Suchergebnisse

Social impact bonds, a recent innovation in social finance, are designed to harness capital and knowledge from private nonprofit, for‐profit, and public entities to address pressing social problems. Although there is great policy interest in understanding how social impact bonds can be used to tackle social problems, the emergent nature of social impact bonds makes it hard to find relevant data and evidence. To overcome this challenge, we use single‐significant‐case sampling as our research design strategy. We conduct an in‐depth case study of the Social Innovation Financing Youth Recidivism Project in Massachusetts. Our case study is comprised of a qualitative analysis of the multiparty contract and multiyear quantitative benefit–cost analysis to understand transaction costs. We draw upon contract theory to develop an analytical framework for the case analysis and highlight the risks and safeguards for the various parties to the contract, and conduct a formal benefit–cost analysis to map out transaction costs. We conclude with a discussion of study implications and future research.

How does a body of scholarship emerge, develop, and evolve? Research is the product of a community of scholars and their collaboration over time builds and disseminates knowledge. One way to examine a scholarly community and scholarship evolution is to consider patterns of collaboration through coauthorship networks. This article conducts a social network analysis of coauthorship between public service motivation (PSM) scholars from 1990 to 2016. This analysis depicts the social structure of the field as it evolved and offers implications both for its theoretical progress and for individual scholars. In general, we find that the PSM coauthorship network has grown increasingly since 1990 but it is not a cohesive network of scholars. It consists of many disconnected subgroups that actually represent opportunities for individual scholars to build social capital and influence. We conclude with implications of our findings and we offer suggestions for further analysis.

AbstractThis article presents a systematic literature review of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the public sector. The findings show that although OCB is gaining more attention in the public sector, research often does not take specific public sector characteristics or concepts into account. Based on the available evidence, the authors develop a framework of antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators of OCB. Three areas for future research are recommended: (1) regarding theory: link OCB to public sector concepts such as bureaucratic red tape, public leadership, and public service motivation; (2) regarding research designs: use stronger survey designs, experiments, and case studies and devote more attention to cross‐sectoral and cross‐country differences; and (3) regarding the consequences of OCB: address the gap in our knowledge of how OCB has an impact on public organizations, including negative impacts.

AbstractCurrent approaches employed by U.S.‐based clearinghouses to rate the efficacy of interventions to address social problems typically do not result in sufficient information to help practitioners. Current standards of evidence employed across the United States apply a positivist notion of validity with quantitative research criteria that discourage answering important how and why questions, explicitly privilege quantitative/RCT evidence, offer few contextual insights, and rarely discuss disparities in outcomes across participants differing by race, gender, and ethnicity. We offer a set of standards of evidence to assess qualitative and mixed methods studies, as well as RCTs and quasi‐experimental designs, and probe the extent to which the studies address context and equity. We applied our proposed new standards of evidence to all intervention studies rated as the highest quality by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education from 2017 to 2021 to demonstrate the usefulness of our standards.

AbstractPromoting race‐aware and gender‐aware scholarship is essential for giving substance to social equity research. This review and introduction provides an account of one such initiative to promote race and gender scholarship through collaboration between Public Administration Review (PAR), and the Consortium of Race and Gender Scholars (CORGES), and introduces the PAR Race and Gender Symposium. CORGES is an informal group of scholars motivated by the pressing need to address issues of racial justice and gender justice in public administration and public policy scholarship. This PAR symposium is based on the CORGES inaugural conference, held virtually in September 2020. Conference organizers, with the help of Editor‐in‐Chief Jeremy Hall, devised and oversaw a thoughtful and detailed plan to provide developmental feedback before papers were submitted to PAR's standard peer review process. The symposium is comprised of 14 research articles and 2 viewpoint contributions. In addition to describing symposium contributions, this review provides an account of CORGES origins and its ongoing intellectual and normative commitments on furthering inquiry on racializing and gendering, while also elaborating on the idea of everydayness of scholarly activism. CORGES, with a recently expanded board of advisors committed to centering public administration scholarship on race and gender, as well its intersection with other markers of oppression, continues to support academic research and public outreach on race and gender scholarship.

Women are still underrepresented as public-sector organizational leaders, despite comprising half of the United States public-sector workforce. To explore the factors driving gender imbalance, this Element employs a problem-driven approach to examine gender imbalance in local government management. We use multiple methods, inductive and deductive research, and different theoretical frames for exploring why so few women are city or county managers. Our interviews, resume analysis and secondary data analysis suggesting that women in local government management face a complex puzzle of gendered experiences, career paths and appointment circumstances that lend insights into gender imbalanced leadership in this domain.

AbstractThis study is an epistemic reflexive examination of race in representative bureaucracy theory, responding to the criticism that its conceptualization has been narrow. To counter socially reinforced ways of thinking, we use a problematizing review method to read broadly and selectively. Reviewing a sample of articles published in public administration (immediate research domain); political science (neighboring domain); sociology and Asian/cultural/ethnic studies (indirectly relevant domains) between 2017 and 2021 and paying attention to social constructionism, we examined how race and ethnicity are conceptualized. While the articles in public administration focused on a binary conception of race, treating differential outcomes as natural, articles sampled from other domains explained how ethnoracial categories were constructed, highlighted the contextual nature of differential outcomes, and engaged with the issue of racialization. To expand the conception of race in public administration, we must explore the process in which racial constructs became associated with unequal outcomes.

AbstractMixed 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.