Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework
Public administration scholarship reflects a multidisciplinary field in which many theoretical perspectives coexist. However, one of the dark sides of such theoretical pluralism is methodological fragmentation. It may be hard to assess the research quality and to engage with the findings from studie...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3313 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4570/viewcontent/EnhancingMethodologicalReporting_2020_av.pdf |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-smu-ink.soss_research-4570 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-smu-ink.soss_research-45702021-06-11T06:16:41Z Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework MELE, Valentina ESTEVE, Marc LEE, Seulki BEL, Germa CAPPELLARO, Giulia PETROVSKY, Nicolai OSPINA, Sonia M. Public administration scholarship reflects a multidisciplinary field in which many theoretical perspectives coexist. However, one of the dark sides of such theoretical pluralism is methodological fragmentation. It may be hard to assess the research quality and to engage with the findings from studies employing different methodologies, thus limiting meaningful conversations. Moreover, the constant race across social sciences to make methodologies more sophisticated may exacerbate the separation between academic and practitioner audiences. To counterbalance these two trends, this article aims at increasing methodological intelligibility in our field. It does so starting from the idea that each methodology entails choices in the conventional phases of research design, data collection, and data analysis, and that these choices must be reported. The paper nails down and exemplifies such reporting needs for five selected methodologies: survey studies, quantitative experimental studies, quantitative observational studies, qualitative case studies and ethnographies. Based on their discussion and comparison, the paper offers a framework composed by functional equivalents, that is to say, the common denominator among methodological reporting needs. Methodological choices that need reporting include the rationale for the selection of a methodology, delimitation of the study, the research instrument, data processing and ethical clearance. Increasing methodological reporting would facilitate dialogues among different methodological communities, and with practitioner readers. All of which would also promote field building in the scholarship of public administration. 2020-11-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3313 info:doi/10.1177/0275074020933010 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4570/viewcontent/EnhancingMethodologicalReporting_2020_av.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School of Social Sciences eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Methodologies reporting research methods research traditions Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration |
institution |
Singapore Management University |
building |
SMU Libraries |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
SMU Libraries |
collection |
InK@SMU |
language |
English |
topic |
Methodologies reporting research methods research traditions Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration |
spellingShingle |
Methodologies reporting research methods research traditions Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration MELE, Valentina ESTEVE, Marc LEE, Seulki BEL, Germa CAPPELLARO, Giulia PETROVSKY, Nicolai OSPINA, Sonia M. Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework |
description |
Public administration scholarship reflects a multidisciplinary field in which many theoretical perspectives coexist. However, one of the dark sides of such theoretical pluralism is methodological fragmentation. It may be hard to assess the research quality and to engage with the findings from studies employing different methodologies, thus limiting meaningful conversations. Moreover, the constant race across social sciences to make methodologies more sophisticated may exacerbate the separation between academic and practitioner audiences. To counterbalance these two trends, this article aims at increasing methodological intelligibility in our field. It does so starting from the idea that each methodology entails choices in the conventional phases of research design, data collection, and data analysis, and that these choices must be reported. The paper nails down and exemplifies such reporting needs for five selected methodologies: survey studies, quantitative experimental studies, quantitative observational studies, qualitative case studies and ethnographies. Based on their discussion and comparison, the paper offers a framework composed by functional equivalents, that is to say, the common denominator among methodological reporting needs. Methodological choices that need reporting include the rationale for the selection of a methodology, delimitation of the study, the research instrument, data processing and ethical clearance. Increasing methodological reporting would facilitate dialogues among different methodological communities, and with practitioner readers. All of which would also promote field building in the scholarship of public administration. |
format |
text |
author |
MELE, Valentina ESTEVE, Marc LEE, Seulki BEL, Germa CAPPELLARO, Giulia PETROVSKY, Nicolai OSPINA, Sonia M. |
author_facet |
MELE, Valentina ESTEVE, Marc LEE, Seulki BEL, Germa CAPPELLARO, Giulia PETROVSKY, Nicolai OSPINA, Sonia M. |
author_sort |
MELE, Valentina |
title |
Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework |
title_short |
Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework |
title_full |
Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework |
title_fullStr |
Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework |
title_full_unstemmed |
Enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: The functional equivalents framework |
title_sort |
enhancing methodological reporting in public administration: the functional equivalents framework |
publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3313 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4570/viewcontent/EnhancingMethodologicalReporting_2020_av.pdf |
_version_ |
1770575755288248320 |