Search

Mixed methods research (MMR) designs are well suited for answering policy-relevant questions, yet they remain underutilized in public policy and public administration scholarship. To provide a deeper understanding of the effective use of such designs, this article examines the prevalence of MMR in public policy and public administration journals, drawing a key distinction between "canonical" and "non-canonical" MMR. Canonical mixed methods studies are characterized by (1) an explicit rationale for using mixed methods (i.e., a clear connection between methodological decisions and research questions), (2) effective integration of qualitative and quantitative strands, and (3) design transparency. We demonstrate the value of a canonical approach in public policy and public administration research by highlighting differences in quality between canonical and non-canonical mixed methods studies. Our findings indicate that a canonical approach to mixed methods research makes positive contributions to methodological quality and knowledge development.

Over the past 30 years, red tape has emerged as a key concept in public management. Yet, researchers continue to debate the relative merits of system‐centric versus individual‐centric approaches. In this article, we articulate an individual‐centric psychological process theory, a theory that confronts the 'modularity assumption' relegating the subjective individual experience as inconsequential in much red tape research. We theorize that the appraisal mechanism influences the meaning attached to external compliance demands. Our process theory advances the claim that experience, emotion, and expectancy influence one's perceptions of, and behavioral response to, red tape. Thus, compliance expectations in rules are informed by other social demands embedded in roles, identities, and collective interests in ways that influence the perceived legitimacy of rules and the compliance burdens they impose. The psychological process theory offers a holistic perspective on red tape by treating the subjective individual experience as consequential for understanding red tape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate the flow dynamics within an elastic tube transporting a power-law fluid, where the tube is subject to a specified external forcing in the form of a progressive traveling wave. The oesophagus is cylindrical in shape and exhibits linear elastic properties. The flow is creeping, and the long wavelength and low Reynolds number approximations are employed for a solution. The relationship between the pressure distribution within the oesophagus and the radial variation of the tube characterizes the behavior of the tube. Findings reveal that the elasticity and the variations in the applied dilating forcing amplitude substantially impact pressure resulting from sinusoidal wave forcing. Notably, even a nominal increase in the inward radial force amplitude for dilatant fluid results in significant pressure changes compared with Newtonian fluid. We also observe a notable distinction between time-averaged volume flow rate and velocity in pseudo-plastic and dilatant forms. Our study also identifies that the radial velocity experiences either attenuation or enhancement due to the fluid's shear thickening and thinning characteristics. Moreover, our research uncovers a novel dimension by highlighting that in shifting from pseudo-plasticity to dilatancy, the fluid requires higher pressure to propel the bolus toward the hiatus. This observation has important implications, suggesting that feeding a more dilatant fluid to patients with pre-diagnosed swallowing disorders, such as sliding hiatus hernia, is not advisable, fearing increased pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses an online survey experiment to test whether the pairing of profit-seeking with mission-related programs in the social sector attracts or deters donations from individual donors. We test individuals' response to three types of profit incentives allowed under current U.S. public policy: (1) non-distributed profit to an organization, which is allowed for nonprofit entities; (2) profit to the organization's equity investors and owners, which is allowed under for-profit social enterprise governance charters; and (3) profit to lending investors, which is introduced by social impact bonds, a pay-for-success policy tool. We test trust theory, under which profit incentives deter donors against entrepreneurial orientation (EO) theory, which suggests that donors are attracted to organizations that use innovative, market-driven programs. Findings indicate support for both theories, but the support depends on how the specific profit incentive is structured. Donors support organizations that use profit-generating social enterprise programs--but only when the profits are non-distributable; donors' support is significantly lower for social enterprises in which owners and equity investors may profit. Importantly however, this negative effect is not found for pay-for-success policy tools where lending investors, rather than equity investors and owners, receive profits.