An examination of dissertation research: The relationship between gender, methodological approach, and research design

References

• Adams, G., & White, J. (1994). Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 565–576. doi:10.2307/976677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allum, J. (2014). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2003 to 2013. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. (2015). Definitions related to sexual orientation and gender diversity in apa documents. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. (1995). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 10(3), 53–80. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb00737.x
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, A., Barth, A., & Rutherford, K. (2003). Do we preach what we practice” A survey of methods in political science journals and curricula. American Political Science Association, 36(3), 373–378.
   Google Scholar
• Box, R. (1992). An examiniation of the debate over research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 62–69. doi:10.2307/976547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, G., Facer, R., O’Toole, L., & Douglas, J. (1998). The state of doctoral education in public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(2), 123–135.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, R. (1972). Understanding women: Implication for personality theory and research. Journal of Social Issues, 17–32. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00015.x
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2016). 2015 update: Facts & s. bloomington. Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University School of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Cleary, R. (1992). Revisiting the doctoral disseration in public administration-An examination of the disserations of 1990. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 55–61. doi:10.2307/976546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Code, L. (1981). Is the sex of the knower epistemologically significant? Metaphilosophy, 12(4), 267–276. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1981.tb00760.x
   Google Scholar
• Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and construction of knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DiSalvo, D. (2013, December 8). PHARMA and healthcare, study: The brain of men and women are different with a few major caveats. Forbes Web site. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/12/08/study-the-brains-of-men-and-women-are-different-very-different/
   Google Scholar
• Eichler, M. (1997). Feminist methodology. Current Sociology, 45(2), 9–36. doi:10.1177/001139297045002003
   Google Scholar
• Foundation, N. S. (2017, June). 2015 doctorate recipients from U.S. Universities. Retrieved from November 11, 2017, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17306/report/about-this-report.cfm
   Google Scholar
• Grant, L., Ward, K., & Rong, X. (1987). Is there an association between gender and methods in sociological research? American Sociological Review, 52(6), 856–862. doi:10.2307/2095839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groeneveld, S., Tummers, L., Bronkhorst, B., Ashikali, T., & Van Thiel, S. (2015). Quantitative methods in public administration: their use and development throught time. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 61–86. doi:10.1080/10967494.2014.972484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunow, D. (1995). The research design in organization studies: Problems and prospects. Organization Science, 6(1), 93–103. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.1.93
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hays, D., & Singh, A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hy, R., Nelson, P., & Waugh, W. (1987). The future of public administration and quantiative skills. Public Administration Quarterly, 11(2), 134–149.
   Google Scholar
• Jaschik, S. (2010, September 14). Women Lean in Doctorates. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates
   Google Scholar
• Keller, E. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kellough, J. E., & Pitts, D. W. (2005). Who contributes to public administration review? Examining the characteristics of authors who subit manuscripts to the journal. Public Administration Revierw, 65(1), 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00425.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, M. (1985). Female sociologists’ productivity, collegial relationsm, and reserach style examined through journal publications. Sociology and Social Research, 69, 189–209.
   Google Scholar
• Mahon, G. (2013, December 3). Los Angeles times science. Retrieved from Los Angeles Times Web site: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-brain-gender-divide-20131202,0,3860854.story#axzz2n6Dt4yT0
   Google Scholar
• McDowell, L. (1992). Doing gender: feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(4), 399–416.
   Google Scholar
• Morcol, G., & Ivanova, N. (2010). Methods taught in public policy programs: Are quantitative methods still prevalent? Journal of Public Affairs Educations, 16(2), 255–277.
   Google Scholar
• NASPAA. (2014, May). 2014-2015 roster of accredited programs. Washington, D.C.: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. (2017, March 30). About NASPAA Accreditation. Retrieved from https://accreditation.naspaa.org/considering-accreditation/
   Google Scholar
• O’Shaughnessy, S., & Krogman, N. (2012). A revolution reconsidered? Examining the practice of qualitative reseach in feminist scholarship. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 37(2), 493–520. doi:10.1086/661726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, E., & Rassel, G. (1989). Research methods for public administrators. White Plains, NY: Longman Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Oakley, A. (1998). Gender, methodology and people’s ways of knowing: Problems with feminism and the paradigm debate of social science. Sociology, 32(4), 707–731. doi:10.1177/0038038598032004005
   Google Scholar
• ProQuest. (2017, July 24). Who We Are. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/about/who-we-are.html
   Google Scholar
• Raadschelders, J. C., & Lee, K. H. (2011). Trends in the study of public administration: Empirical and qualitative observation from public adminisration review, 2000-2009. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 19–33. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02303.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahm, D., Brittain, V., Brown, C., Garofalo, C., Rangarajan, N., Shields, P., & Yun, H. J. (2015). Exploring the demand for PhDs in public affairs and administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(1), 115–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riccucci, N. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, B. (2004). Separate roads to feminism: Black, chicana, and white feminist movements in America’s second wave. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social contruction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. doi:10.2307/2939044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz-Shea, P. (2003). Is this the curriculum we want? Doctoral requirements and offerings in methods and methodology. PS: Political Science & Politics, 36(3), 379–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stallings, R. (1986). Doctoral programs in public administration: An outsider’s perspective. Public Administation Review, 46(3), 235–240. doi:10.2307/3110438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stallings, R., & Ferris, J. (1988). Public administration reserarch: Work in PAR, 1940-1984. Public Administration Review, 48(1), 580–586. doi:10.2307/975522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, C. (2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Vogt, P., Gardner, D., & Haeffele, L. (2012). When to use what reserach design. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wallston, B. (1981). What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to reseach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(4), 597–617. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1981.tb00599.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wettenhall, R. (1997). Reflections on AJPA and other public administration journals. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56(1), 189–198. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.1997.tb01258.x
   Google Scholar
• White, J. (1986). Disserations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 227–234. doi:10.2307/3110437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinn, M., & Dill, B. (1996). Theorizing differences from multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321–331. doi:10.2307/3178416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar