Cited by 138Public Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration and GovernancePublic Administration and Political Analysis

The future of public administration research: An editor's perspective

Open access
McDonald, Bruce D., Hall, Jeremy L., O'Flynn, Janine, van Thiel, Sandra·2022·Public Administration

Abstract

Research in the field of public administration has changed and advanced significantly in recent years. These advancements concern both how we engage in research—such as the methods we apply, the interdisciplinary nature of the theories we use, and the research questions we ask. Increasingly, we are witnessing a shift in public‐sector values away from efficiency and effectiveness and toward a paradigm that highlights equity. In this article, we reflect on these changes from our position as editors‐in‐chief of some of the leading journals in the field. In addition to describing the progress of this discipline, we explore emerging windows of opportunity for new research. One such window is research on ways to incorporate interdisciplinary perspectives and methods. We also see the need for work in such areas as social equity, comparative administration, artificial intelligence, and climate change. Finally, we argue for a more proactive approach in disseminating research to those involved in the day‐to‐day decision‐making processes of public organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/padm.12829

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Social justice has frequently been overlooked in traditional budgeting processes, which have typically stressed efficiency and effectiveness over equity.

    “Within the broader public budgeting literature, social justice has frequently been overlooked in traditional budgeting processes, which have typically stressed efficiency and effectiveness over equity (Grossi et al. 2023;McDonald et al. 2022).”

    From Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as McDonald et al. 2022

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McDonald, B. D., Hall, J. L., O'Flynn, J., & van Thiel, S.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • Melbourne School of Government University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia
  • School of Social and Behavioural Sciences Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
Corresponding author
McDonald, Bruce D.
Venue
Public Administration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-01-31
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
59-71
ISSN
  • 0033-3298 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9299
OpenAlex
W4207080398
Cited by
138
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 14
FWCI
43.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Administration (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
Keywords
public administration research, research paradigms, efficiency and effectiveness, interdisciplinary research, social equity, comparative public administration, artificial intelligence in public administration, climate governance, research dissemination, public decision-making

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