《公共管理与政策研究方法论》课程2016年秋季
教学大纲
1. 方法论导论、科学哲学
课件
课程阅读资料(标*为研究范例,其他为拓展性文献)
何艳玲. (2007). 问题与方法:近十年来中国行政学研究评估(1995—2005). 政治学研究(1), 93-104.
Wu, X., He, Y.-L., & Sun, M. T.-W. (2013). Public administration research in mainland China and Taiwan: An assessment of journal publications, 1998-2008. Public Administration, 91(2), 261-280.
吕芳, 王梦凡, & 陈欢舸. (2015). 对21世纪以来中国公共行政学研究的评估与反思——基于 2001~2013年间的4659篇论文. 政治学研究(2), 92-103.
张建民, & 江华. (2009). 国际学术界对中国公共管理的研究现状——论题、理论视角与方法. 公共管理学报, 6(2), 1-13.
杨开峰. (2016). 强化公共管理实证研究势在必行. In 钟杨 (Ed.), 实证社会科学 (Vol. 1, pp. 25-35). 上海: 上海交通大学出版社.
Perry, J. L. (2012). How can we improve our science to generate more usable knowledge for public professionals? Public Administration Review, 72(4), 479-482.
Kelman, S. (2005). Public management needs help! Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 967-969.
Stout, M. (2012). Competing ontologies: A primer for public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 388-398.
课程阅读资料(标*为研究范例,其他为拓展性文献)
何艳玲. (2007). 问题与方法:近十年来中国行政学研究评估(1995—2005). 政治学研究(1), 93-104.
Wu, X., He, Y.-L., & Sun, M. T.-W. (2013). Public administration research in mainland China and Taiwan: An assessment of journal publications, 1998-2008. Public Administration, 91(2), 261-280.
吕芳, 王梦凡, & 陈欢舸. (2015). 对21世纪以来中国公共行政学研究的评估与反思——基于 2001~2013年间的4659篇论文. 政治学研究(2), 92-103.
张建民, & 江华. (2009). 国际学术界对中国公共管理的研究现状——论题、理论视角与方法. 公共管理学报, 6(2), 1-13.
杨开峰. (2016). 强化公共管理实证研究势在必行. In 钟杨 (Ed.), 实证社会科学 (Vol. 1, pp. 25-35). 上海: 上海交通大学出版社.
Perry, J. L. (2012). How can we improve our science to generate more usable knowledge for public professionals? Public Administration Review, 72(4), 479-482.
Kelman, S. (2005). Public management needs help! Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 967-969.
Stout, M. (2012). Competing ontologies: A primer for public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 388-398.
2. 方法论流派
课件
课程阅读材料
Riccucci, N. M. (2010). Envisioning public administration as a scholarly field in 2020: Rethinking epistemic traditions. Public Administration Review, 70, s304-s306.
Luton, L. S. (2007). Deconstructing public administration empiricism. Administration & Society, 39(4), 527-544.
Luton, L. S. (2008). Beyond empiricists versus postmodernists. Administration & Society, 40(2), 211-219.
Lynn, L. E., Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2008). The empiricist goose has not been cooked! Administration & Society, 40(1), 104-109.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2008). Reconstructing empirical public administration: Lutonism or scientific realism? Administration Society, 40(3), 324-330.
Lee, M. (2006). Empirical experiments in public reporting: Reconstructing the results of survey research, 1941-42. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 252-262.
Pitts, D. W., & Fernandez, S. (2009). The state of public management research: An analysis of scope and methodology. International Public Management Journal, 12(4), 399 - 420.
Groeneveld, S., Tummers, L., Bronkhorst, B., Ashikali, T., & van Thiel, S. (2015). Quantitative methods in public administration: Their use and development through time. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 61-86.
Morçöl, G., & Ivanova, N. P. (2010). Methods taught in public policy programs: Are quantitative methods still prevalent? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2), 255-277.
Gill, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 157-199.
Vogel, R. (2010). Parallel, transfer or collaboration strategy of relating theory to practice? A case study of public management debate in Germany. Public Administration, 88(3), 680-705.
Barzelay, M., & Thompson, F. (2009). All aboard? Evidence-based management and the future of management scholarship. International Public Management Journal, 12(3), 289 - 309.
Lan, Z., & Anders, K. K. (2000). A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test. Administration Society, 32(2), 138-165.
Moon, M. J., Kim, G., & Lee, M. J. (2014). Korean public administration research 1999-2009: Research themes, methodologies, and scholarship. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(2), 151-167.
课程阅读材料
Riccucci, N. M. (2010). Envisioning public administration as a scholarly field in 2020: Rethinking epistemic traditions. Public Administration Review, 70, s304-s306.
Luton, L. S. (2007). Deconstructing public administration empiricism. Administration & Society, 39(4), 527-544.
Luton, L. S. (2008). Beyond empiricists versus postmodernists. Administration & Society, 40(2), 211-219.
Lynn, L. E., Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2008). The empiricist goose has not been cooked! Administration & Society, 40(1), 104-109.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2008). Reconstructing empirical public administration: Lutonism or scientific realism? Administration Society, 40(3), 324-330.
Lee, M. (2006). Empirical experiments in public reporting: Reconstructing the results of survey research, 1941-42. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 252-262.
Pitts, D. W., & Fernandez, S. (2009). The state of public management research: An analysis of scope and methodology. International Public Management Journal, 12(4), 399 - 420.
Groeneveld, S., Tummers, L., Bronkhorst, B., Ashikali, T., & van Thiel, S. (2015). Quantitative methods in public administration: Their use and development through time. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 61-86.
Morçöl, G., & Ivanova, N. P. (2010). Methods taught in public policy programs: Are quantitative methods still prevalent? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2), 255-277.
Gill, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 157-199.
Vogel, R. (2010). Parallel, transfer or collaboration strategy of relating theory to practice? A case study of public management debate in Germany. Public Administration, 88(3), 680-705.
Barzelay, M., & Thompson, F. (2009). All aboard? Evidence-based management and the future of management scholarship. International Public Management Journal, 12(3), 289 - 309.
Lan, Z., & Anders, K. K. (2000). A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test. Administration Society, 32(2), 138-165.
Moon, M. J., Kim, G., & Lee, M. J. (2014). Korean public administration research 1999-2009: Research themes, methodologies, and scholarship. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(2), 151-167.
3. 研究问题、研究综述与研究评价
课件
课程阅读材料
马骏. (2015). 公共行政学的想象力. 中国社会科学评价, 1(1), 17-35.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23-44.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363-390.
Behn, R. D. (1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review, 55(4), 313-324.
Kirlin, J. J. (1996). The big questions of public administration in a democracy. Public Administration Review, 56(5), 416-423.
Mingus, M. S., & Jing, Z. (2016). The big questions of Chinese public management research. Administration & Society, forthcoming.
*Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 48(66), 48-66.
*Walker, R. M., & Andrews, R. (2015). Local government management and performance: A review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 101-133.
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9-15.
Kieser, A., Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2015). The practical relevance of management research: Turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 143-233.
Stige, B., Malterud, K., & Midtgarden, T. (2009). Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(10), 1504-1516.
Library Genesis, http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
ResearchGate, http://researchgate.net/
课程阅读材料
马骏. (2015). 公共行政学的想象力. 中国社会科学评价, 1(1), 17-35.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23-44.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363-390.
Behn, R. D. (1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review, 55(4), 313-324.
Kirlin, J. J. (1996). The big questions of public administration in a democracy. Public Administration Review, 56(5), 416-423.
Mingus, M. S., & Jing, Z. (2016). The big questions of Chinese public management research. Administration & Society, forthcoming.
*Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 48(66), 48-66.
*Walker, R. M., & Andrews, R. (2015). Local government management and performance: A review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 101-133.
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9-15.
Kieser, A., Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2015). The practical relevance of management research: Turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 143-233.
Stige, B., Malterud, K., & Midtgarden, T. (2009). Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(10), 1504-1516.
Library Genesis, http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
ResearchGate, http://researchgate.net/
6. 理论与理论构建、因果关系论证
课件
课程阅读材料
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29-55.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281-1303.
Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315-333.
Gerring, J. (2010). Causal mechanisms: Yes, but…. Comparative Political Studies, 43(11), 1499-1526.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. The American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765-789.
Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies? Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 1-21.
彭玉生. (2011). 社会科学中的因果分析. 社会学研究(3), 1-32.
课程阅读材料
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29-55.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281-1303.
Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315-333.
Gerring, J. (2010). Causal mechanisms: Yes, but…. Comparative Political Studies, 43(11), 1499-1526.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. The American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765-789.
Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies? Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 1-21.
彭玉生. (2011). 社会科学中的因果分析. 社会学研究(3), 1-32.
7. 实验设计
课件
课程阅读材料
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), 409-429.
Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (2006). The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 627-635.
Bouwman, R., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2016). Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: A systematic literature review and ways forward. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 110-131.
Margetts, H. Z. (2011). Experiments for public management research. Public Management Review, 13(2), 189 - 208.
Anderson, D. M., & Edwards, B. C. (2015). Unfulfilled promise: Laboratory experiments in public management research. Public Management Review, 17(10), 1518-1542.
Jilke, S., Van de Walle, S., & Kim, S. (2016). Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to public administration. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 69-72.
Blom-Hansen, J., Morton, R., & Serritzlew, S. (2015). Experiments in public management research. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 151-170.
Baekgaard, M., Baethge, C., Blom-Hansen, J., Dunlop, C. A., Esteve, M., Jakobsen, M., et al. (2015). Conducting experiments in public management research: A practical guide. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 323-342.
Birdsall, C. (2015). The synthetic control method for comparative case studies: An application estimating the effect of managerial discretion under performance management. International Public Management Journal, forthcoming.
Robinson, G., McNulty, J. E., & Krasno, J. S. (2009). Observing the counterfactual? The search for political experiments in nature. Political Analysis, 17(4), 341-357.
King, G., Gakidou, E., Ravishankar, N., Moore, R. T., Lakin, J., Vargas, M., et al. (2007). A "politically robust" experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican universal health insurance program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(3), 479-506.
课程阅读材料
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), 409-429.
Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (2006). The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 627-635.
Bouwman, R., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2016). Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: A systematic literature review and ways forward. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 110-131.
Margetts, H. Z. (2011). Experiments for public management research. Public Management Review, 13(2), 189 - 208.
Anderson, D. M., & Edwards, B. C. (2015). Unfulfilled promise: Laboratory experiments in public management research. Public Management Review, 17(10), 1518-1542.
Jilke, S., Van de Walle, S., & Kim, S. (2016). Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to public administration. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 69-72.
Blom-Hansen, J., Morton, R., & Serritzlew, S. (2015). Experiments in public management research. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 151-170.
Baekgaard, M., Baethge, C., Blom-Hansen, J., Dunlop, C. A., Esteve, M., Jakobsen, M., et al. (2015). Conducting experiments in public management research: A practical guide. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 323-342.
Birdsall, C. (2015). The synthetic control method for comparative case studies: An application estimating the effect of managerial discretion under performance management. International Public Management Journal, forthcoming.
Robinson, G., McNulty, J. E., & Krasno, J. S. (2009). Observing the counterfactual? The search for political experiments in nature. Political Analysis, 17(4), 341-357.
King, G., Gakidou, E., Ravishankar, N., Moore, R. T., Lakin, J., Vargas, M., et al. (2007). A "politically robust" experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican universal health insurance program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(3), 479-506.
8. 调查设计
课件
课程阅读材料
Lee, G., Benoit-Bryan, J., & Johnson, T. P. (2012). Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 87-97.
Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3-30.
Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285-308.
Wong, C. S., Peng, K. Z., Shi, J., & Mao, Y. (2011). Differences between odd number and even number response formats: Evidence from mainland Chinese respondents. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2), 379-399.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429-456.
Walker, R. M., & Enticott, G. (2004). Using multiple informants in public administration: Revisiting the managerial values and actions debate. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 417-434.
Enticott, G., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2009). The use of multiple informants in public administration research: Data aggregation using organizational echelons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 229-253.
课程阅读材料
Lee, G., Benoit-Bryan, J., & Johnson, T. P. (2012). Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 87-97.
Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3-30.
Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285-308.
Wong, C. S., Peng, K. Z., Shi, J., & Mao, Y. (2011). Differences between odd number and even number response formats: Evidence from mainland Chinese respondents. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2), 379-399.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429-456.
Walker, R. M., & Enticott, G. (2004). Using multiple informants in public administration: Revisiting the managerial values and actions debate. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 417-434.
Enticott, G., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2009). The use of multiple informants in public administration research: Data aggregation using organizational echelons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 229-253.
9. 二手数据分析
课件
课程阅读材料
Heinrich, C. J., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2001). Means and ends: A comparative study of empirical methods for investigating governance and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 109-138.
Fernandez, S., Resh, W. G., Moldogaziev, T., & Oberfield, Z. W. (2015). Assessing the past and promise of the federal employee viewpoint survey for public management research: A research synthesis. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 382-394.
Moynihan, D. P. (2013). Advancing the empirical study of performance management: What we learned from the program assessment rating tool. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 499-517.
King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(3), 444-452.
Einav, L., & Levin, J. (2014). Economics in the age of big data. Science, 346(6210), 715-721.
King, G. (2011). Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science, 331(6018), 719-721.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569.
课程阅读材料
Heinrich, C. J., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2001). Means and ends: A comparative study of empirical methods for investigating governance and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 109-138.
Fernandez, S., Resh, W. G., Moldogaziev, T., & Oberfield, Z. W. (2015). Assessing the past and promise of the federal employee viewpoint survey for public management research: A research synthesis. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 382-394.
Moynihan, D. P. (2013). Advancing the empirical study of performance management: What we learned from the program assessment rating tool. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 499-517.
King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(3), 444-452.
Einav, L., & Levin, J. (2014). Economics in the age of big data. Science, 346(6210), 715-721.
King, G. (2011). Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science, 331(6018), 719-721.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569.
10. 质性研究设计
课程阅读材料
Brower, R. S., Abolafia, M. Y., & Carr, J. B. (2000). On improving qualitative methods in public administration research. Administration & Society, 32(4), 363-397.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862.
Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 233-237.
Bailey, M. T. (1992). Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public administration research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47-54.
Barzelay, M. (1993). The single case study as intellectually ambitious inquiry. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 305-318.
Jensen, J. L., & Rodgers, R. (2001). Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 235-246.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(02), 341-354.
张建民, & 何宾. (2011). 案例研究概推性的理论逻辑与评价体系—--基于公共管理案例研究样本论文的实证分析. 公共管理学报, 8(2), 1-20.
Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). It's about time: Catching method up to meaning - the usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 143-157.
Dodge, J., Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2005). Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 286-300.
Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). Narrative inquiry and the search for connectedness: Practitioners and academics developing public administration scholarship. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 409-423.
Borins, S. F. (2012). Making narrative count: A narratological approach to public management innovation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 165-189.
Zanetti, L. A. (1997). Advancing praxis: Connecting critical theory with practice in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 27(2), 145-167.
Cappellaro, G. (2016). Ethnography in public management research: A systematic review and future directions. International Public Management Journal, 1-35.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
Brower, R. S., Abolafia, M. Y., & Carr, J. B. (2000). On improving qualitative methods in public administration research. Administration & Society, 32(4), 363-397.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862.
Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 233-237.
Bailey, M. T. (1992). Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public administration research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47-54.
Barzelay, M. (1993). The single case study as intellectually ambitious inquiry. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 305-318.
Jensen, J. L., & Rodgers, R. (2001). Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 235-246.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(02), 341-354.
张建民, & 何宾. (2011). 案例研究概推性的理论逻辑与评价体系—--基于公共管理案例研究样本论文的实证分析. 公共管理学报, 8(2), 1-20.
Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). It's about time: Catching method up to meaning - the usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 143-157.
Dodge, J., Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2005). Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 286-300.
Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). Narrative inquiry and the search for connectedness: Practitioners and academics developing public administration scholarship. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 409-423.
Borins, S. F. (2012). Making narrative count: A narratological approach to public management innovation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 165-189.
Zanetti, L. A. (1997). Advancing praxis: Connecting critical theory with practice in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 27(2), 145-167.
Cappellaro, G. (2016). Ethnography in public management research: A systematic review and future directions. International Public Management Journal, 1-35.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
11. 混合研究设计
课程阅读材料
Haverland, M., & Yanow, D. (2012). A hitchhiker's guide to the public administration research universe: Surviving conversations on methodologies and methods. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 401-408.
*Li, H., Wing-Hung Lo, C., & Tang, S.-Y. (2016). Nonprofit policy advocacy under authoritarianism. Public Administration Review, forthcoming.
*Liu, N. N., Lo, C. W.-H., Zhan, X., & Wang, W. (2015). Campaign-style enforcement and regulatory compliance. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 85-95.
*Ni, N., & Zhan, X. (2016). Embedded government control and nonprofit revenue growth. Public Administration Review, forthcoming.
*Zhan, X., & Tang, S.-Y. (2013). Political opportunities, resource constraints and policy advocacy of environmental NGOs in China. Public Administration, 91(2), 381-399.
*Zhan, X., Lo, C. W.-H., & Tang, S.-Y. (2014). Contextual changes and environmental policy implementation: A longitudinal study of street-level bureaucrats in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 1005-1035.
* Zhan, Xueyong, & Tang, Shui-Yan (2016). Understanding the implications of government ties for nonprofit operations and functions. Public Administration Review. 76 (4), 589-600.
Haverland, M., & Yanow, D. (2012). A hitchhiker's guide to the public administration research universe: Surviving conversations on methodologies and methods. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 401-408.
*Li, H., Wing-Hung Lo, C., & Tang, S.-Y. (2016). Nonprofit policy advocacy under authoritarianism. Public Administration Review, forthcoming.
*Liu, N. N., Lo, C. W.-H., Zhan, X., & Wang, W. (2015). Campaign-style enforcement and regulatory compliance. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 85-95.
*Ni, N., & Zhan, X. (2016). Embedded government control and nonprofit revenue growth. Public Administration Review, forthcoming.
*Zhan, X., & Tang, S.-Y. (2013). Political opportunities, resource constraints and policy advocacy of environmental NGOs in China. Public Administration, 91(2), 381-399.
*Zhan, X., Lo, C. W.-H., & Tang, S.-Y. (2014). Contextual changes and environmental policy implementation: A longitudinal study of street-level bureaucrats in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 1005-1035.
* Zhan, Xueyong, & Tang, Shui-Yan (2016). Understanding the implications of government ties for nonprofit operations and functions. Public Administration Review. 76 (4), 589-600.
12. 研究计划书、论文写作与发表、研究伦理与学术规范
课件
课程阅读材料彭玉生. (2010). “洋八股”与社会科学规范. 社会学研究(2), 180-210.
Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., et al. (2014). Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 343(6166), 30-31.
Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Lanza Abbott, J., Angert, C., Joon Hyung Park, & Kohlhausen, D. (2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 515-539.
Pirog, M. A. (2014). The art and science of scholarly publishing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 843-853.
King, G. (2006). Publication, publication. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(01), 119-125.
Schroeder, L., O'Leary, R., Jones, D., & Poocharoen, O.-o. (2004). Routes to scholarly success in public administration: Is there a right path? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 92-105.
Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627-648.
Jordan, S. R., & Gray, P. W. (2014). Reporting ethics committee approval in public administration research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 77-97.
课程阅读材料彭玉生. (2010). “洋八股”与社会科学规范. 社会学研究(2), 180-210.
Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., et al. (2014). Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 343(6166), 30-31.
Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Lanza Abbott, J., Angert, C., Joon Hyung Park, & Kohlhausen, D. (2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 515-539.
Pirog, M. A. (2014). The art and science of scholarly publishing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 843-853.
King, G. (2006). Publication, publication. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(01), 119-125.
Schroeder, L., O'Leary, R., Jones, D., & Poocharoen, O.-o. (2004). Routes to scholarly success in public administration: Is there a right path? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 92-105.
Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627-648.
Jordan, S. R., & Gray, P. W. (2014). Reporting ethics committee approval in public administration research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 77-97.