Search

In the fields of public administration, policy, and public affairs, more women are earning PhD degrees and entering male-dominated academic and public sector job markets. This trend raises questions about the future of dissertation research and implications of gender on methodological approach and research design. This study examines the state of dissertation methods and research design in public administration, policy, and public affairs doctoral programs through the lens of gender between the years 2010 and 2014. A total of 986 dissertations are reviewed from PhD programs housed in universities that have NASPAA accredited MPA programs. Chi-square tests of independence and multinomial logistic regression illustrate that choice of methodological approach is not independent of gender, but rather there is a significant association between the two, and choice of research design also impacts methodological approach. Descriptive statistics show an increased trend in females using quantitative approaches to dissertation research.

When advocating for policy change, coalitions rely on various elements and strategies of policy narratives, including emotions. However, past research on the Narrative Policy Framework, and more broadly on the policy process, has largely ignored the role of emotions. This paper argues that emotions, such as anger and fear, are central to how coalitions advocate for policy change. It explores the role of anger and fear in policy narratives by examining the oral testimony (n = 474) given over four legislative committee hearings in March 2019 concerning Colorado Senate Bill 19‐181. This bill changed the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prioritize protecting the environment and public health over oil and gas development. This research finds the coalition that successfully supported the bill used anger towards the oil and gas industry, while those that opposed the bill relied more on fear of the uncertain consequences of the bill. It also finds the coalition that opposed the bill relied on self‐characterization as heroes and victims, which was a failed strategy. The implications for this research on the Narrative Policy Framework and, more broadly, for the policy process and advocacy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) provides a means to explore complex policy issues and the dynamics of belief systems shared by multiple actors in the policy-making process. Using a single case study, this article expands the application of the ACF to the complex policy subsystem of the U.S. automobile industry during the 2009 auto bailout and subsequent bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler. We examine the development and actions of policy coalitions and further expand the ACF by exploring the role of policy brokers during the automobile crisis. We also examine whether policy brokers are politically neutral actors as previous research debates and what actions they take if compromise cannot be reached between competing coalitions. Keywords: Regulation Policy, Automobile Industry, United States, Advocacy Coalition Framework, Policy Brokers, Policy Subsystems, General Motors, Chrysler, Bankruptcy, Policy Coalitions. El advocacy coalition framework (ACF) ofrece un medio para explorar asuntos de politica complejos asi como la dindmica de sistemas de creencias compartidas por multiples actores en el proceso de hechura de politicas. A partir de un estudio de caso este articulo desarrolla la aplicacion de la ACF al subsistema de politicas de la industria automovilista de los EE.UU. durante el rescate de 2009 y la posterior quiebra de la General Motors y Chrysler. El articulo examina el desarollo y acciones de coaliciones de politica y extiende el ACF al explorar el papel de los intermediarios de politica durante la crisis de la industria del automovil. El articulo tambien examina si acaso los intermediarios de politica son actores politicamente neutrales como lo sugieren debates previos sobre investigacion considerando tambien que acciones podrian llegar a tomar las coaliciones que compiten entre si no llegan a conceder lo que espera cada una de sus contrapartes., In the summer of 2009, General Motors and Chrysler announced their plans to file for bankruptcy and agreed to a settlement with the federal courts. As part of their settlement [...]

Although considerable research has developed exploring effective management of nonprofit boards of directors, there is limited understanding of the motivations of nonprofit board members to serve on boards. Using a sample of nearly 700 nonprofit board members, this study examines antecedent conditions and dimensions of public service motivation (PSM) as they apply to nonprofit board members and the differences in levels of PSM between board members who have worked primarily in the nonprofit, public, or private sectors. Board members with primary employment in the public sector show the highest levels of PSM. This study illustrates that nonprofit board members who work in the private sector exhibit fewer values associated with public service motivation. Other variables that predict public service motivation among board members include gender, level of education, and formal volunteering activity, among several others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Policy Studies Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Many of the case studies on collaboration tout the success of collaborative efforts, and theory building efforts focus almost exclusively on conditions for successful collaboration. Notably missing from the literature are efforts to comprehend why collaborations fail. Given that participants in a collaboration are invested in the collaborative effort, why does a collaboration fail? In addition, does the membership of the collaborative effort impact the factors for success or failure? By examining extant literature on both collaboration success and collaboration failure, we seek to identify a set of factors common across the literature that are foundational to a framework of collaboration failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By expanding understanding of individuals' reasons to serve on nonprofit boards, practitioners will be able to improve recruitment and retention of quality board members. This study explores board members' reasons for joining and continuing to serve on a volunteer nonprofit board of directors. A survey of nonprofit board members shows similarities in reasons for initially serving and continuing to serve on a board, but analysis of group means reveals significant differences on 20 of 27 dimensions examined. Organizational-level reasons are reported as more important as a result of board service, whereas individual- and community-level items decline in importance after board service. Latent factors that appear to be important for both joining and continuing to serve on a nonprofit board include organizational commitment, personal growth, recognition, and socialness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the paradigm shift from command-and-control statutes to collaborative partnerships increases, public administrators, policy makers, and watershed stakeholders will become more dependent on collaborative partnerships to solve complex environmental problems. This article explores watershed management partnerships and suggests a new typology of collaboration built on the variable of governance. The typology categorizes three types of watershed partnerships as interagency governance, cross-sector governance, and grassroots governance. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of watershed partnerships through the lens of governance structure will enhance public administrator and policy makers’ abilities to provide the best approach for addressing a particular watershed goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In practice and research pertaining to charitable giving, the emphasis has been on identifying the characteristics and motivations of donors, but few have asked why donors continue to support a particular nonprofit. This study examines the relationship between renewing donors and nonprofits and their impact on charitable giving levels using identity salience and relationship satisfaction as key mediators of nonprofit relational exchange. In a survey of 719 repeat donors in the United States, to a broad range of nonprofit organizations, identity saliency and relationship satisfaction are introduced as mediating constructs, and the results confirm that both constructs partially guide donor motivations and charitable giving. Theoretically, this suggests that the more a donor identifies with a nonprofit organization and the more satisfied the donor is in the relationship with the organization, the higher their intention to donate. This finding supports previous research in segmentation strategies and service‐dominant logic in the nonprofit sector. Managerial implications of this research include indication of a paradigmatic shift from relational exchange to transformational exchange (or value cocreation) in nonprofit organizations' approach to donor cultivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]