A qualitative analysis of JPAE’s international context articles: Comparative emphasis in public affairs education

ABSTRACT

This article evaluates the Journal of Public Affairs Education’s (JPAE) contribution during its first twenty-five years to the study of international and comparative public affairs education by looking at the 59 articles published that examine this topic in an international context. It uses a qualitative, iterative approach to summarize their themes of the 59 articles, and to categorize and display the different comparative emphases and public affairs education topics treated in them. It presents some quantitative data on the number of articles by category and by annual publication trend. It uses the results of this analysis to assess JPAE’s overall contribution in the international context of public affairs and to make suggestions for the future in this area.

KEYWORDS:

• Comparative
• international context
• public affairs education

Introduction

One of the most important aims of an academic journal is to disseminate knowledge. Most often that knowledge is geared toward what might be called contributions to the scientific basis of the field which the journal represents; that is, theory testing and the settling of claims derived from theory through experimental or quasi-experimental endeavors and published in order to move that scientific enterprise forward. Nevertheless, there is other academic knowledge in a field that needs to be shared which supports academic activities ancillary to scientific knowledge production yet essential to the whole scholastic enterprise, such as teaching methods, instructional innovations, curriculum development, university governance, institutional collaboration, and quality control. Though these latter topics admit of theory testing and scientific study in their own right, they also are organizational operations that yield valuable pragmatic experience and best practices which need to be reported and shared with others carrying out the same activities in the same academic field.

Over its twenty-five years, the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) has been unique in carrying out both of these roles, the dissemination of scientific results and the diffusion of practical understanding, for the field of Public Affairs Education (PAE). It is the purpose of this essay to consider the accomplishment of JPAE’s through its published articles in its first twenty-five years in charting “pathways for the development of public affairs education in an international context” (Jennings & White, 2005). To do this, this essay will do three things. First, it will begin with a brief discussion of the notions of international and comparative in-public affairs. Second, it will analyze the contributions and coverage of the international articles published in JPAE, including the construction of a framework to categorize, display, and analyze these articles and presentation of the results of the analytical procedures. Third, it will discuss the implications of these results. Fourth, it will conclude by assessing JPAEs to the international context and raise some considerations for JPAE in the future in this area.

The international context and public affairs education

JPAE began as the journal of NASPAA when the “N” in the acronym stood for “National” rather than “Network.” Articles in JPAE over its twenty-five-year history reflect both this original focus and its change. Many have looked at PAE higher education from the United States outward, comparing what is going on there with what is going on elsewhere or vice versa. Others have had less of a U.S. centered focus and examined post-secondary educational activities in a country or countries other than the U.S. and employing a set of topics that authors believe make up PAE.

The international context

Over the years, JPAE has published many articles that look at PAE topics from an International perspective. This essay takes the position that properly considered International issues are those questions, problems, challenges, and subjects that come up when considering a public affairs related subject in more than one national context. PAE in the International Context principally considers differences and what can be learned from looking at PAE across nation-state environments. These include differences in socio-cultural background, government organization, the selection quality, quantity, and needs of people working in government, and the ability of government to formulate and carry out programs. As such, the notion of looking at the International Context of PAE is mostly about what the systems can learn from one another. This point of view starts from an assumption that teaching skills and competencies is relatively easy, but that understanding context is hard and affects competencies and skills taught.

Some of the International Context PAE scholarship has treated public affairs education under the pressures of the phenomenon of Globalization. The topic of Globalization does look at differences, but it is more about the convergence and similarities that the term implies. For purposes of this essay, globalization is most properly regarded as a sub-topic in the study of PAE in the international context. It centers on the ties, similarities, interactions, and interconnections among nation-states or countries. That is, issues of globalization focus on the challenges presented by a world made up of tightly bound and increasing similar nations. As a focus of study, globalization pays attention to the loosely linked and dissimilar only as a barrier to achieving the former condition.

Comparison and public affairs education

A background question for this and similar points of view is a pernicious and lasting one in public administration: on what basis to compare national governmental and bureaucratic contexts whether for purely scholarly or educational purposes? Some, like Ferrel Heady (Heady, 1996), have taken a structural-functional approach to issues in comparison. Others, like Fred Riggs, have used culture and practice as a basis for comparison (Riggs, 1964). Still others have focused on similar organizational positions (Baker, 1994) or conceptions of merit-based civil service (Bekke, Perry, & Toonen, 1996) or developed democracies (Rowat, 1988) across national contexts. In addition, questions have been raised about the ability of any approach to cope with the raft of new considerations raised by government action from homeland security to diversity and inclusion (Heady, Perlman, & Rivera, 2005).

One such area that is not generally considered as a separate topic in the literature on comparative method or approaches is Public Affairs Education. Doing so raises another background question that has not been addressed directly: what areas in public affairs education ought to be looked at when examining its delivery at the post-secondary (training, college, and university) level in different nations? A review of the international articles published in JPAE may suggest the main academic categories of PAE areas in the international context.

International Context PAE topic areas have political implications as well as educational ones. They can be studied and related to national or global contexts and taken into account in national programs and international endeavors in several areas. These include national learning and system advancement, international exchange and competition, or meeting the demands of globalization through system consolidation and improvement. These areas share a relationship not only with the nation-state, but with the academy in that they encompass subjects taught in higher education in public affairs. Also, while applicable to public or government settings they may include not-for-profits especially as a client of government and the public sector.

In order to get around these problems of comparison, this article sets out to examine PAE using an exploratory, qualitative procedure. The thrust of using this approach is to make an exploratory foray into JPAE’s articles pertaining to the International Context. The purpose is to make an analytical assessment of JPAE’s contributions that avoids the challenge of theory-building and testing beforehand, but may result in theory-building at the end.

Procedures and analysis

The procedure used to conduct this analysis was straightforward and simple though relatively labor-intensive as are many qualitative projects. First, to construct a data base of JPAE-published articles pertaining to the International Context, the articles of JPAE from its inception were examined using an all-text search for the words, comparative (222 publications), foreign (569 publications), global (340 publications), and international (556 publications). When duplicates were removed from the lists, this produced list of over four-hundred candidate articles. Clearly, this was an unmanageable quantity for a qualitative, in-depth review. Also, it suggested an emphasis on international matters that even a casual JPAE reader would know was not indicative of the journal’s principal focus during its history. Accordingly, this initial list of over four-hundred candidate articles was sampled by year to verify the foregoing assumption. This examination revealed that in the vast majority (approximately 350) of the articles none of the terms, comparative, foreign, global, or international, was used to denote what could be called an International Context emphasis for the publication, but rather for other, less specialized uses. To illustrate, these non-relevant uses of the term ranged from articles that had sentences considering “…dramatic demographic changes – both national and global…” (Bernotavicz, 1997), to ones discussing the “…global information age…” (Bainbridge et al., 2015).

Second, the list of 350 candidate articles was searched for all mentions of comparative, foreign, global, or international in an article’s title and these were pulled out for a list of 54 articles. The list of approximately 300 remaining article titles was scanned for evidence of an international orientation such as the mention of a country (e.g. Georgia), political jurisdiction (e.g. “former Soviet Union), region (e.g. Latin America and the Caribbean), international program (e.g. the Fulbright program), or other indication. This step yielded 34 additional international articles for total of eighty-eight. Eighty-eight articles were identified in this way and put into a separate, working list. After removing book reviews and issue and symposia introductions, this list was winnowed to a final qualitative, data base of 59 substantive articles.

This list of 59 articles was analyzed qualitatively in two passes or data reduction steps. The first pass employed the inductive, iterative coding technique of Grounded Theory as outlined by Corbin and Strauss (2015). The purpose of this approach is to develop inductively through the coding of instances a theoretical interpretation grounded in the empirical reality of the qualitative materials. It aims to inductively produce valid and reliable interpretations of qualitative data. Both passes, but mainly the second one, employed the iterative, matrix-based, data reduction process recommended for educational research by Miles and Huberman (1994). This approach is a more deductive one that starts from an organizing framework for selected codes and then uses them to review, code, and display the data. To avoid forcing data into the codes, the codes used in the second pass were emergent from the first.

First pass

The seventy, substantive articles were reviewed for main themes and other topics (subjects, questions, and problems) considered in each. These were recorded in a master article catalog. The catalog was submitted to the following process. It was coded for repeated mentions of themes and topics. This coding yielded two main dimensions for themes and topics in the article list: (1) National Context Factors (Culture and Society, Government Organization, Government Workforce, Government Capacity) and (2) Academic Areas in Public Affairs Education (Training and Education, Teaching Method, Post-Secondary Governance, and Degrees and Specialties). The factors and areas were arranged on a topic-ordered matrix and the substantive articles were further reviewed for specific items (mentions, findings, recommendations, or conclusions) that fit the cells on the matrix. These items were further coded and consolidated into summary issues which are presented in each cell on Table 1.

Table 1. Context factors and academic areas in the JPAE international articles reviewed with appositional concept pairs summarizing main issues.

	Topic areas in public affairs education
National context factors	Training and education	Teaching methods	Post-secondary governance	Degrees and specialties
Culture and society	Knowledge vs. Skills	Instructor vs. Student	Public vs. Private	Traditional vs. Modern
Government organization	Generalist vs. Specialist	Procedure vs. Experience	Centralized vs. Decentralized	Functional vs. Technical
Government workforce	Professional vs. Occupational	Principles vs. Practices	Meritocratic vs. Plutocratic	License vs. Credential
Government capacity	Broad vs. Narrow	Analytical vs. Synthetic	Regulated vs. Entrepreneurial	Practical vs. Technical

As Table 1 indicates, the issues in the international articles can be summarized using sixteen appositional concept pairs by related Factors and Topics. For example, training and education issues and outcomes in PAE are influenced partly on culture and society and the choices and outcomes for this dependence on national culture and society can be arranged on a continuum from knowledge-based endeavors to skill-based ones. Likewise, the governance of post-secondary systems for PAE are influenced by how government is organized and the options and issues in this relationship range from centralized governance that is a part of or adjunct to government, for example, some of the public administration or management institutes covered in the list of articles, to decentralized ones, for example, standards-driven PAE systems like the United States.

Although the summary issues and options on Table 1 are interesting, they take considerable unpacking to be really useful. In some respects, they summarize JPAE’s international articles too densely to be applied in abstract reference to that literature. While the sixteen appositional concept pairs provoke considerable thought, on their face they are not directly connected to the list of articles and so their empirical basis is not immediately evident. More importantly, while the appositional concept pairs are a summary of the international thinking in JPAE, they do not show the importance of the contributions of the articles published in the journal nor do they show JPAE’s significant contribution to the literature and thinking on international issues in public affairs education.

Second pass

Accordingly, the list of 59, substantive articles was submitted to a second pass: another qualitative analysis aimed at highlighting the contributions of the journal to the International Context in PAE. In this more deductive analysis, the articles themselves were reviewed for more comprehensive themes to code and they were examined using the factors and topics on Table 1. Two central ideas of the 59 articles emerged from this second round of coding. First that the 59 articles could be broken into two main groups related to the main Explanatory Aim of the article as indicated by the amount of the article devoted to it. This pass showed that articles broke into studies with two aims based on both what the inquiry claimed to do and what the bulk of text covered or reported:

1. Descriptive articles – These are articles that present a narrative account, representation, or in-depth report on a set of circumstances in PAE and cover it exhaustively.

2. Prescriptive articles – These are articles that propose, recommend, or promote particular actions for effective PAE often beyond one set of circumstances.

It is worth noting that the classification of articles as Prescriptive is not based on just an assessment of aim, but also what is carried out or covered in the article. Many articles lay out the circumstances in a case and conclude with lessons-learned or benefits identified and then attempt to generalize from the one case. Most often these articles are Descriptive because description of the circumstances is the preponderant work of the piece. Prescriptive articles are more evaluative. More of the writing is an attempt to recommend from what is laid out and they may arrive at general empirical principals or rules even if they are applicable to only one set of circumstances.

Coding in the second pass also revealed other sub-categories of the articles once coded into the two categories above. These additional sub-categories were cross-cutting in that they were found in both Prescriptive and Descriptive Classes of articles. The important sub-categories here were based on whether the article focused mainly on one country in discussing International Context. All of the 59 articles were Comparative in some form or another, that is at a minimum they mentioned international standards, the rest of the world (Global), or the U.S. as some kind of benchmark when looking at a single country. However, some of these were more explicitly Comparative in that they presented a balanced analysis of more than one locale. Accordingly, the articles broke into two main groups depending on a study’s Comparative Scope:

1. Transnational studies – These articles gave proportional consideration to more than one country or national context, whether bi-lateral or multi-lateral or regional, and focused on them in a balanced way in examining a PAE topic.

2. National studies – These articles gave disproportional weight to considering one country or national arena over others (even if the U.S.) and focused almost exclusively on the selected PAE topic or topics in that one country or one national framework.

In addition, the PAE topic areas were reexamined in the second pass. Coded occurrences in this pass suggested that the PAE areas could be further reduced. For example, this review showed that the categories used for Table 1 PAE topics were too fine-grained for the final set of substantive articles – that is, as much was lost as was highlighted. Also, they were not on a par with respect to definition and precision. For example, culture is at more difficult to define and determine than is government organization. Re-coding further consolidated and reduced these areas from four to three:

1. Post-secondary Systems and Institutions

2. Pedagogy and Teaching methods

3. Degrees, Curriculum and Course Content

Application of the foregoing categories resulted in the topic-ordered, display framework in Table 2.¹ It captures and displays all of the 59 substantive articles on the list. It allows for robust comparison of the articles’ goals, main findings, and differences. In contrast to Table 1 which is a synthesis of topics, Table 2 is analytical. In presenting the objectives and actual contributions of each article, Table 2 presents JPAE’s contributions to International Context publications in PAE. As such, Table 2 provides a map of JPAE’s contributions that can be easily consulted to find articles on specific topics, to chart the development of topics over time, to examine literature on specific locales, to look for authors, or just to get an idea of what has been included in the international realm in JPAE’s history. Table 2 shows the breadth and depth of the topics and coverage of the 59 JPAE International Context articles that were included in this review.

Table 2. Type and focus of the study of the fifty-nine JPAE international articles by main topic in public affairs education.

	Article main topic in public affairs education
Comparative emphasis	Post-secondary systems and institutions	Pedagogy and teaching methods	Degrees, curriculum, and course content
Descriptive (46)	Article authors, year, and key finding or observation
Transnational (Focus on more than one country or a region) (14)	Doci (1997), Needs from West to upgrade PAE in Central and Eastern Europe Baradei and Newcomer (2005), Lessons from bi-lateral university collaboration Adams and Infeld (2011), Report on evaluation of Fulbright Scholars in PAE Purón Cid (2018), Comparison of university degree characteristics in LAC, US, Mexico	King (1997), Teaching strategies for students from former Soviet-bloc Spoormans and Vanhoonacker (2005), Student-centered, problem-based professional PA higher education for Europe in Netherlands Scott (2013), Practical pedagogical approach for developing policy skills in ANZSOG Appe and Barragán (2013), Strategies for PAE values education outside the classroom in Ecuador Kilonzo, Sandfort, and Liu (2016), Pedagogical strategies for using multimedia learning objects in Kenya, U.S., China Mudida and Rubaii (2017), Keys to effective cases for development administration in Kenya with Asia, and LAC	Hajnal (2003), Disciplines and curricula quantitatively analyzed to three approaches in twenty-three European countries Geva-May and Maslove (2006), Differences in policy education rooted in place and context Canada, U.S., Europe Purón-Cid (2017), Reliance on soft-skills for Information technology education in LAC van der Wal (2017), Attitudes and public value motivation in MPA students from China, India, Indonesia, and Singapore
National (Focus on single country or nation) (32)	Stewart (1997), Views of students at American PAE institute about national corruption in Georgia Tong and Straussman (2003), Development of the MPA degree in China Julnes (2006), Description of university assistance partnership and lessons in Dominican Republic Bremer and Baradei (2008), Assessment of four PAE programs training and match with sector needs in Egypt Melnick, Kaur, and Yu (2011), International student social adjustment persists after 6 months and affects academic outcomes in U.S. Chen, Wang, and Song (2012), Social network benefits of MPA study at a university in China Haruna and Kannae (2013), Integration of global standards and local needs in Ghana PAE Oliveira and Rubin (2013), Evolution of PAE education and training system in Brazil Onder and Brower (2013), Quantitative document review of research and PAE in Turkey Azhar and Manzoor (2014), Mismatch of PA education and government in Pakistan Ewoh (2014), Development of public service and PAE in Nigeria Kwaku Ohemeng (2014), Public management and training organization in Ghana Zemrani (2014), Evolution of higher education and public administration in Morocco Woo (2015), Recruitment practices for civil service representativeness in Malaysia	Miller-Millesen and Mould (2004), Project-based learning about non-profits for U.S. students in Kyrgyzstan Ye, Sun, and Wu (2009), Local government PAE training for Chinese officials in U.S. Rivenbark and Bianchi (2011), Lessons from Fulbright teaching in Italy Hummel, Freeland, Craft, and McKellips (2012), Immersion for PAE instruction in conflict in Afghanistan Oser, Gadot-Perez, and Galnoor (2013), Review and general lessons learned adapting case material in Israeli MPPs Bavon (2014), Program outcomes assessment planning in Ghana	Klingner and Washington (2000), Development and limits of international and comparative perspective in U.S. Devereux and Durning (2001), Benefits of international outreach strategy in curriculum change in U.S. Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff (2005), Topics for international public service curricula Park and Park (2006), Diffusion of IT education in undergraduate curriculum in Korea Scavo, Dezendorf, Kostina, Startsev, and Vishnevskaya (2006), Design of MPA at Russian Academy of Public Administration Yildiz, Demircio˘glu, and Babao˘glu (2011), Review of undergraduate public policy curriculum in Turkey Benavides, Fierro-Villa, and Aguayo (2013), Mexican MPA curricula contributions to national reform Greve (2013), Purpose, organization, and content of Executive PAE masters in Denmark Subban and Vyas-Doorgapersad (2014), Development of problem, project, and soft-skills curriculum for PAE in South Africa Rubaii, Appe, and Stamp (2015), Study abroad opportunities in NASPAA Schools needed for cultural competence Yildiz, Babaoğlu, and Demircioğlu (2016) Review of graduate PAE e-government content in Turkey Haase, Haddad, and El-Badri (2018), Gaps among needs, advertisement, and course offerings in Lebanon
Prescriptive (13)	Article Authors, Year, and Key Finding or Observation
Transnational (Focus on more than one country or a region) (8)	Sabolsky and Purdy (1997), Need to develop new strategies to teach economic development in PAE in former soviet-bloc Haskell and Hernandez (2018), Need to expose Mexican public service education to international norms and standards Rauhaus and Sakiev (2018), Need for different approach from US PAE Curriculum to support development in Kazakhstan and Krygz Republic	Maggiotto (1997), Agenda for teaching American PAE to students from former Soviet-block nations Neuby (2012), Needs for success with Chinese students MPA program in U.S.	Ryan (2010), Intercultural competencies and experiences through immersion are critical Balboa and Deloffre (2015), Global public goods and governance require NGO-like knowledge and skills Appe, Rubaii, and Stamp (2016), Service Learning useful to promote cultural competence and ethics
National (Focus on single country or nation) (5)	Lapsina (1997), Needed reforms in post-soviet PAE in agricultural institute in Moscow Yang (2005), Need to integrate global benchmarks and local traditions for Chinese model of MPA for development	Baker-Boosamra, Guevara, and Balfour (2006), Need for solidarity relationship in pedagogy for PAE service learning in El Salvador	Yu, Rubin, and Wu (2012), Need for executive MPA for senior public servants in China Haque and Gunther-Canada (2018), Need for transparent public service skillsets to promote democracy globally from U.S. experience

In addition, by showing the distribution of the 59 articles across Comparative Emphasis and PAE Topics, Table 2 not only highlights what JPAE has offered over the years, but what it has not. Table 2 reveals both the over and under weighting of contributions by particular Comparative Emphasis and PAE Topic and can be examined for research trends on particular topics or locales. Moreover, a review of Table 2 might suggest areas where research is not robust and could be complemented or filled out by additional research.

Two additional summary tables were assembled to summarize the textual information on Table 2. Table 3 was constructed to summarize the frequency of articles by Comparative Emphasis and PAE Topics on the text-based presentation of Table 2. Table 1 shows cross tabulations by Comparative Emphasis and PAE Topic for the frequencies of published JPAE International Context articles. In addition, it shows the percentage for each frequency reported by category of the 59 total published articles. Likewise, annual publication trends were summarized on Table 4. It presents the number of articles on Table 2 by each year published.

Table 3. Total of JPAE international articles by study type and PAE topic.

(n = 59)	PAE topic
Comparative emphasis	Row totals	Post-secondary systems and institutions	Pedagogy, teaching methods, and tools	Degrees, curriculum and course content
Descriptive	46 (77.9%)	18 (31%)	12 (20%)	16 (27%)
International	14 (23.7%)	4 (6.8%)	6 (10.1%)	4 (6.8%)
National Study	32 (54.1%)	14 (23.7%)	6 (10.1%)	12 (20%)
Prescriptive	13 (22%)	5 (8.5%)	3 (5%)	5 (8.5%)
International	8 (13.6%)	3 (5.1%)	2 (3.4%)	3 (5.1%)
National Study	5 (8.5%)	2 (3.4%)	1 (1.7%)	2 (3.4%)
Column totals	59 (100%)	23 (39.5%)	15 (25.3%)	21 (35.5%)

Table 4. Number of JPAE international context articles published by year.

Year	Number
1997	6
2000	1
2001	1
2003	2
2004	1
2005	4
2006	4
2008	1
2009	1
2010	1
2011	4
2012	4
2013	8
2014	6
2015	3
2016	3
2017	3
2018	6
TOTAL	59

Findings

As mentioned above, Table 3 presents the distribution of articles by type and topic. With respect to the main typology of articles, Descriptive versus Prescriptive, the preponderance of sources concentrated on the former. As one can see from Table 3, 46 articles or about 80% of those published were judged to be Descriptive in their coverage. Of these 46 Descriptive articles, 32 of them or almost 55% of all articles published – and nearly 70% of the Descriptive articles – were single-country focused. The remaining fourteen Descriptive articles published are International, focusing on more than one country, and represent almost 25% of all published articles. Conversely, only about 22% or 13 articles were considered to be Prescriptive in their point of view. These Prescriptive pieces split fairly evenly with respect to a focus on International versus National Studies with eight or almost 14% of the articles published categorized as the former and nearly 9% or five as the latter.

Concerning PAE topics, Table 3 shows that the distribution of articles was more balanced. It was nearly bimodal with 23 articles published or a shade under 40% treating topics related to Post-secondary Systems and Institutions, and another twenty-one or about 35% of those published concerned with Degrees, Curriculum, and Course Content. The remaining 15 of the articles published treated Pedagogy, Teaching Methods, and Tools with about a quarter (25.3%) of the 59 articles.

Taking into account the cross-tabulation of Comparative Emphasis and PAE Topic as laid out in Table 3, there are 12 possible categories or classes for articles. Of the articles on Post-secondary Systems and Institutions, most of them were Descriptive with 18 or 31% of published articles in this group and only five or a little less than 9% in the Prescriptive class. The bulk of the articles published on Post-secondary Systems and Institution topics, 14 or 23.7%, focused on one single country. Those published articles deemed to be on Pedagogy, Teaching Methods, and Tools topics were largely Descriptive as well with 12 of them, or 20% of the total articles, labeled as such. These were split evenly in categories with six being designated as National Studies and six as Transnational or about 10% of the articles in each. The three Prescriptive articles in the same PAE topic area were distributed evenly across categories with two (3.4%) being Transnational and one (1.7%) a National Study. The published articles on topics in the Degrees, Curriculum, and Course Content category followed the same pattern with most of them, 16 or 27%, being Descriptive and only five (8.5%) Prescriptive ones. As would be expected, most of the former group were single National Studies at 12 or about 20% of the articles published. Only four of these (6.8%) were Descriptive and Transnational. Five total articles in this PAE topic area were Prescriptive and they split almost evenly at three Transnational ones and two National Studies.

The most heavily weighted category of articles was that of National Studies related to the PAE topic of Post-secondary Systems and Institutions. This category accounted for 14 or almost a quarter of the published articles. The second most frequently reported category was that of National Studies on the PAE topic of Degrees, Curriculum, and Course Content at 12 articles or 20% of the total. Tied for third place were both categories of the Transnational and National Study articles that looked at Pedagogy and Teaching Methods and Tools. These two categories accounted for six articles each or a shade over 10% of the total 59 published articles. The remaining eight categories had a maximum of four articles in two groups, three articles in two other groups, two articles in three groups, and only one group with just one article.

With respect to annual publication trends as shown on Table 4, the 59 articles on the International Context considered here were published over 18 years from 1997 to 2018. As Table 2 indicates, for sixteen years from 1997 to 2012, the greatest number of articles published in one year was six in 1997. During this period, an average of fewer than two articles per year (1.87) were published. The most frequently occurring number of publications in one year during this time was one in five years (2000, 2001, 2008, 2009, and 2010) although four articles were published in four years (2005, 2006, 2001, 2012). This high annual number was eclipsed in 2013 when eight articles were published and the number of international articles on PAE have been steady and increasing since then. Since 2012, the average number of International articles published per year has been 4.8. During this six-year period, the number of articles published annually has not dipped below the three published in three consecutive years (2015, 2016, and 2017) and in two years six were published (2014 and 2018). In the six-year period from 2013 to 2018, a total of twenty-nine International PAE articles have been published in JPAE which is almost double the number (15) published in the sixteen years from 1997 to 2012.

Discussion

There are at least four main implications of the findings as presented above. First, the vast majority of articles published in JPAE that might be considered as International Context topics are in reality studies about PAE in just one country or nation. They pertain to International Context because they are “comparative” in some manner. Commonly, they put the reported national context against U.S. standards or practices or they report the benefits from treating with (sending or receiving students or faculty) other countries for U.S. PAE programs. It would not be overstating the case to say that a significant portion of the JPAE published articles examined here focus on the U.S. This should not be surprising given that JPAE is a journal published in English in the U.S. and represents a U.S. accreditor of higher education PAE programs (NASPAA), albeit one with global pretensions. This is not a criticism of the group of articles, but rather a recognition of a purpose and orientation that unites them.

Second, most of the JPAE-published International Context articles describe a PAE higher education system or program, or describe degrees and course offering conditions in the one country. Often, these descriptive articles do make recommendations that are held out to be applied elsewhere, but these recommendations are most commonly of “lessons-learned.” That is, they are not generalizations from rigorous scientific study, but conclusions drawn from one case and offered as speculative future considerations for potentially similar situations. Given the problem of settling on one appropriate comparative method or approach for the study of Public Affairs and Administration or of PAE, it is not immediately clear what would make cross-national situations similar enough for meaningful comparisons. Often, when these descriptive articles mention other national contexts at all – usually the U.S., as noted above – it is to show what is lacking in the national system, program, degree, or offering, and how standards can be met, or potential improvements made. Rarely, are these articles straight-up comparisons with another, relevant system of the described system’s governance and organization, the degree’s requirements and sequence, or the content of courses on well-defined, significant dimensions. Most are descriptive, but with an aspirational twist in the conclusion that results in recommendations as a way of summing up. Description is easier than comparison.

Third, in JPAE interest in publishing on PAE in the International Context is reasonably constant at a low level, but waxes and wanes. Given time lags, it is not likely to determine how much of this kind of variation is due to operational idiosyncrasies of the journal such as changes in journal editors or editorial policy, the commissioning of symposia, or article backlogs. Likewise, given the small numbers of articles, it is not immediately feasible to figure out how much of the change in JPAE international publication level is dependent on exogenous factors like national financing of study abroad programs or graduate education, or events of differing magnitudes ranging from global economic downturns to natural disasters, to national emergencies like 9/11. Clearly there is relation between the decisions of journal editors and external events: examination of the topics on Table 2 shows that several were the result of a symposium and were targeted at problems of post-soviet PAE. That observed, it does seem like more than notional generalizations can be drawn here.

Fourth, the explanation for why Description is preferred over Prescription is not immediately obvious. In the fifty-nine JPAE International-PAE articles considered here, few are Prescriptive. One candidate explanation for this fact is that the dominance of a scientific point of view and training among scholars interested in PAE which requires well-developed theories and reliable and sizable data sets and that intellectually licenses generalization from cases in a precise and controlled manner difficult and perhaps impossible. Allied to this point is the relative difficulty in acquiring cross-national or regional data sets or collecting that data when compared with national data or which may be readily available or experience which is case-based. The obverse of this point is the reluctance of those with scientific points of view to take strong, exhortative positions based on experience rather than data. Accordingly, many articles considered here use much of their effort to “describe” a situation minutely in order to treat it as data for the object of analysis. Similarly, these points may help to explain why there is less published about Pedagogy and Teaching Methods in the articles looked at in JPAE. In short, unless an experiment is conducted, it is problematic to construct much on this topic that is other than experiential. Too, even if one wishes to use quasi-experiment, it is difficult to get data on Pedagogy and Teaching Methods in PAE for this purpose. There are fewer public sources for this information than other PAE topics. For example, the information on particular degrees and programs is often available in published catalogs or on websites. When it comes to Pedagogy and Teaching Methods in PAE, data must be collected through interview or observation. Also, it may be that teaching-related research which is Prescriptive is more often reported in other venues such as specialized journals on teaching.

Conclusion

This article looked at how 59 articles on PAE in the International Context were selected from a universe of JPAE articles published over the years that mentioned the key terms of international, global, comparative, or foreign. It reported how these 59 articles were analyzed qualitatively twice in two passes. In the first pass it used iterative coding and data reduction to develop cross-cutting national context factors and academic areas found in the set of articles and the main themes in each of these factors and areas were summarized for further use and research. In the second pass, in order to get a picture of the articles that was less dense than in the first, the factors and areas were used to reanalyze the articles using iterative coding and data displays. This pass produced a topic-ordered display of cross-cutting PAE Topics and International Emphases of those JPAE articles with an International Context. Next, the topic-ordered display was analyzed quantitatively by cross-tabulating International Emphases with PAE Topics to determine the frequencies of occurrence for the 59 articles in each category. Also, the frequency of publication by year was tabulated to look at trends over time in publication of the 59 articles in JPAE.

What the analysis reveals about JPAE’s publication record on PAE in the International Context is that its performance is solid. It has published a steady stream of these type of pieces and the rate of publication has been increasing in the last five years. As a corpus, the 59 articles have made at least one contribution to all PAE topics. Most of these articles are descriptive and focus on one country rather than being globally oriented. The countries covered range from Afghanistan to Singapore (unfortunately, not Zimbabwe). Taken together they present an impressive data base of country-specific cases that depict PAE systems, approaches, programs, and problems all over the world. Fewer of the articles are prescriptive in that they strongly advocate courses of actions in general or particular and generalized improvements in global PAE. As might be expected, the tacit assumption across the set of articles is the leadership of the U.S. as the gold-standard in PAE.

Given that this is a Descriptive article about on an international topic, it should offer some recommendations or lessons learned to be in keeping with the others of its type. First, JPAE editors should take steps to ensure that the rate of International Context publications stays constant or increases and that the sort of publication drought observed in 1998 and 1999 does not occur again. This might be accomplished by soliciting articles for a yearly symposium or a call at specific conferences. Second, JPAE might seek more articles on Pedagogy and Teaching methods. This is the least represented PAE topic area of them all and it is a fruitful area for expansion. Descriptive reports of teaching methods from various countries could be both interesting and useful as well as providing an additional outlet for the U.S. experience as compared with other countries. In addition, some of the earlier themes could be taken up again and revisited, for example immersion as a pedagogical orientation. Third, an opportunity for JPAE in the future is to pay even closer attention to not only increasing publications in the least robust areas, but in looking for articles to capitalize on trends and themes or recapture lost ones. For example, it would be interesting to follow up some of the cases in the former Soviet-bloc or to run a yearly survey on study abroad programs or to devote more research to looking at service learning in PAE.

The purpose of this analysis was to see what has been accomplished in looking at PAE in International Context over the last twenty-five years. It shows many successes and a solid foundation. It suggests many continued and new opportunities and that the sky is the limit for JPAE in the next twenty-five years.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bruce J. Perlman

Bruce J. Perlman is Director and Regents’ Professor of the School of Public Administration at the University of New Mexico. He served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Public Affairs Education in 2006.

Notes

1. The author realizes that not all whose work is categorized here will agree with the categories selected or the categorization of their articles. Even so, it is hoped they will think that, as Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy said of Hegel, “This illustrates an important truth, namely, that the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences.”