Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: A systematic literature review and ways forward
Open accessAbstract
Purpose – Based on previous inventories, the purpose of this paper is to extend the knowledge on public administration experiments by focusing on their experimental type, design, sample type and realism levels and external validity. The aim is to provide an overview of experimental public administration and formulate potential ways forward. Design/methodology/approach – The authors examine the current state of experimental public administration, by looking at a systematic selection of ISI ranked experimental publications in major public administration journals (1992-2014) and recommend ways forward based on this review. Findings – The review indicates a rise in experimentation in public administration in recent years, this can be attributed mostly to some subfields of public administration. Furthermore, most experiments in public administration tend to have relatively simple designs, high experimental realism and a focus on external validity. Experimental public administration can be strengthened by increasing diversification in terms of samples, experimental designs, experimental types and substantive scope. Finally, the authors recommend to better utilize experiments to generate usable knowledge for practitioners and to replicate experiments to improve scientific rigour. Originality/value – This paper contributes to experimental public administration by drawing on a systematic selection of papers and assessing them in depth. By means of a transparent and systematic selectio…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The use of an experimental setting could help yield more light into the existence of the link and its determinants and generate usable knowledge for practitioners.
“The use of an experimental setting could help to yield more light into the existence of the link and its determinants and generate usable knowledge for practitioners”
From Transparency and Trust in Government. Evidence from a Survey Experiment (2021) · cites this paper as Bouwman & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 78 · Cited by 95
- Authors
- Bouwman, R., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Venue
- International Journal of Public Sector Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2016-03-07
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 110-131
- ISSN
- 0951-3558 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2272386012
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 33.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Public Sector Management (publishedVersion)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
- Keywords
- randomized controlled trials, experimental design, experimental realism, generalizability, sample selection, replication, evidence-based policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review