1997). According to Langbein (1994), every incremental increase of 10 students in a course decreases the students’ evaluations of teachers by 0.06. In some cases, same-gender instructors increase the probability that same-gender students will score them more favorably (Basow, 1998; Langbein, 1994; Wolfer & McKnown Johnson, 2003). So, a course that is taught by a female and that is predominantly female in composition may result in higher evaluations, particularly for those who are viewed as caring (Langbein, 1994; Sojka et al., 2002). Yet, just as these results can be validated, in the same vein, they can be refuted by other studies as well.
540 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Class size, faculty gender, and elective versus required courses can be confound- ing variables as well. While smaller classes tend to yield more positive student evaluations for faculty, and the converse is true for larger class sizes, the relation- ship between the variables may not be as direct (Langbein, 1994). More important, the evaluation scores may not necessarily indicate teaching quality at all. In some cases, the relationship between class size and student evaluations is curvilinear (Algozzine et al., 2001), because some large classes are positively rated by students. As Campbell and colleagues (2005) are quick to point out, however, that class size is a variable beyond the faculty’s control. For gender, Centra and Gaubatz (2000) show that few gender preferences and more positive ratings for female faculty are a reflection of students’ interests in particular subjects of study. Yet, others like Heine and Maddox (2009) speculated that these results may be a function of the female students appearing to take the course evaluation process more seriously than their male counterparts, who perceived the exercise cynically. And, according to Langbein (1994), this positive result may also be indicative of expected grades by students as well as the amount of time students invested in the course outside the classroom. Others, like Foote, Harmon, and Mayo (2003), found no such differences in evaluations by female students relative to male students when the teaching faculty was female. While elective courses tend to generate more positive student evaluations (Marsh & Roche, 1997), some data suggest that more chall- enging courses, or those purported and more likely than not to be required or core courses, can also generate positive student evaluations (Campbell et al., 2005). Nevertheess, end-of-course evaluations on more difficult courses tend to yield dispro- portionately negative ratings for instructors (Slocombe et al., 2011; Thorton, Adams, & Sepehri, 2010). In fact, courses that are challenging are rated signifi- cantly above those that are not (Whittington, 2001) or do not always produce lower ratings than the less challenging courses (Chen & Chen, 2010). However, faculty are penalized with lower ratings when students believe that the course workload is disproportionate and/or when they receive lower than expected grades (Campbell et al., 2005). But, even if students give such courses lower ratings, doing so may not indicate bias (McKeachie, 1997). Instead, low student evaluations may simply be evidence of poor teaching (Whittington, 2001).
Part of the challenge surrounding the debate about using end-of-course student evaluations is that there is no consensus on what constitutes good teaching and how such teaching can be improved (Germain & Scandura, 2005). Langbein’s (1994) study concluded that it is difficult to ascertain what variables are measuring teaching effectiveness. Why? Because student evaluations reflect various factors, including (a) which faculty members are the most popular, (b) which faculty are truly effective teachers, and (c) the faculty’s age and gender. More impor- tant, higher student evaluations may not necessarily mean effective teaching. The absence of a uniform definition of good teaching and the inconsistency in methodologies used to discern teaching as a construct compound the problem
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 541
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
(Germain & Scandura, 2005). Besides, those in the discipline cannot agree on how the results of teaching should be measured (Abrami et al., 2007). Should teaching be measured by what it generates, how teachers perform, or by student learning outcomes? More recent studies point to divergent ways of measuring similar data, such as the following: Students believed that faculty who are evaluated become better teachers (Clayson & Haley, 2011); the more objective the learning measures become, the less correlation there is between student evaluations and learning outcomes (Clayson, 2009); while less experienced faculty were rewarded with higher student evaluations for introductory courses (Carrell & West, 2010), more experienced faculty were penalized for stringent grading even though lower grades resulted in “deeper learning” (p. 429) that caused students to perform better in subsequent courses (Carrell & West, 2010; Johnson, 2003); and lower student evaluations may cause faculty to reduce experimentation with new techniques and even the abandonment of techniques that they believe to be the most beneficial to students (Armstrong, 1998; Lang & Kersting, 2006). Still, the most effective teachers are thought to be those who inspire students (Langbein, 1994), provide the most challenging work (Campbell et al., 2005; Whittington, 2001), and value student feedback to improve their teaching (Yao & Grady, 2006) through the use of well-designed student evaluations to measure teaching effectiveness (Hobson & Talbot, 2001).
The Benefits of Midterm Student Feedback These genuine research-based philosophical differences about the value of the
end-of-course student evaluation provide the rationale for using mid-term or mid- semester student feedback (MSF). Faculty have used midterm student feedback surveys in conjunction with the end-of-course student evaluation to make timely midcourse corrections to foster better student learning outcomes and increase teaching effectiveness (Senior, 2000; Keutzer, 1993; Holt & Moore, 1992) while producing more favorable end-of-course student evaluations (Kember et al., 2002). The literature has been overwhelmingly positive about the benefits of midterm student feedback. Earlier studies such as those by Friedlander (1978) and Cohen (1980) attribute improved end-of-course ratings to be at least one third of one standard deviation higher than that of control groups, due to the intervention of midterm student feedback.
A more recent study by Kember et al. (2002) confirmed that while this may be the case, few studies have been conducted on the effects of midterm student feedback beyond the three- or four-year period. In a study over 13 years, however, Marsh and Hocevar (1991) showed sustained improvement by individual faculty members consistently using MSF. Cohen’s (1980) research demonstrated that faculty who solicited midterm student feedback improved their end-of-course ratings from the 50th percentile to the 58th percentile while those who admin- istered the instrument along with consultation about the results increased their end-of-term ratings to the 75th percentile. As well, the online administration of
542 Journal of Public Affairs Education
midterm student feedback can potentially generate even higher ratings for faculty given the ease of use, the associated anonymity (Austin & Austin, 2002; Ballantyne, 2000), and the timely receipt by faculty for quick response to students (Davis Bullock, 2003; Kulik, 2001; Sheehan, 2001).
Overall and Marsh (1979) found that the use of midterm student feedback resulted in multiple benefits for faculty: (a) Students rated faculty more highly, (b) faculty were motivated to modify instruction, (c) faculty could make changes in the same course before the end of the term, and (d) faculty realized a positive correlation between the midterm student feedback and student learning outcomes. These results in turn can help forge an environment between faculty and students that is conducive to learning and growth. According to Keutzer (1993), this kind of environment makes students feel empowered because the feedback goes directly to the faculty, and specific changes are based on their assessment. MSF benefits all involved (Austin & Austin, 2002; Diamond, 2004; Holt & Moore, 1992; Keutzer, 1993; Senior, 2000; Sojka et al., 2002).
We collaborated on the design, implementation, and analyses of the same mid- term student feedback survey administered in a total of six of our classes across our two different disciplines: public administration and teacher education.
METHODOLOGY In three courses over two successive terms, we collaborated on improving our
classroom instruction through the analysis of MSF. We are from a School of Govern- ment (public administration) within a larger college and a Graduate School of Education (teacher education). One of us is untenured (at the time) and the other is a tenured faculty member, respectively. Both schools are housed in a large urban public university located in the northwestern region of the United States. We gathered the MSF survey data from three courses, two in public administration and one from teacher education. We repeated the survey for a second time in each course when the same course was taught again. Therefore, we have MSF data from six classes across two different terms in two disciplines, public administration and education.
Typically, faculty implement changes in a course during the term when they collect the MSF data. Our university is on the quarter system; courses are 10 weeks long and there is one finals week, for a total of 11 weeks per term. This means a very quick turnaround for the MSF feedback. In this study, we collaborated across our disciplines and levels of experience to garner the greatest benefits from using MSF to improve instruction. The surveys were administered in Phase I (two in Winter term for public administration, one in Winter term for education). Then, we analyzed the survey results in Phase II. We made instructional changes based on the survey results in the courses during Phase III and administered another MSF the second time we taught each course. During Phase IV, we analyzed the results of the second administration of the MSF survey.
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 543
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
From this study, we focused on how the results from the MSF survey can be used to improve classroom instruction regardless of discipline, even in a subsequent offering of the course. Results indicated that the MSF survey addressed specific ways that we can improve instruction. Since we met 15 times over two years to discuss and analyze the results of the MSF surveys, we discovered similar and different views and knowledge levels that each of us as faculty held about college teaching. We both sought to engage students in discussion and group work. Dr. H., the untenured faculty from public administration, had the need for more lecture. We were both concerned with improving student writing as well. Yet, Dr. S., the tenured faculty from teacher education, had students submit drafts early in the term, while the untenured faculty member initially did not do so until following the midterm.
Participants Graduate students who were enrolled in the three courses during Phase I,
and a second set of graduate students enrolled in the same courses in Phase II, voluntarily participated in the research. During Phases I and III, there were 60 students in public administration and 62 students in teacher education. Our students are primarily working professionals. The courses in both disciplines are taught during the late afternoon or at night to accommodate the working professional. For instance, students in the public administration courses typically range in age from 25 to 40 and work in the public sector; those in the action research teacher education course are similar in age, but are teachers with about 5 to 8 years of classroom experience who are returning to secure their graduate degree. While we did not collect demographic data on the survey, we suggest that these data would be helpful in subsequent uses of the survey.
In addition, a one-page Informed Consent form was designed to inform students of their rights as participants in the study in that the process is voluntary and that securing their signatures simply signaled voluntary participation based on being informed of their rights as participants. Participants were also informed that they could withdraw at any time during the study and without penalty to their course grades, their status in any of the graduate programs, and their relationship with the schools or departments in which their programs were housed and/or the University or with the researchers (the authors), who were conducting the study. A human subjects expedited review approval was obtained from the University’s Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) to proceed with the research.
Midterm Student Feedback Survey (MSF) After collaboration, we decided that the survey should ask students about key
topics that often appear on the typical end-of-term course evaluation forms. Our survey was one page, double-sided, and included open-ended and closed-ended questions that included four main sections seeking the following information:
544 Journal of Public Affairs Education
specific feedback about knowledge of course expectations, course performance, course workload and teamwork (open and closed-ended questions), and general questions about what is working and what is not (open-ended questions).
Procedures The University operates on a quarter or term system (11 weeks), and the surveys
were initially distributed during the Winter and Fall terms over two academic years but within the same calendar year. To avoid any unintended effects so that the graduate students would not feel undue pressure to participate in the study, we administered the Informed Consent forms and surveys to each other’s courses during the midpoint (approximately the fifth to sixth week) of each term during the Winter and Fall terms (Phases I and III; see Table 1 for the study timeline).
Table 1. Timeline of Study of Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) Survey for Courses A, B, and C (Phases I–V)
Instructor Phase I (Winter, previous academic
year)
Phase II (Winter, previous academic
year)
Phase III (Fall, subsequent academic year/ same calendar
year)
Phase IV (Fall, subsequent
academic year/ same calendar
year)
Phase V
1 N = 60
Distribute survey Course A (n = 12) Course B (n = 14)
Analyze results Course A Course B
Modify course Distribute survey Course A (n = 16) Course B (n = 18)
Analyze results Course A Course B
Comparative analysis of the results from Phases II and IVCourses A, B, and C
2 N = 62
Distribute survey Course C n = 33
Analyze results Course C
Modify course Distribute survey Course C n = 29
Analyze results Course C
Mid-Course Corrections Implemented in Phase III (based on analysis during Phase II)
In the following sections, we have chosen to use the first-person narrative to describe our study. In the public administration section, Dr. H. uses the pronoun I to indicate what she learned and changed based on the analysis of the surveys administered during Phase I. In the teacher education section, Dr. S. also uses the pronoun I to describe what she learned and changed based on the analysis of the survey. In cases where we are referring to what we both learned, we continue to use the pronoun we.
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 545
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
Public Administration Courses A & B (Dr. H.) Based on feedback from the MSF in both of my courses, I modified the content of the lectures, the course syllabi, and feedback timing in the following term when I taught the course again or during Phase III. For example, before the study, in both courses, through class discussions, I consistently stressed the importance of the students’ using the Univ- ersity’s Writing Center as well as included the Writing Center’s contact information and location on the course syllabi. The Phase I MSF survey indicated that students needed more assistance in writing. Therefore, in Phase III, I asked that Writing Center consultants visit each course at the beginning of each term to educate the students about the Center’s resources.
For Course A, which was more theoretical in nature than Course B, I used three writing assignments, student-led presentations, and class discussions to determine students’ understanding of the course material and ability to grapple with theoretical concepts related to the study about public organizations. I took class time before and after the completion of each writing assignment to explain the assignments as well as any themes that were discerned from students’ papers. The MSF feedback indicated that students did not have an idea of how they were performing in the course and that the expectations were unclear. As a result, I made a change so that the first writing assignment was due the second week of the course so that students could see where their strengths and weaknesses lie and thus seek appropriate assistance from me and the Writing Center in a time- ly manner and before the end of the term. It is important to note that for this course, only the first writing assignment was affected since it was due before the midpoint of the term.
For Course B, I made two additional changes based on the feedback from the survey administered during Phase I and implemented during the Winter term or Phase III. First, a seasoned practitioner in public administration was brought in as a guest speaker before the middle of the term. And, second, students were concerned that in addition to the class discussions, they had no way of gauging their performance in the course even during the midterm since most of the written assignments followed the midpoint of the term. In response, I reinstituted a brief three-page critical analysis writing assignment. Articles were distributed for the analysis during the first class session of the course in Phase III, and the assignment was due the second week of the term. Students’ performance on the assignment was also based on a previously distributed rubric. For each course, and during the initial class sessions of the respective terms (Winter and Fall), I explained the definitions of the levels of performance for the writing assignments (Excellent to Poor) as well as the four components upon which the writing assignments were based (content, critical analysis, organization, and writing quality). Further, to emphasize its importance, I continued to stress these writing expectations through- out the term.
546 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Teacher Education Program/Action Research Course C (Dr. S.) Course C was an Action Research proposal development course, the first of a two-course sequence where students design and implement an action research project in their classrooms. Students have 10 weeks to learn about action research and design a proposal. I made two changes during the next time I taught the course, Phase III, as a result of review- ing the MSF feedback from Phase I. First, the students wanted more examples of completed action research projects. I created a wiki, a web space for communicat- ing with individuals and groups, for the course. I then found excellent examples from students’ papers and, with their permission, posted them on the wiki. All students in the class were invited to participate on the wiki. Second, the students wanted more in-class time to discuss their projects and field their ideas with each other. To accommodate this request, I added 30-minute small group discussion sessions in three classes during the term. The next section describes the results from the MSF surveys in Phases I and III—Courses A, B, and C.
RESULTS This section reports on the analysis of the MSF survey by comparing the
surveys administered in the courses during Phase I (before the implementation of changes) and Phase III (after the implementation of the changes). We address the following research questions: First, “How does a different group of students in the same course respond to instructional changes based on the midterm survey results from a previous term?” and second, “What kind of midcourse corrections were made, and how do they align with effective instructional practices?
The data analyses for Courses A and B in public administration yielded overall improved results. Here, we summarize the results from different parts of the survey—expectations, performance, workload—that also include an analysis of the responses to open-ended questions both within each of the above sections and in the last three questions of the survey.
Course A: Expectations All students reported that they had a clearer idea of what was expected in the
course. Unlike the previous term (Winter), when only 69% reported that the course syllabus had made the difference, for the subsequent Fall term, 90% of the participants reported that they found the course syllabus to be helpful in making the course expectations clear. In the short answer section, 60% of the responses indicated that the professor was clear about the course expectations; another 10% found the writing rubric to be helpful and that posing questions via Blackboard, a Course Management system, was also helpful.
Performance In comparison to the previous term (Winter), when only 15% of the students said they were fully aware of how they were progressing in the course, during the subsequent Fall term, all students (100%) had a clear idea of how they were performing in the course. In the short answer section, 90% of the
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 547
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
Table 2. Summary of Results of the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) Survey for Three Graduate Courses (Public Administration and Education) Over Two Successive Terms (Phase V)
Item Question Course B – Public Administration
Course B – Public Administration
Course C – Education
A. Time 1 (Phase II)
Time 2 (Phase IV)
Time 1 (Phase II)
Time 2 (Phase IV)
Time 1 (Phase II)
Time 2 (Phase IV)
n = 12 n = 16 n = 14 n = 18 n = 33 n = 30
1. Expectations Clear idea of expectations
100% 100% 93% 100% 94% 100%
Comments: What helped know expectations?
Syllabus 69%
Prof. explan. 46%
Syllabus 90%
Prof. explan. 60%
Syllabus 93%
Syllabus 100%
Rubric 30%
Prof. explan. 30%
Syllabus 73%
Rubrics 67%
Syllabus 77%
Rubrics 60%
2. Performance Clear idea of how doing
15% 100% 29% 60% 84% 100%
3. Workload Knowledge of workload
100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 93%
4. Assignment Instructions Combined well-explained & explained categories
Written assignments
93% 100% 93% 70% 86% 97%
Class discussions 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 96%
Class case studies 77% 80% 86% 80% NA NA
Team case studies NA NA 94% 80% NA NA
Team projects NA NA 100% 100% NA NA
5. Teamwork NA NA 100% 80% 90% 90%
students believed that the feedback on their first writing assignment helped them to gauge their performance; 30% reported that they received positive feedback about class participation; and 10% each reported that they had received feedback
548 Journal of Public Affairs Education
based on their individual student-led presentations, understood and participated in class discussions, and were able to discern their performance in the course from the questions posed with periodic acknowledgement from me, the instructor, on how well they were doing in the course.
Workload All students (100%) reported that they were clear about the expec- tations for successful completion of the course in Phase I. Of the comments made, 40% found that the course syllabus was clear, and a few (each item was 10% of the total comments) noted that the following clarified the course workload: class discussions, the three writing assignments where the paper expectations were clearly outlined, the writing rubric. An improved 100% reported that the writing assign- ments were either well or adequately explained. However, unlike the previous term, 100% stated that the class discussions were either well or adequately explained. Forty percent of the respondents chose not to comment in this section, although 10% of them found the following: instructions for the written assignments were brief and opened ended; I, the instructor, was very knowledgeable, but students wanted more information about the theoretical concepts, believed that they learned the most from the class discussions, and found the assigned student-led present- ations to be very interesting while others loved the assigned articles for this activity.
General Questions Unlike the previous Winter term, fewer students criticized what was not working in the course (20% vs. 10%). However, a small number (10%) reported the following: While they believed that the class discussions were great, they thought that more would have been gained as they found tolerating some classmates’ opinions to be difficult because they viewed those students as overly enthusiastic. Some students stated that although the course was a little behind, it did not adversely affect the flow of the course. Others would have liked more lectures by the instructor to fill in material that was not presented in the student- led discussions, whereas others found accessing the textbook on reserve in the library to be difficult. Overall, students were happy with the course, although they considered that some of the student-led presentations were better than others. Yet, they believed that this was an inherent part of the process. Others believed that the student-led discussions should be limited to 10 minutes; while some found the reading to be overwhelming for those who worked full-time. While 30% of the students reported that they were satisfied with the course, another 30% said they would have liked more facilitated discussions by the instructor. Ten percent each stated that they would have liked more lectures before the student-led presenta- tions and would like to have engaged in group or team work, though the course was not designed for this type of exercise. Overall, the course was well received. Some students found the course to be exemplary while others stated that they were learn- ing a great deal. Likewise, many reported that the course was exactly what they expected at the graduate level.
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 549
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
Course B generated far more open-ended feedback from respondents, due to the nature of the course and the associated workload. Unlike Course A, Course B required significantly greater student-to-student interaction, teamwork, instructor- directed lectures, case studies, and almost weekly individual and team assignments beyond the required weekly course reading. These activities were integral elements of the course. Additionally, unlike Course A, Course B was designed to be balanced in theory and practice.
Course B: Expectations All students during the Fall (second) term (100% vs. 93% during the previous
Winter term) found that the course expectations were clear. All students attributed the clarity of the course expectations to the course syllabus, 30% to the clearly stated rubric, the instructor’s establishment of clear guidelines at the outset; but 10% were still unclear as to what constituted an “A” performance in the course. Ten percent of the students liked that the instructor employed Blackboard in conjunction with other media for communication; gained clarity about course assignments, for instance, by meeting outside of the classroom with the instruc tor; and some were already clear about the course expectations during the first class session.
Performance More students (60%) had a clear idea of how they were doing in the course (vs. 29%), but 40% were still unclear about their performance. Eighty percent reported that they knew how they were performing; however, some commented that they would have preferred to have the instructor provide feedback as typed notes, because it was difficult to decipher the penpersonship (penmanship). Ten percent of the participants found that the instructor was very detailed in grading, that they could participate in class discussions, and that the feedback on the first writing assignment was an excellent gauge of their performance.
Workload All students (100%) reported that they were fully apprised of the expected workload for successful completion of the course. Twenty percent of those who commented said, though, that the high expectations for the course were difficult; 20% stated that while at a glance the workload might have appeared to be similar to other courses in the program, the required teamwork was time consuming. Ten percent each complained that it was difficult to have to visit the campus an additional day of the week because of the required book that was on reserve at the library, believed that there were too many overlapping assignments, reported that it took too long to establish Blackboard accounts for communication with the instructor and each other, and would have preferred individual assignments rather than teamwork assignments. It is important to note that the Fall term represented the first time that Blackboard was fully launched as a new medium for communicating with students. The University had recently transferred its system from WebCT, a previously employed system for the same purpose to Blackboard.
550 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Both the students and I, the instructor, were experiencing growing pains associated with adjusting to this new hybrid online system. And while 10%, respectively, complained that it was difficult to track the time on the course syllabus because of the time lag and suggested that some of the areas listed should be dropped, others reported that they found the course syllabus to be very explicit about the expectations of the course. Additionally, my consistent repetition of these expectations during the term reinforced the students’ understanding of them.
For instructions regarding the course expectations and assignments, given course goals, 70% found that the written assignments were either well or adequately explained (vs. 93%); the team case studies were 80% well or adequately explained. Twenty percent needed more information (vs. 84% and 7%); the team project was well to adequately explained (100% vs. 92%); in-class case studies were well to adequately explained at 86% with 7% needing more information (vs. 80% and 20%); and in-class discussions were well to adequately explained at a rate of 90% with 10% needing more information (100% and 0%). While 60% of the students chose not to comment, of those who did, another 10% reported that the instructor had done an extensive amount of work to ensure that students understood the course assignments. To the students, this work was by far more than they had ever done in other graduate courses of the program. Some students did not see the relevance of the case studies to the course, and some wanted more explanation for the first assignment. Others believed that the instructor should focus less on time and more on the class discussions, because doing so made students feel as if the instructor were trying to meet benchmarks.
Regarding teamwork, compared to the previous term (100%), 90% of the students believed that they had an opportunity to showcase their own contributions in their respective teams. For these students, 20% each did so through team dis- cussions, satisfying project timeline and content, participation in the team process, and playing a leadership role. Others (10%) stated that they had participated in their teams through the writing and preparation of the team proposal; took the lead in electronic communiques with team members in such areas as research, offer- ing suggestions, brainstorming, assistance with meeting, conversations, and fac- ilitating the team project; and believed that they did so equally as team members.
General Questions When asked what was “working” in the course, at least 50% reported that the lectures were good; the subject matters of discussions were great (20%); class discussions were excellent, and they had much opportunity to participate (20%); they liked the instructor’s lecturing style and the facilitation of student participation by allowing no student to dominate class discussions (20%); the textbooks were good (20%); the instructor was only one of few who did not use PowerPoint as the sole method of instruction; and the instructor was very skilled in her craft and passionate about the subject matter (10%). Fifty percent of those who commented found that the strict adherence to the time caused undue pressure in the classroom; 20% wanted copies of the PowerPoint
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 551
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
slides via Blackboard; 10%, respectively, had varying opinions that ranged from still being unclear about their respective performance to disliking the idea of having a book on reserve in the library. To the question on what students would like to have seen more of in the course, a few respondents were equally opinionated. Ten percent each wanted more group activities, would have found it helpful at the end of each class if the instructor identified the reading assignments for future class sessions, said case study discussions were hampered by time constraints, considered the sometimes calling on of students to be too much like law school, understood why certain decisions are made in the legal process, and needed more practical application. Therefore, from all indications, although both public admin- istration courses were fundamentally different in design and content, the midcourse corrections implemented in each course resulted in marked improvements with each administration of the MSF survey (from Time 1—Phases I and III to Time 2—Phases II and IV; see Table 2). Consequently, I received similar results for the end-of-term evaluations.
The data analysis for Course C (teacher educations/action research) showed that the direction of change from Phase I to Phase III was either positive or remained the same. In addition, the percentages indicated that there was a positive regard for the course (> 60%). The instructor had been teaching this course for over 12 years. The results for the end-of-term evaluations were equally positive.
Course C: Expectations I was able to boost the results for this category following the correction based
on the MSF administered in Phase I and implemented in Phase III. As a tenured, experienced instructor, I found many of the scores across all sections of the survey were initially quite high. However, I found several items that were quite inform- ative and led to significant improvement in the course. Specific details of what helped students learn the expectations showed up in the written materials as a result of the syllabus and the rubrics. There were seven rubrics for the seven assignments in this course. I had refined the language of these assignments over the years.
Performance The percentages on student perception of their performance changed from 84% to 100%. The open-ended comments in this category pointed to the feedback on the papers and the rubrics as central to understanding how well students were doing. I ensured that their papers were returned to the students the very next week following the submission of their assignments. Their problem statement was due the second week of class and submitted on Blackboard, the Course Management System. I gave them detailed, specific feedback on this assignment by the third week of the class. Students were given the opportunity to resubmit all of their papers (literature review, methods) up to three times for feedback before they combined the papers into the final proposal.
552 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Workload Ninety-three percent of the students were confident that they knew the amount of work that was expected of them in the course in Phase I. This improved to 100% in Phase III. While this result was significant, 6% (2) of the students mentioned in the comments that the course was a lot of work. The drafts of the problem statement, literature review, and methods were due during the first 5 weeks of the course. Doing so provided the students time to complete first drafts of all three assignments for submission by the fifth week of the term. Further, following the initial submission of each assignment, students could resubmit the assignments for additional feedback.
Assignment Instructions Students seemed to have a good understanding of the assignment instructions. However, when I noticed the overall 86% results on written assignments for the course in Phase I, I spent more time reviewing the rubrics assigned for each of the three primary course papers in Phase III. This review seemed to have affected how the students responded to the writ- ten assignments.
General Questions Students noted that the syllabus, rubrics, and resubmis- sions of each assignment work quite well for them. Some students even appre- ciated the group work. Over both terms, Phase I and Phase III, the two things that were most salient and provided marked improvement from one term (Winter) to the other (Fall) were the “sample projects” and “time to talk to peers about projects.” Given the course corrections from Phase I to Phase III, students in Phase III appreciated the opportunity to see examples of other action research projects as well as have more time to discuss their project with their peers.
CONCLUSION The preceding study on midterm student feedback (MSF) reinforced the
value of employing this tool to facilitate not only improved student learning outcomes but also enhanced teaching effectiveness. This study supported previous evidence that while the end-of-course evaluations can yield critical information for assisting faculty in improving course design and content, they do little for current students. Therefore, the timely correction of students’ concerns through the implementation of midcourse corrections—in this case, during the midpoint of an 11-week term—affords both the instructor and students the opportunity to change the direction of the teaching and learning of the course for the improvement of both constituents. In turn, instructors are viewed as receptive to students’ learning needs, students may act in kind by rewarding instructors with more favorable end-of-course evaluations, and instructors become more adept at teaching. Yet, while this study demonstrated the utility of midterm student feed- back, it also revealed some shortcomings—among them the challenge of imple- menting the MSF tool during a term system.
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 553
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
Limitations First, the most salient limitation of this study is the generalization of its
findings over the successive terms to different samples of students. This decision was a function of the abbreviated duration of the 11-week term; although the MSF survey was considered an effective tool, employing it during the quarter system may have generated results less robust than what might have been possible if it were employed under a semester system.
Second, given the above, can the correlations between midcourse corrections made during one term with one sample of students be directly attributed to im- provements in another term with a different sample of students? In essence, the correlation of results between the two terms might not necessarily have meant causality; instead, the results could have been due to other, unknown moderating variables. Therefore, making the appropriate midcourse corrections during the same term and with the same sample of students in each course might have yielded different results.
Third, while the MSF surveys were administered within the same calendar year over two terms, not during the same academic year, this timing was primarily a condition of when the courses were scheduled to be taught next. Consequently, we held little to no influence over course offerings, because such schedules are dictated more or less by the levels of enrollment for each course as well as by the administrative hierarchy of the respective schools.
Fourth, the MSF survey was administered only to required courses in each program. Thus, given the available research, would different results have been produced if this strategy were applied to elective courses?
Fifth, because the primary focus of this study was to acquire as much student feedback as possible in an effort to increase student learning outcomes, of utmost concern was designing a tool that could quickly and effectively encapsulate this information. As a result, the length of the MSF survey was limited to a one-page, double-sided tool. Nevertheless, while it would have been as important to garner such demographic data as age, race, and whether students were pursuing their academic degrees on either a part-time or full-time basis, we found that securing this material was impractical.
Strengths We believe that despite the obvious limitations of this study, the benefits of
the MSF survey appear to far outweigh the drawbacks in generating some novel and robust results. Foremost is the instrumentality of the tool in achieving marked improvements in overall student learning outcomes, even if the changes were made during a subsequent term when the same course is offered and not during the term when the MSF survey was administered. In effect, the MSF survey is an equally effective tool that is based on the feedback of previous samples of students, though those results were not directly applied to the same samples of students.
554 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Although the abbreviated period of the quarter term can make instituting mid- course corrections based on the MSF survey to be an especially challenging calibration for faculty, its timely implementation, even during a later term for the same course, can still yield positive outcomes for both students and faculty.
We also believe that, to some degree, by employing the MSF survey, and during a quarter system, we were able to address some of the gnawing criticisms and frustrations with the often used end-of-term course evaluations as being largely ineffective. By instituting the MSF survey that is strictly based on students’ input and is the instrument for carrying out midcourse corrections, it in turn served as a conduit for improving student learning outcomes and then becomes a student-centered tool in itself. Further, not only does the MSF survey serve as a modality for continuing to refine courses given student feedback, but by making the necessary midcourse corrections at the midpoint of a course for the timely redirection of student learning, it increased the probability of more favorable end-of-term course evaluations for faculty. We also discovered some interesting and unexpected findings in the process of conducting this study. We discovered not only the benefits of interdisciplinary and cross-campus collaboration, and the lessons learned from doing so, but also the importance of mentorship by having a junior and untenured faculty reap the advantages of working with and gaining the expertise of a more seasoned and tenured senior faculty. Too, and in keeping with the literature, we found that embedded in this latter finding was the generally negative end-of-course evaluations that quite often may serve to undermine and sabotage the well intentioned efforts of particularly underrepresented minority and female faculty to teach courses that are overwhelmingly attended by majority students. Thus an unintentional consequence of our study was to appreciate the importance for such faculty to more quickly assess the tenor of the student body of each course as one way to mitigate students’ potentially biased perceptions that are unrelated to faculty teaching competence.
Implications for Future Research In light of the benefits derived and even the limitations of using the mid-
term student feedback survey within a term system, it would be interesting to determine its utility at the undergraduate level for public administration and education programs as well as other programs. Particularly for students and junior faculty, challenges to learning could be identified at the earliest possible stages of a course in order to mitigate frustration and increase the likelihood of producing more positive learning experiences for faculty and students alike. As well, future MSF tools could be designed to capture such demographic data as age, race and/ethnicity, and whether students are pursuing their academic endeavors on a part-time or full-time basis.
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 555
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
REFERENCES Abrami, P., d’Apollina, S., & Rosenfield, S. (2007). The dimensionality of instruction: What we know
and what we do not. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 385–456). The Netherlands: Dordrecht.
Algozzine, B., Beattie, J., Bray, M., Flowers, C., Gretes, J., Howley, et al. (2001). Student evaluation of college teaching: A practice in search of principles. College Teaching, 52(4), 134–141.
Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Are student ratings of instruction useful? American Psychologist, 53(11), 1223–1224.
Austin, D., & Austin, J. (2002, April 7–9). Using Blackboard to survey students at midterm. In Teaching, Learning, and Technology: The Connected Classroom. Proceedings of the Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference (7th), Murfreesboro, TN.
Baker, G. P. (1992). Incentive contracts and performance measurement. Journal of Political Economy, 100(3), 598–614.
Ballantyne, C. (2000, November). Why survey online? A practical look at issues in the use of the Internet for surveys in higher education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association in Honolulu, HI.
Basow, S. A. (1998). Student evaluations: The role of gender bias and teaching roles. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Career strategies for women in academe: Arming Athena (pp. 135–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Campbell, H. E., Steiner, S., & Gerdes, K. (2005). Student evaluations of teaching: How you teach and who you are. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(3), 211–231.
Carrell, S. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors. Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), 409–432.
Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 17–33.
Chen, W., & Chen, W. (2010, October). Surprises learned from course evaluations. Research in Higher Education Journal, 9, 1–9.
Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what student learns? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 16–30.
Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (2011). Are students telling us the truth? A critical look at the student evaluation of teaching. Marketing Education Review, 21(2), 103–114.
Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis. Research in Higher Education, 13, 321–341.
Davis Bullock, C. (2003). Online collection of midterm student feedback. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 96, 95–102.
Diamond, M. R. (2004). The usefulness of structured mid-term feedback as a catalyst for change in higher education classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(3), 217–231.
556 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Foote, D. A., Harmon, S. K., & Mayo, D. T. (2003). The impacts of instructional style and gender role attitude on students’ evaluation of faculty. Marketing Education Review, 13(2), 9–19.
Friedlander, J. (1978). Student perception on the effectiveness of midterm feedback to modify college instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 71(3), 140–143.
Gallagher, T. J. (2000). Embracing student evaluations of teaching: A case study. Teaching Sociology, 28(2), 140–147.
Germain, M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). Grade inflation and student individual differences as systematic bias in faculty evaluations. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 58–67.
Giles, O., & Pascoe, R. (2004). Student evaluations; fact or fiction? Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand: Eastern Institute of Technology, 272–275.
Gray, M., & Bergman, B. R. (2003, September–October). Student teaching evaluation: Inaccurate, demeaning, misused. Academe, 44–46.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Heine, P., & Maddox, N. (2009). Student perceptions of the faculty course evaluations process: An exploratory study of gender and class differences. Research in Higher Education Journal, 3, 1–10.
Hobson, S. M., & Talbot, D. M. (2001). Understanding student evaluations: What all faculty should know. College Teaching, 49(1), 26–31.
Holt, M. E., & Moore, A. B. (1992). Checking halfway: The value of midterm course evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 13(1), 47–50.
Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York: Springer.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Kwan, K. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 411–425.
Keutzer, C. S. (1993). Midterm evaluation of teaching provides helpful feedback to instructors. Teaching Psychology, 20(4), 238–240.
Kulik, J. (2001). Student ratings: Validity, utility and controversy. In M. Theall, P. Abrami, & L. Mets (Eds.), The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? (New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 9–25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lang, J. W. B., & Kersting, M. (2006). Regular feedback from student ratings of instruction: Do college teachers improve their ratings in the long run? Instructional Science, 35, 187–205.
Langbein, L. (1994). The validity of student evaluations of teaching. Political Science and Politics, 27(3), 545–553.
———. (2005). Management by results: Student evaluation of faculty teaching and the mismeasurement of performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Public Choice, New Orleans, LA.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1991). Students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: The stability of mean ratings of the same teachers over a 13-year period. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 303–314.
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 557
The Value of Midterm Student Feedback
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197.
McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218–1225.
Moore, P. (2009). Why we should measure student learning: A glossary of collegiate corruption. In R. E. Flinn & D. L. Crumbly (Eds.), Measure learning rather than satisfaction in higher education. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
Murkison, G., & Stapleton, R. J. (2001). Optimizing the fairness of student evaluations: A study of correlations between instructor excellence, study production, learning production, and expected grades. Journal of Management Education, 25(3), 269–291.
Murray, H. G. (1987). Acquiring student feedback that improves instruction. In M. G. Weimer (Ed.), Teaching large classes well (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 32, 85–96). San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Overall, J. U., & Marsh, H. W. (1979). Midterm feedback from student: Its relationship to instructional improvement and students’ cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6), 856–865.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415.
Senior, B. A. (2000). Student teaching evaluations: Options and concerns. Journal of Construction Education, 5(1), 20–29.
Sheehan, K. B. (2001). Email survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(2), 1–16.
Slocombe, T., Miller, D., & Hite, N. (2011). A survey of student perspectives toward faculty evaluations. American Journal of Business Education, 4(7), 51–57.
Sojka, J., Gupta, A. K., & Deeter-Schmelz, D. R. (2002). Student and faculty perceptions of student evaluations of teaching: A study of similarities and differences. College Teaching, 50(2), 44–49.
Thorton, B., Adams, M., & Sppehri, M. (2010. The impact of students’ expectations of grades and perceptions of course difficulty, workload, and pace on faculty evaluations. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(12), 1–5.
Whittington, L. A. (2001). Detecting good teaching. Journal of Public Administration Education, 7(1), 5–8.
Wolfer, T. A., & McKnown Johnson, M. (2003). Re-evaluating student evaluation of teaching: The teaching evaluation form. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 111–121.
Yao, Y., & Grady, M. L. (2006). How do faculty make formative use of student evaluation feedback? A multiple case study. Journal of Evaluation Education, 18, 107–126.
558 Journal of Public Affairs Education
G. L. A. Harris is an associate professor of Public Administration in the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. She received her PhD in Public Administration with concentration in Public Management from Rutgers University. Her research interests revolve around the theme of equity by examining such issues as civil rights (affirmative action), the military (recruiting and retention patterns, gender, race, and health care), gender equity (the military and the academy) and health care (the military, veterans and cultural competence). Dr. Harris has published in a number of journals including Administration and Society, Public Administration Review, and the Journal of Military Studies, to name a few. She co-edited Women of Color in Leadership: Taking Their Rightful Place (2010) with Richard Greggory Johnson III and has a forthcoming book, Living Legends and Full Agency: Implications for Repealing the Combat Exclusion Policy. Dr. Harris is also a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve and formerly served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force.
Dannelle D. Stevens is a full professor of Curriculum and Instruction in the Graduate School of Education at Portland State University. She taught in the public school system for 14 years across four school districts within three states. She received her doctorate in Educational Psychology from Michigan State. Her first book, co-edited with Joanne Cooper, Tenure in the Sacred Grove: Issues and Strategies for Women and Minorities (SUNY Press, 2002), was written to help faculty women and minorities negotiate the path to tenure. Introduction to Rubrics, now in its second edition and co-authored with Antonia J. Levi, and Journal Keeping, co-authored with Joanne Cooper, are published by Stylus Publishing. In addition to teaching classes, she has taken on leadership positions in the department and campus-wide. In the Curriculum and Instruction Department, Dr. Stevens leads teacher licensure cohorts and coordinates the MA/MS program for experienced teachers. For the university at large, she works within the Center for Academic Excellence as faculty-in-residence for assessment and is chair of the Institutional Assessment Council.
G. L. A. Harris & D. D. Stevens
Journal of Public Affairs Education 559
Achieving the Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning: The
Nonprofit Perspective
Beth Gazley Indiana University–Bloomington
Teresa A. Bennett Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
Laura Littlepage Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
ABSTRACT University and college experiential education takes many forms: internships, practica and other field experience, volunteerism, community service, and community-based service learning, as well as community activities attached to college courses. Given the joint involvement of university and community institutions in experiential education and the diverse motivations for encouraging student community involvement, this academic practice can be viewed through three lenses: (a) as a form of student learning, (b) as a public policy instrument to promote student civic engagement, and (c) as a service delivery tool for community organizations. Much of the research about student service learning has emphasized the first of these perspectives, examining service learning’s impact on a student’s pedagogical experience and the campus ability to support service learning. This article focuses on the nature of the partnership between campuses and community organizations. We begin with a discussion of how prior literature describes this partnership and then use generalizable community data to explore what host organizations suggest are the most useful partnership characteristics.
Keywords: service learning, experiential learning, university and community partnership
University and college experiential education takes many forms: internships, practica and other field experience, volunteerism, community service, and
JPAE 19 (3), 559–579
560 Journal of Public Affairs Education
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
community-based service learning, as well as community activities attached to college courses. These high-impact practices are widespread throughout the under- graduate and graduate public affairs curriculum and are the focus of political, civic, and philanthropic attention because of the presumed public benefits of connecting an educational curriculum to community problem solving (Kuh, 2008).
Given the joint involvement of university and community institutions in exper- iential education and the diverse motivations for encouraging student community involvement, this academic practice can be viewed through three lenses: (a) as a form of student learning, (b) as a public policy instrument to promote student civic engagement, and (c) as a service delivery tool for community organizations (Littlepage, Gazley, & Bennett, 2012). Much of the research about student service learning has emphasized the first of these perspectives, examining service learning’s impact on a student’s pedagogical experience and the campus ability to support service learning (Bailis & Ganger, 2006; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Cruz & Giles, 2000; Edwards, Mooney, & Heald, 2001; Imperial, Perry, & Katula, 2007; Jones, 2003).
This article reports in part on a larger research project focusing on the “supply” side, the community capacity to engage, mentor, and manage students. From the broader, community-oriented point of view, any promotion of experiential educa- tion raises questions about agency capacity to meet student demand for community- based experiences and how responsibilities should be shared between higher education institutions and community agencies to most effectively meet both academic and community objectives (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). In this article, we focus on the nature of the partnership between campuses and community organizations. We begin with a discussion of how prior literature describes this partnership and then use generalizable community data to explore what host organizations suggest are the most useful partnership characteristics. This examina- tion of the community perspective on effective experiential education is uncommon but consistent with a central tenet of service learning: that the experience should benefit both students and the communities where they serve and learn.
LITERATURE REVIEW Public colleges and universities serve the public good in many ways, including
delivery of education and training courses and programs; preparation of future leaders who are civically engaged and/or equipped to lead their community; main- tenance of public libraries, archives, and collections; provision of health care services; development of new technologies and tools; and the delivery and creation of arts programming and expression. University faculty, students, and staff also represent a source of volunteers, expertise, and information to their communities.
Reciprocity in University-Community Relationships In return, universities expect much from their communities. Faculty members
seek willing participants to host their research, classroom, and service initiatives.
Journal of Public Affairs Education 561
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
Students want to apply their learning and practice professional skills, and make contacts that lead to jobs. And campus administrators anticipate that alliances forged with city and state leaders will result in desirable community support, legislative outcomes, and funding. In fact, many institutions set an explicit and voluntary goal of student community engagement in their educational mission (Carnegie, 2013; Wittman & Crews, 2012).
However, the reciprocal benefits in this exchange are sometimes assumed. A review of the literature finds occasional references to the “win-win” nature of the partnership, sometimes without attention to the way that campus- community relationships must be structured to achieve success (Jelier & Clarke, 1999; McIntyre, Webb, & Hite, 2005). Of particular current interest to advocates of experiential learning, therefore, is how to incorporate the community voice into the curricular design and objectives of a service-learning course or other form of student experiential learning (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009).
A planned, rather than casual, approach to student community engagement is a central tenet of effective partnerships, akin to what Freeland identifies as “intentional contributions” (2005, p. B20). The community serves as a “partner” in a two-way exchange of ideas, knowledge, and expertise rather than merely a recipient of student skills and labor (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Carpenter, 2011; Wittman & Crews, 2012). In an example germane to the public affairs field, each year the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) releases a list of 25 “Saviors of Our Cities” (Saviors of Our Cities, 2009). Using a word like savior undervalues the reciprocal nature of the partnership in which community leaders should also make contributions.
To transcend the merely transactional activities of the partnership and to create transformational relationships, partners must build trust in one another to the point where they can jointly design programs that accomplish all partners’ missions (Bringle, Clayton, & Price, 2009; Enos & Morton, 2003). Without an emphasis on transformational goals, campus-community relationships can deteriorate to exploitation, and the outcomes may be unrewarding or even harmful to one or more partners. As some public affairs scholars have observed, those responsible for the design of community-based learning within public affairs programs must be especially attentive to achieving reciprocal relationships, because social equity is a central tenet of public affairs education (Waldner, Roberts, & Widener, 2011).
Our past research supports what we found in the literature. Community partners experience both benefits and challenges related to student experiential learning; and the challenges may include not only limited collaborative capacity but also concerns about the quality of agency involvement in project planning. In focus groups, some community agencies report ineffective faculty communi- cation, poor preparation, or poor use of the host agency’s time (Gazley, Littlepage, & Meyers, 2007). Nonprofit representatives comment, for instance, that service learning does not always reflect an equal investment of faculty time and that
562 Journal of Public Affairs Education
instructors do not always practice sufficient flexibility with project design. This principle of reciprocity is embodied in Figure 1, which describes student community-based learning as a pedagogy that involves contributions from three actors: campus, community, and faculty.
Figure 1. The “Three-Legged Stool” of Student Community-Based Learning, Highlighting the Potential Benefits and Challenges for Each Actor
Source. Adapted from Gazley et al. (2007).
Benefits Improved client services
Volunteer capacity Town-gown links
Professional networking Expertise
Agency visibility University resources
Benefits Professional experience Voluntary experience
Grasp of subject matter Understanding of social needs
Personal efficacy Critical thinking skills
Challenges Time management
New learning environment Expectation of professionalism
New organizational culture Personal efficacy
Critical thinking skills
Challenges Scheduling
Resource needs Time & oversight to
maintain relationships Faculty mentoring, training
Challenges Management capacity Pedagogical demands
Mission silence
Student
Ca m
pu s
Com m
unity
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Benefits Pedagogical excellence
Bridge building Student preparation, placement
Community links Living lab for research Scholarly publications
Applied research support
Journal of Public Affairs Education 563
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
Moving from Relationships to Partnerships in Student Community Engagement Both community and university have reasons to promote student community
engagement. Experiential and civic learning can foster greater student awareness of the community and of volunteerism (Bushouse, 2005; Sandy & Holland, 2006; Tryon et al., 2008; Worrall, 2007). As the Journal of Public Affairs Education has explored previously, public affairs degree programs in particular have a multitude of reasons to support student community engagement as a pedagogical tool (Bushouse & Morrison, 2001; Campbell & Lambright, 2011; Dicke, Dowden, & Torres, 2004). Although the field still lacks a thorough census of student experiential education in public affairs, a 2007 survey of MPA directors found that most programs required an internship, experiential “capstone” course, and/or service learning (D’Agostino, 2008).
In public affairs and many other degree programs, universities have developed a number of ways to strengthen and expand connections to their communities, including creating liaison offices with responsibility for building bridges to com- munities and sponsoring community-based research, internships, service learning, and other community-based engagement activities. These forms of partnership management are considered to be effective practice (McNall, Reed, Brown, & Allen, 2009). Indiana University, for example, supplements community capacity by employing students to help coordinate volunteer activities in popular service- learning sites.
According to McNall et al.’s (2009) survey of prior literature, successful partner- ships require shared decision making and adequate contextual preparation of students. The shared aspects of the work can occur regardless of the mode of student learning a faculty member employs. Campbell and Lambright (2011) found, for example, that the outcomes of a public affairs capstone course improved with the level of engagement by faculty and community members.
Without prior agreement on how decisions are to be made, disagreements can arise around the relative value of products and outcomes, and how to evaluate or grade an activity (and who does the evaluating). Without preparation, faculty may send students into communities without even a basic understanding of the host organization or its culture (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009; Wittman & Crews, 2012). For example, faculty from disciplines unrelated to public affairs may lack the detailed knowledge of that sector to be able to fully support students in understanding the sectoral context of their volunteer experience (such as the role of a nonprofit board of directors or the legal constraints of a public organization). They may also limit learning opportunities by failing to connect student activities to the organization’s mission. Inadequate faculty preparation poses problems for community volunteer managers who have responsibility for screening and placing personnel. A weak relationship then worsens if instructors become frustrated by organizations that seem unwilling to host students or respond to curricular objec- tives. But the frustration may be the result of the faculty member failing to consider the impact a project may have on an organization’s scarcest resource: time.
564 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Shared action extends to shared assessment. Partnerships fall short when they limit their evaluation to student outcomes, yet traditionally this has been the emphasis of research on experiential education outcomes (Imperial et al., 2007). Data such as student hours spent in the community or numbers of internships, community-based class projects, and work-study placements do not reveal the quality of the partnerships, the connection between goals and outcomes, the com- munity impact, or the level of reciprocity in the relationship. Unless a community organization’s goals are captured in the evaluation process, what constitutes “success” in a partnership can be misconstrued. If partners do not freely express their interests, faculty and university staff may miss the opportunity to identify and trouble- shoot concerns.
To build an effective reciprocal arrangement, each partner must understand the goals of the partnership, agree to responsibilities, and define the costs, out- comes, and expected impacts (Tyron et al., 2008; Worrall, 2007; Sandy & Holland, 2006). As a result, planning tools such as written or verbal agreements that spell out the nature of the partnership and the roles that each partner will assume have become increasingly commonplace. And presentations on the most effective curri- cular approaches to service learning in public affairs education have become frequent offerings at NASPAA meetings as well as related pedagogical conferences like the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC) Benchmark conference on nonprofit management education.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, DATA, AND METHODS The research questions explored in this article address the nature of the
partnership between campus and community. Specifically, we sought to under- stand (a) the community’s receptivity and capacity to involve student learners, (b) what they considered to be the most important characteristics of a campus- community partnership, and (c) how frequently they reported experiencing those characteristics in past partnerships. We rely on both qualitative and quantitative data from a multiyear study on community goals and outcomes, the management of student learners, and agency capacity to engage more students. In the first stages of the study, we collected qualitative data by conducting focus groups with the executive directors or volunteer coordinators of 24 nonprofit and public agencies. We also have developed three case studies based on interviews and review of source documents (Gazley et al., 2007).
We then employed a representative survey of 290 community agencies in two contrasting counties, an approach designed to improve the generalizability of the findings. Prior service-learning studies tend to focus on particular service sectors or small groups, or solely on student and university outcomes, and most employ case studies or convenience samples (see Imperial et al., 2007, for a meta-review of the prior research). Convenience samples in the field of experiential learning over-
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 565
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
whelmingly rely on current participants. These samples produce biased responses because they derive their findings from the partners that have learned to make the relationship work. Although these studies are valuable in capturing the views of current partners, they do not capture the full range of community attitudes toward student learners or compare practices among the varied roles students that take within agencies (i.e., as general volunteers, interns, or service learners).
The survey went to a random sample of all nonprofit and religious organiza- tions in two counties in the state of Indiana. Marion County is a major metropolitan area, the site of the state capital, and home to a large and diverse community of over 17,000 nonprofit organizations. Monroe County houses a smaller city and a mid-sized college community with a tradition of campus-community engagement. The two counties together comprise 28% of all college students in the state (students in these counties might attend any one of 11 community colleges, universities, seminaries, or four-year colleges). Sampling two counties increases the general- izability of our analysis since they differ from one another in size, student and citizen population, number and types of educational institutions, and number and types of nonprofit organizations.1 Further details on data collection are included in the endnote.
The survey questionnaire asked respondents to describe college student involve- ment in their agencies, focusing on three mutually exclusive categories: (a) interns and practicum or pre-service students who work largely independently (e.g., in management, nursing, social work, education); (b) course-based student service learners, meaning students who are assigned by their instructor to volunteer for a community organization to meet educational objectives for a specific credit- bearing course; and (3) general volunteers, or students who volunteer on their own and alongside other community members. Of the total 290 nonprofit mana- gers in the study, 100 reported engaging students through service learning, and the majority (60% or more) experienced all three of the common service-learning models: direct service, agency projects, and projects related to the student’s course- work. In our analysis, we alternate between a focus on the full cohort of 290 respondents and the 100 nonprofit managers who reported experience with service learners. The choice to focus on the service-learning experience helps to apply an appropriate theoretical framework and also achieve greater reliability in interpret- ing survey responses.
FINDINGS The findings here are organized to report first on nonprofit managers’ receptivity
and capacity to involve student learners, then the degree programs on which they rely, their reflections on the most essential characteristics of an effective campus- community partnership, and their assessment of how frequently they have exper- ienced those characteristics in the past.
566 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Table 1. Diversity of Student Academic Disciplines for Host Agencies in This Study
Percentage of Host Agencies That Have
Interacted With Academic Discipline
(n = 246)
Public Affairs and Policy (including public and nonprofit management) 26.4%
Don’t Know 26.0%
Liberal Arts (including languages, humanities, natural sciences) 24.0%
Other 23.6%
Business, Marketing, Tourism, and related fields 22.4%
Medical and Health Professions 18.3%
Education 17.5%
Journalism and Communication 17.1%
Science, Technology, Computer Science, and/or Engineering 11.8%
Fine and Performing Arts 11.8%
Physical Recreation and Education 8.9%
Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Services 2.0%
Public Affairs Is Most Frequent Source of Students Respondents were asked about the degree interests of the students whom they
had engaged as service learners, interns, or volunteers. The survey form allowed respondents to select from all academic departments whence students had origin- ated, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Table 1 reflects that 26.4% of organizations had involved students from Public Affairs and Policy departments, the most frequent program named. A further 24% of organizations had involved Liberal Arts students, and 22.4% had involved students from Business, Marketing, or Tourism programs. Smaller numbers of students came from Medical and Health Professions (18%), Education (17.5%), or Journalism and Communication (17.1%). Even fewer were represented from Science, Performing Arts, Agriculture, and Physical Education. When asked about the types of students involved in their organizations, 79% of respondents had experience with students as general volun- teers; 64% had experience with students in internships, pre-service projects, or in a practicum; and 40% had worked with service learners (i.e., students assigned through a course; results not displayed). We note that other communities might find a different mix of degree programs involved in student experiential educa- tion based on the nature of their higher education institutions.
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 567
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
Table 2. Respondent Attitudes About Student Volunteers, Service Learners, and Interns (n = 287)
“To what extent do you agree that...”
Strongly Disagree
Dis- agree
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Don’t Know/
NA
Total
Our staff is eager to work with students.
1.0% 0.7% 9.1% 31.4% 56.4% 1.4% 100.0%
Student work is as good as the work that other (non-student) volunteers provide.
0.7% 3.5% 9.1% 41.5% 40.4% 4.9% 100.0%
Short-term volunteers are not worth the effort.
31.0% 44.9% 17.1% 3.5% 1.4% 2.1% 100.0%
Our agency’s mission supports student civic engagement.
2.4% 4.5% 14.6% 29.3% 40.4% 8.7% 100.0%
When it comes to involving student volunteers, the college schedule can pose prob- lems for my agency.
9.1% 33.4% 29.3% 23.0% 1.7% 3.5% 100.0%
Teaching students about my field is part of my job.
5.9% 12.5% 24.7% 34.1% 17.4% 5.2% 100.0%
Receptivity to Student Involvement Respondents indicated their agreement with six questions addressing the
organization’s level of preparation, or capacity, for student involvement generally (see Table 2). At this stage in the research, respondents were not asked to differ- entiate between the student’s role as service learner, intern, or volunteer. We found a widespread receptivity to students in that 88% reported that their staff was eager to work with students to some or to a great extent, and 82% reported that student work was as good as other volunteer work. When asked about the organization’s preparedness for student involvement, 70% reported that their agency’s mission supported student civic engagement, and 52% reported that they considered teaching students about their field to be part of their job. In analyses published else- where, time constraints and staffing limitations were the most common reasons for a respondent to report a limited capacity to involve students—more common, in fact, than agency size by itself (Littlepage et al., 2012). This positive perspective on student engagement is consistent with some prior research (e.g., Edwards et al., 2001).
568 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Limited Communication Between Faculty and Community Partners Respondents then were asked to indicate what made service-learning partner-
ships with campuses effective for their agencies (Table 3). Nonprofit managers responding to this question cited the following items as essential: Clear and ongoing communication (39%), a faculty and student understanding of the agency’s mission (32%), a match of student skills to agency needs (30%), training and orientation of student volunteers (29%), an agency understanding of the goals of service learn- ing (27%), and the ability of the agency to choose the students they worked with (26%). When “very important” and “essential” responses were combined, 84% indicated that faculty and students should know the agency’s mission as a solid foundation to effective partnerships. The second-highest success predictor was a match of student skills to agency needs; more than three fourths (78%) of non- profit respondents indicated this was a very important or essential element.
Table 3. Respondents’ Reports on the Importance of Various Factors for the Partnership (n = 245)
“How important is this factor to the success of the partnership?”
Not Important
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Essential Don’t Know/ NA
Clear and ongoing communication between agency, students, and faculty
2.0% 13.1% 37.6% 39.2% 8.2%
Faculty and students understand agency’s mission
1.2% 7.8% 51.8% 32.2% 6.9%
Agencies understand the goals of service learning
3.3% 13.9% 46.1% 26.5% 10.2%
A volunteer coordinator or manager is available to coordinate student work
6.1% 21.2% 40.0% 24.9% 7.8%
Training and orientation of student volunteers
1.2% 16.3% 47.8% 29.0% 5.7%
Assessment of partnership process and success
3.3% 28.2% 42.0% 13.5% 13.1%
Formal agreement or memo of understanding between agency and faculty/student
13.1% 29.8% 31.4% 15.1% 10.6%
Match of student skills to agency needs
1.6% 13.9% 48.6% 29.8% 6.1%
Opportunity for student reflection 4.5% 31.4% 42.0% 12.7% 9.4%
Ability to choose the students we work with
6.9% 25.3% 34.7% 25.7% 7.3%
Ability to work with graduate students
19.6% 32.2% 22.9% 11.0% 14.3%
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 569
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
When we measured the extent to which these goals were achieved, we found mixed results. The model of shared leadership we are looking for in this study requires that all partners understand the principles of service learning. As Table 4 reveals, a large majority of our nonprofit respondents (88%) reported that they understood service learning (59% agreed; 29% strongly agreed). Over half (59%) strongly agreed or agreed that supervising service learners required the same effort as supervising volunteers; 55% reported that they felt informed about the goals of a college course before it began; and 54% reported that faculty members they had partnered with were knowledgeable about their organization.
Table 4. Level of Agency Preparation for Service Learners
“Please indicate your level of agreement with the following questions.”
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Don’t Know/NA
I feel informed about the goals of a college course before stu- dents from that course begin their work with my agency.
1.0% 14.0% 17.0% 43.0% 12.0% 13.0%
I discuss with the supervis- ing faculty my agency’s needs before students begin their volunteer work.
1.0% 18.0% 24.0% 37.0% 7.0% 13.0%
I understand what service learning is.
0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 59.0% 29.0% 4.0%
I communicate with supervis- ing faculty during the service- learning project.
3.0% 15.0% 25.0% 36.0% 10.0% 11.0%
Faculty supervising service-learning projects are knowledgeable about my organization.
1.0% 7.0% 23.0% 46.0% 8.0% 15.0%
My board of directors under- stands what service learning is.
1.0% 7.0% 19.0% 34.0% 6.0% 33.0%
Managing service learners re- quires the same effort as man- aging other kinds of volunteers.
1.0% 21.0% 9.0% 38.0% 21.0% 10.0%
Note. For improved reliability of responses, this question was asked only of respondents reporting expe- rience specifically with service learners (n = 100).
570 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Table 5. Community Agency Participation in Student Learning
“On the occasions when you have served as the chief contact person for a student service-learning assignment, how often are you asked by faculty or students to…”
Never Occasionally Often Always Don’t Know/
NA
Evaluate the students you worked with (verbally or in writing).
8.0% 33.0% 23.0% 24.0% 12.0%
Attend a class presentation of the results of the project.
47.0% 24.0% 14.0% 1.0% 14.0%
Attend that class as a guest speaker or visitor.
42.0% 36.0% 8.0% 2.0% 12.0%
Note. For improved reliability of responses, this question was asked only of respondents reporting expe- rience specifically with service learners (n = 100).
However, as Table 4 indicates, fewer than half of respondents communicated with supervising faculty during the project (46%) or discussed agency needs with faculty before students began their work (44%). One third did not know whether their board of directors understood what service learning was, and one quarter thought their board did not understand (although an additional two fifths believed their board did understand) service learning. This finding has implications for the ability of a community organization to make student engagement a strategic goal, given the role that board members play in strategic leadership. In addition, Table 5 indicates that 47% of respondents reported they had never been asked to attend a class presentation of the results of the project, and 42% had never been asked to attend the class as a guest speaker or visitor. When asked about the agencies’ role in evaluation, 41% had never or only occasionally been involved in assessing the students they worked with.
These findings suggest that a large proportion of faculty do not communicate with or fully involve community partners in project planning, implementation, or evaluation as recommended by the literature. Responses were mixed when respondents were asked to identify specific actions that would improve service- learning experiences for their organizations. As Table 6 reflects, nonprofit repre- sentatives with service-learning experience generally recommended more faculty involvement such as joint curriculum planning, face-to-face pre-semester meetings, and agency orientations for instructors and all community partners. But we also find a lack of agreement regarding the level of priority to place on each activity. One third (32%) of respondents indicated a low need for more faculty involve- ment, but 62% ranked faculty involvement as a high-priority need (37% gave it the highest priority among a list of options). In addition, just over one quarter
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 571
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
of respondents (28%) ranked the need for better project design as a low priority, but nearly half (47%) indicated better project design as a high priority (20% ranked it most important). Further, just over 28% indicated a low need for more campus coordination of volunteers while 42% ranked it as important or most important. Finally, when asked if organizational involvement in evaluation would improve the service-learning experience, 18% considered this item of low importance while over one third (36%) ranked it as a high priority.
One way of interpreting such results is to argue that they reflect the under- lying principle we espouse in this article: that instructors cannot assume host agencies share a single perspective on project planning. Rather, the diversity of perspectives we find here most likely reflects the sector’s own diversity in terms of its capacity, missions, and preparedness to engage students. The results argue for an engaged and participatory planning process, to ensure each host agency has the opportunity to articulate to faculty the goals and needs most important to them.
Table 6. Community Agency Suggestions on Improving Service Learning
“What actions might improve your organization’s service- learning experience?*”
1 Most
Important
2 3 4 5 Least
Important
More faculty involvement, such as joint cur- riculum planning, face-to-face pre-semester meetings, and orientations for professors and all community partners (n = 82)
36.6% 25.6% 6.1% 29.3% 2.4%
Better design of projects, such as larger scale community projects and long-term projects (n = 71)
19.7% 26.8% 25.4% 26.8% 1.4%
Availability of campus staff/students to coor- dinate student volunteers (n = 53) 18.9% 22.6% 30.2% 28.3% 0.0%
More opportunity for evaluation and feedback of student service learners and experience (n = 62)
16.1% 19.4% 46.8% 17.7% 0.0%
* “Please rank all of the options below, place a 1 by the action you consider most important, a 2 by the next highest, and so on. Feel free to skip options you do not feel are necessary.”
Note. For improved reliability of responses, this question was asked only of respondents reporting expe- rience specifically with service learners (n = 100
572 Journal of Public Affairs Education
As Table 7 reflects, when asked what role each partner should play in planning, supervising, and evaluating student volunteers, interns, and service learners, respon- dents revealed a preference for a shared model of responsibility. More than half of all respondents (52% to 67%) felt that supervising students, setting project objectives, and evaluating outcomes should be a shared responsibility. Few reported that they didn’t know how to respond, and most had firm opinions on the best partnership model. One third assigned principal responsibility to themselves (the host agency) for student supervision and setting project objectives. Few students or instructors were expected to set objectives by themselves. The results suggest that community agencies view student engagement ideally as a collaborative activity.
Table 7. Community Agency Attitudes on Partnership Roles
“Ideally, when including student interns and vol- unteers in your organization, who do you think should have the principal responsibility for…”
Supervising Setting Project
Objectives
Evaluating Service- Learning Projects
Host agency 33.9% 33.2% 15.2%
The professor 4.2% 8.0% 10.4%
Students 0.3% 1.0% 1.0%
Shared responsibility 52.6% 52.6% 67.1%
Other 3.5% 2.4% 1.4%
Don’t Know/NA 5.5% 2.8% 4.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note. This question was asked of all respondents (n = 289).
Testing a Respondent’s Own Experience on Attitudes Toward Service- Learning Design
Because much of our analysis is based on community attitudes toward student experiential learning, we also examined whether a respondent’s own high school or college experience as intern, service learner, or community volunteer influenced receptivity to students or the nature of the recommendations respondents made. Testing for prior personal experience not only addresses a potential source of response bias, it also helps faculty who are engaged in service learning understand how their partners’ personal experiences might shape their approaches to colla- boration. Among our respondents, the majority had been involved in experiential
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 573
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
learning as a high school or college student (57%), but a fairly large proportion had not been involved in prior experiential learning (40%).
This finding of a varied personal experience with experiential education allowed us to go on to test this association on our respondents’ attitudes toward student learners. Although we found a few low to moderate bivariate correlations, the statistical significance of a respondent’s prior experience disappeared in all but two cases after controlling for other, more instrumental factors such as the agency’s experience with student learners (results not shown). In the two exceptions, respondents with prior personal experience were more likely to agree that “Teaching students about my field is part of my job” and also to place value on the “Opportunity for student reflection.” Though not conclusive, the results suggest that managers retain and carry forward key principles of service learning from their own experiences. Future research should continue to explore the link between experience with, and receptivity toward, experiential learning.
Analysis of Qualitative Data The nonprofit managers interviewed in our 2007 focus groups and case
studies identified numerous recommendations that agencies can employ for the effective involvement of student service learners. Most agency-identified recommendations centered on volunteer management policies and programs. In fact, most of the suggestions involve the focused application of widely accepted volunteer management practices such as screening, training, super- vision, and recognition of volunteers (Hager & Brudney, 2004). For example, when questioned about selection criteria for students, interviewees noted the value of identifying and publicizing in advance the needs that students can meet and the skills required to address them. Managers also suggested that agencies should be able to turn down students who cannot meet current program priorities. They highlighted the need for agencies, students, and faculty to discuss in advance their expectations of what student projects will accomplish. At a minimum, faculty should share course objectives and syllabi with agency representatives. Many managers also observed the need for more formalized planning tools, including memoranda of understanding between agencies and faculty or contracts between students and agencies to define the deliverables.
Above all, agencies emphasized the need for an equal commitment from all three partners to making the project work. They stressed the need to develop management tools that ensure regular communication between agencies, faculty, and students. A common theme in the interviews was the need for greater communication among all partners as service-learning projects are planned and implemented. Communication breakdowns were cited frequently by managers when discussing service-learning projects that had not worked well. Interviewees described numerous instances where regular communication would have amelior- ated common problems, including low student motivation and questions about work priorities.
574 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Our agency interviews reinforced one particular lesson from Hager and Brudney (2004): the value of designating a staff person as coordinator of student service learners. Colleges and universities that can create funded volunteer coordinator positions for students perform an important service for agencies by helping to meet their volunteer management capacity needs. Other changes will require faculty and campus involvement. Agency managers called on faculty and campus administrators to formalize the student placement process and involve agencies more fully in initial planning, rather than “throwing” students at community agencies. As an interviewee observed, “Course-based service-learner students are the most difficult to match because there’s often something they need to do [and it’s] not necessarily what we need.”
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS This study addresses community-based experiential learning from a perspective
less commonly explored in the literature—that of the “host” agency offering stu- dents the learning experience. For these reasons, the community partner input gained through this study is useful because it adds to the body of knowledge about university and community perspectives on experiential learning. We note, however, that constraints on survey length made it difficult to distinguish the specifics of a respondent’s experience or type of student involvement so that our conclusions about the relative advantages or disadvantages of any one type of experiential learning are less nuanced than they might be. We also note that we are addressing just one part of what we consider a three-part relationship between campus, community, and student. Here we focus on community partners as the subjects whose voices have been most lacking from prior research. But future research should compare expectations and experiences between all participants in a service-learning partnership. Also left for future research is the question of whether a faculty member’s disciplinary training in public affairs offers advantages when the service-learning activity takes place in the public or nonprofit sectors. Our study found that public affairs programs are well represented in these communities when it comes to student community engagement, but most of the students in our sample came from other disciplines, and our data do not allow us to compare disciplinary perspectives.
As for key findings, this study reinforced past research in observing that most nonprofit staff members are receptive to engaging students in community-based learning. The new findings we contribute to service-learning scholarship focus specifically on how partnerships can be improved. Our results signal weak campus-community connections and possibly a weaker than optimal approach to communication and troubleshooting. We find a strong interest among community agencies in jointly setting service-learning goals and assessing student outcomes. We derive these practical recommendations from the study:
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 575
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
Faculty and community partners must plan experiential learning projects together. Experiential learning projects and programs should be mutually beneficial. Both parties should understand and incorporate each other’s mission, goals, and capacity into experiential learning programs. Frequent, specific, and meaningful communication is critical to partnerships. Faculty and community partners must acknowledge and respect each other’s expertise in program management, student decisions and supervision, and project evaluation.
Therefore, faculty members involved in community engagement must do more to understand the mission, expectations, and capacity of the organizations they partner with and actively work to build reciprocal and meaningful partnerships. Our findings support a long-standing argument among service-learning advocates that reciprocity in student community engagement means more than an exchange of student labor for learning. To be successful, all parties (students, faculty, and community partners) must benefit from experiential learning programs. Reciprocity begins with shared program planning, and is reinforced in ongoing communication, when the community partner is consulted as students are selected, as supervision decisions are made, and as student work is evaluated.
We also find that agencies rank “soft skills” such as communication and colla- boration between partners more highly than material resources such as staffing and training. This finding is remarkable given the emphasis past scholarship has placed on the material aspects of volunteer management capacity (VMC). While we do find that VMC matters, a supportive faculty attitude toward service learning may matter more, and perhaps should be considered as an element of VMC. Essentially, therefore, we are finding that in the context of student service learning, a partnership’s capacity is built not only on staffing and training but also on a faculty member’s willingness to practice what is being preached to students: to exit the campus doors and enter the community as a full-fledged partner willing to work with the agencies hosting their students to achieve the transformational benefits of student community engagement.
Many institutions will find that this goal can be achieved only through a broader approach to faculty development, with appropriate incentives and support to help faculty members understand the most effective approach to service learning. If they can surmount these barriers, which are both perceptual and resource driven, a higher level of faculty engagement will build knowledge of their communities and sustain commitment from host agency staff and governing boards, resulting in greater support for student engagement in the future.
576 Journal of Public Affairs Education
FOOTNOTE 1 Data collection involved screening and sampling stages. A professional survey research
firm attempted to telephone 2,874 organizations (100% of the organizations in Monroe County and a sample drawn via a random number generator in Marion County, for an overall sample representing 26% of all documented nonprofit and religious entities in the two counties). The sampling included both charitable and non-charitable tax-exempt categories, to capture a broader range of student involvement. The list was extracted from a database created to provide comprehensive baseline information about a state’s nonprofit sector and is the preferred approach since it incorporates the largest number of nonprofit organizations that might engage students (for details, see Grønbjerg & Clerkin, 2005). We observe, however, that such an approach leaves out public (governmental) agencies and business entities where students might also be involved in volunteer or pedagogical activities.
Of the identified nonprofits, 1,071 did not have an operational phone number, 784 did not return calls, and 1,019 responded. This low return rate signifies that some organizations were nonoperational. We do not anticipate that a sampling bias exists at this level, given that organizations involving students have the same probability of being operational as those that do not.
Of the 1,019 respondents, 672 (66%) reported that they involved college students in some capacity. Those who reported involving students were asked to complete an e-mail or paper survey, which 43% accomplished (n = 290). Fifty-nine percent of these are senior staff, 14% volunteer coordinators, and the remainder held another staff role. We calculated our confidence intervals for this sample at two levels. The sample of 672 nonprofits that involve students can be assumed to represent the full population of 1,804 active nonprofits in these two counties with a 2% margin of error (95% confidence level). The survey sample of 290 can be assumed to represent all organizations that engage students at a 5% margin of error.
The distribution of our sampled population of 290 nonprofit organizations by National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) classification is similar to that of the state as a whole, except that our sample produced more religious organizations and fewer human service and public benefit organizations. To the extent that this distribution influences our results, we effectively undercount involved students because our analysis also reveals that religious organizations were less likely to involve students than human service and public benefit organizations (Gazley et al., 2012). Generalizability is also limited to the extent that nonprofit organizations or students from our selected counties reflect characteristics not found in other geographical areas. We note, for example, that volunteering rates are slightly higher in this state compared to national averages, and some of the campuses involved are national leaders in student civic engagement practices. Finally, we sampled only nonprofits with working phone numbers, and we fully surveyed only those that reported recent student engagement.
Comparisons of the two county samples via t-tests were mostly non-significant and inconclusive, so we have chosen to display all data in aggregate.
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 577
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
REFERENCES Bailis, L. N., & Ganger, T. (2006). A framework for further research: The community impacts of
service learning. In Growing to Greatness 2006 (pp. 67–72). St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council.
Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P., & Price, M. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning & Civic Engagement, 1(1), 1–19.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516.
Bushouse, B. K. (2005). Community nonprofit organizations and service-learning: Resource constraints to building partnerships with universities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 32–40.
Bushouse, B., & Morrison, S. (2001). Applying service learning in the Master of Public Affairs programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education,7(1), 9–17.
Campbell, D. A., & Lambright, K. T. (2011). How valuable are capstone projects for community organizations? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(1), 61–87.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2013). Community engagement elective classification. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/ community_engagement.php
Carpenter, H. (2011). How we could measure community impact of nonprofit graduate students’ service-learning projects: Lessons from the literature. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(1), 115–131.
Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (2000). Where’s the community in service learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (Special Issue), 28–34.
D’Agostino, M. J. (2008). Fostering a civically engaged society: The university and service-learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2):191–204.
Dicke, L., Dowden, S., & Torres, J. (2004). Successful service learning; A matter of ideology. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(3), 199–208.
Edwards, B., Mooney, L., & Heald, C. (2001). Who is being served? The impact of student volunteering on local community organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 444–461.
Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus community partnerships. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 20–41). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Freeland, R. M. (2005, May 13). Universities and cities need to rethink their relationships. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/UniversitiesCities-Need/31692/
Gazley, B., Littlepage, L., & Bennett, T. (2012). What about the host agency? Nonprofit perspectives on community-based student learning and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1030–1051.
578 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Gazley, B., Littlepage, L., & Myers, C. (2007). Volunteer management capacity and student service- learners: A study of Indiana community agencies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Public Policy Institute.
Grønbjerg, K. A., & Clerkin, R.M. (2005). Examining the landscape of Indiana’s nonprofit sector: Does what you know depend on where you look? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(2), 232–259.
Hager, M., & Brudney, J. L. (2004). Volunteer management practices and retention of volunteers. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Imperial, M. T., Perry, J. L., & Katula, M. C. (2007). Incorporating service learning into public affairs programs: Lessons from the literature. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2), 243–264.
Jelier, R. W., & Clarke, R. J. (1999). The community as a laboratory of study: Getting out of the ivory tower. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(2), 167–180.
Jones, S. (2003). Principles and profiles of exemplary partnerships with community agencies. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Building partnerships for service learning (pp. 151–173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Littlepage, L., Gazley, B., & Bennett, T. (2012). Service-learning from the supply side: Community capacity to engage students. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22(3), 305–320.
McIntyre, F. S., Webb, D. J., & Hite, R. E. (2005). Service learning in the marketing curriculum: Faculty views and participation. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 35–45.
McNall, M., Reed, C. S., Brown, R., & Allen, A. (2009). Brokering community-university engagement. Innovations in Higher Education, 33, 317–331.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30–43.
Saviors of Our Cities. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.evandobelle.com/SOOC%20Survey%20 Overview.pdf
Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Tryon, E., Stoecker, R., Martin, A., Seblonka, K., Hilgendorf, A., & Nellis, M. (2008). The challenge of short-term service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 16–26.
Waldner, L., Roberts, K., & Widener, M. (2011). Serving up justice: Fusing service learning and social equity in the public administration classroom. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(2), 209–232.
Wittman, A., and Crews, T. 2012. Engaged learning economies: Aligning civic engagement and economic development in community-campus partnerships. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.
Worrall, L. (2007). Asking the community: A case study of community partner perspectives. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1), 5–17.
B. Gazley, T. A. Bennett, & L. Littlepage
Journal of Public Affairs Education 579
The Partnership Principle in Experiential Learning
Beth Gazley is associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University–Bloomington, and an affiliate faculty member in the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Her research addresses questions related to nonprofit and governmental management capacity, including collabor- ative capacity, the role of nonprofits in local government emergency planning, and effective service learning and volunteer management models. She uses service learn- ing in her undergraduate nonprofit management course and is a recipient of two statewide service-learning awards.
Teresa A. Bennett is the founding director of the IUPUI Solution Center, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) office of outreach and community engagement. The Solution Center, a unit of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, is responsible for increasing awareness of IUPUI’s engagement mission and for matching the interests of the community to the talent of faculty, researchers, and students on the campus. Ms. Bennett holds a Master of Public Affairs from Indiana University and a Bachelor of Arts in Communication from Purdue University.
Laura Littlepage is a faculty member at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis and associate faculty at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy as well as a senior researcher at the Indiana University Public Policy Institute. Her research addresses questions related to the effectiveness of nonprofits. She teaches a service-learning class—“Do the Homeless Count?”—that students participate in as data collectors. She has been the principal author of numerous publications and several journal articles.
580 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Journal of Public Affairs Education 581
Review of Crisis, Disaster, and Risk: Institutional Response and Emergence
by Kyle Farmbry
Review by Jack Krauskopf School of Public Affairs, Baruch College, City University of New York
Crisis, Disaster, and Risk attempts and largely accomplishes several different feats of analysis. On one level, it is a management book about the causes of certain major disasters and the extent of public and societal preparedness for and response to them. On another, it is a history of plagues, cholera, and viruses from the Middle Ages to today, as well as major natural and human-caused events in the 20th and 21st centuries in United States and other nations. Finally, it is an intellectual history, emphasizing the scientific advances that led to the development of public health and environmental policies, procedures, and institutions.
Kyle Farmbry is associate professor and associate dean at Rutgers University– Newark, where he teaches public administration and nonprofit management courses. He was drawn to this subject after attending a wedding in the Middle East and then anxiously following the aftermath of the 2004 Asian tsunami in the region where the new couple had gone for their honeymoon. In addition to the public health history, the book developed from that event, other disasters occurring in the last 10 years, and salient events from the last century—the Galveston hurricane in 1900, San Francisco earthquake in 1906, and worldwide flu pandemic in 1918, among others.
The book builds on descriptions and assessments of particular natural and technology-caused disasters that illustrate key points about the state of community and institutional preparedness for events and longer term development of the capacity of organizations and systems, especially in public health, to combat the spread of disease and infection. Chapters trace important legislative and regulatory advances that followed environmental and industrial hazards, and each chapter concludes with current outstanding issues of concern.
Our vulnerability to natural disasters comes from unresolved questions of population and development growth in areas prone to hurricanes, such as Katrina in 2005, to which we could add New York and the East Coast’s experience with Superstorm Sandy in 2012 and other events likely to come. The public health
JPAE 19 (3), 581–583
582 Journal of Public Affairs Education
part of the story is one of positive accomplishments in combatting polio, smallpox, and malaria; but includes contemporary concerns generated by the 30-year ongoing experience with HIV/AIDS and the potential danger from recurrence of animal- to-human derived viruses, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003.
The technology section begins with the development and continuing threat from nuclear weapons from the atomic bomb through the various phases of the Cold War to current concern for national and terrorist acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. A subsequent chapter deals with the risks of nuclear power, noting the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukishima in 2011. The final technology chapters address industrial accidents, highlighted by the Love Canal hazardous waste crisis that became public in the 1970s, the disastrous release of toxic gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India in 1984, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
The author concludes that disasters have led to substantial institutional learning and capacity development in the past. Continuous risk assessment now is essential because of the reality that disasters are constant factors—in forms that are frequently unexpected—in our present and future lives. As a means of control, building physical infrastructure and strengthening of policy and organizational frameworks have become high priorities.
In its worldwide historical view of the topic, Farmbry’s book provides a vehicle for citizens and students to learn and think about disasters. Although the subject has received considerable and growing attention in an academic literature too voluminous to summarize here, this book accomplishes an especially thoughtful cross-cutting of specific events, time periods, and societal, professional, and management responses to crises.
There are other detailed monographs on particular events, such as Klinenberg’s on the Chicago heat wave, and period histories, like Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900–2010, edited by Rubin. There are also numerous texts on emergency management—including Introduction to Emergency Management by Haddow, Bullock, and Coppola—that discuss the phases and functions for current and prospective practitioners in the field. In addition, Louise Comfort, William Waugh, Kathleen Tierney, and many other scholars treat disaster response and recovery issues in well-developed analytic and theoretical frameworks.
Farmbry’s book adds a broad sweep and particular probing to create a perspective and value of its own. Faculty in emergency management courses might want to consider it along with texts in the field.
J. Krauskopf
Journal of Public Affairs Education 583
Book Review
FOOTNOTE 1. Publishing information:
195 pp. (pbk) M.E Sharpe (2013) Armonk, New York, and London, England ISBN: 978-0-7656-2419-2 (cloth) ISBN: 978-0-7656-2421-5 (pbk)
James A. (Jack) Krauskopf is distinguished lecturer and director, Center for Nonprofit Strategy & Management, School of Public Affairs, Baruch College (City University of New York). Previously, he was chief program officer, 9/11 United Services Group; dean of Milano Graduate School of Management & Urban Policy, and senior vice president for Administration & Finance, New School University; and commissioner, New York City Human Resources Admin- istration. He also held public positions in Wisconsin, Cleveland, and Newark.
584 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Laura Langbein, American University Scott Lazenby, City of Sandy, Oregon
Deanna Malatesta, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Steven R. Maxwell, Florida Gulf Coast University Barbara McCabe, University of Texas
Juliet Musso, University of Southern California Michael O’Hare, University of California, Berkeley Michael Popejoy, Florida International University
David Powell, California State University, Long Beach David Reingold, Indiana University
Dahlia Remler, Baruch College CUNY R. Karl Rethemeyer, University at Albany SUNY
Michelle Saint-Germain, California State University, Long Beach Jodi Sandfort, University of Minnesota
Robert A. Schuhmann, University of Wyoming Patricia M. Shields, Texas State University Robert Smith, Kennesaw State University
Jessica Sowa, University of Colorado Kendra Stewart, University of Charleston
Giovanni Valotti, Università Bocconi David Van Slyke, Syracuse University
Karel Van der Molen, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Howard Whitton, Griffi th University
Blue Wooldridge, Virginia Commonwealth University Firuz Demir Yasamıs, American University in the Emirates
Information for Contributors
The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the journal of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs broadly defi ned, which includes the fi elds of policy analysis, public administration, public management, public policy, nonprofi t administration, and their subfi elds. Advancing teaching and learning includes not only the improvement of specifi c 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 throughout the world. In service to this goal, articles should be clear, accessible to those in the public affairs fi elds and subfi elds, and generalizable. The editors are 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 must not already be published or in submission elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at conferences are welcome.
Generally, manuscripts should conform to the JPAE style sheet available at www.naspaa.org/JPAE/ stylesheet.pdf. Specifi cally, they should:
with margins of no less than one inch on all sides.
found at www.apastyle.org/.
to allow for anonymous peer review.
Submissions should be made online at www.edmgr.com/jpae. At the site, you will be instructed to create an account if you have not already done so or to log in under your existing account.
Submitting authors will be asked for contact information, names of any additional authors, up to three
Additional instructions for registration in this system and submission of manuscripts can be found at www.edmgr.com/jpae or the JPAE website at www.naspaa.org/jpae. Authors should expect to receive acknowledgment of receipt of the manuscript and can follow its progress through the review process at www.edmgr.com/jpae.
All articles are given an initial review by the editorial team. Articles must meet basic criteria including writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and interest to JPAE readers before they are submitted for external, double-blind peer review. If accepted for publication, manuscripts cannot be published until they conform to APA style and all of the authors have provided copyright transfer authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about 5 lines).
Any questions about the manuscript submission, review, and publication process can be addressed to the editorial team at [email protected].
Because of its mission, the Journal of Public Affairs Education allows educators to 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.
NASPAA The Global Standard in Public Service Education
Jack Knott, President Ethel Hill Williams, Vice President
Laurel McFarland, Executive Director
JPAE Oversight Committee: Jonathan Anderson, Amy Donahue, Andrew Ewoh, Greg Lindseye
David Schultz, Editor in Chief, Hamline University Kristen Norman-Major, Managing Editor, Hamline University
Iris Geva-May, Associate Editor for International and Comparative Education, Simon Fraser University Lisa Dejoras, Editorial Assistant, Hamline University
Copy Editor: Chris Thillen Layout and Cover Design: Val Escher
The Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by NASPAA, the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Admini- stration. 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: accessed at www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. Change of Address: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old
Educators may reproduce any material for classroom use only, without fee, and authors may reproduce their articles without written
minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,
Muhittin Acar, Hacettepe University, Turkey Mohamad Alkadry, Florida International University Burt Barnow, George Washington University Peter J. Bergerson, Florida Gulf Coast University Rajade Berry-James, North Carolina State University John Bohte, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Espiridion Borrego, University of Texas Pan American John M. Bryson, University of Minnesota Lysa Burnier, Ohio University N. Joseph Cayer, Arizona State University Heather Campbell, Claremont Graduate University Barbara Crosby, University of Minnesota Robert B. Cunningham, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Dwight Denison, University of Kentucky Anand Desai, Ohio State University James W. Douglas, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Robert Durant, American University Jo Ann G. Ewalt, Eastern Kentucky University Susan Gooden, Virginia Commonwealth University Cynthia Jackson-Elmoore, Michigan State University Meagan Jordan Edward Kellough, University of Georgia Don Kettl, University of Maryland, College Park John Kiefer, University of New Orleans William Earle Klay, Florida State University Chris Koliba, University of Vermont Kristina Lambright, Binghamton University, State University of New York
BOARD OF EDITORS
Khalid Al-Yahya, Dubai School of Government Edgar Ramirez Delacruz Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico
Charlene M. L. Roach, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus
CORRESPONDENTS
H. George Frederickson, Founding Editor, University of Kansas Danny L. Balfour, Grand Valley State University Marc Holzer Edward T. Jennings, University of Kentucky
James L. Perry, Indiana University, Bloomington Mario A. Rivera, University of New Mexico
Heather E. Campbell, Claremont Graduate University
EDITOR’S COUNCIL
JPAE 19_03 053113 cover.indd 2 6/21/13 4:38 PM
NASPAA – The Global Standard in Public Service Education 1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517
The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the journal of NASPAA, the membership association of graduate education programs in public policy, public affairs, public administration, and public & nonprofi t management. NASPAA’s 280 member schools are located across the U.S. and around the globe.
NASPAA is the global standard in public service education. Its Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation is the recognized accreditor of master’s degree programs in the fi eld.
NASPAA has been a national and international resource since 1970, by ensuring excellence in education and training for public service, and by promoting the ideal of public service. It accomplishes its mission through direct services to its member institutions and by
Developing standards for master’s programs in public affairs, and representing the objectives and needs of education in public affairs;
Encouraging curriculum development and innovation and providing a forum for publication and discussion of education scholarship, practices, and issues;
Building the authoritative source of data on public affairs education;
Promoting public sector internship and employment opportunities for students and graduates;
Partnering with practitioner professional organizations;
Engaging globally with national and regional organizations involved with public affairs education.
JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs, defi ned to include the fi elds of public policy analysis, public administration, and public management. Published quarterly by NASPAA, the journal features peer-reviewed scholarly articles on pedagogical, curricular, and accreditation issues pertaining to public affairs education commentaries, as well as symposia and book reviews.
Founded in 1995, JPAE was originally published as the Journal of Public Administration Education. H. George Frederickson was the journal’s founding editor. The journal is hosted and edited by the Hamline University School of Business, a NASPAA member school, selected through a competitive process. In addition to serving as NASPAA’s journal of record, JPAE is affi liated with the Section on Public Administration Education of the American Society for Public Administration.
JOURN AL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION
V O
LU M
E 19 N O
. 3 S
U M
M ER
2013
JPAE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUC ATION
VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3
SUM M ER 2013 ! e journal of NASPAA " ! e Global Standard in Public Service Education
JPAE 19_03 053113 cover.indd 1 6/21/13 4:38 PM
