Cited by 95Public Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration and Political AnalysisPublic Administration and Governance

Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: A systematic literature review and ways forward

Open access
Bouwman, Robin, Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan·2016·International Journal of Public Sector Management

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1108/ijpsm-07-2015-0129

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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