ead any good public management research lately? If not, perhaps it's because the academic and practicing sides of the public administration profession are worlds apart. Sure, the research is typically sound. But is it relevant? Does it help federal managers find solutions to the real-world problems they face? Pick up any public administration journal and you'll see that the studies can be described collectively as "the good, the bad, and the barely useful." Unfortunately, the latter category seems to predominate.
At a time when federal managers are trying to run their programs more effectively-when they face constrained resources, competing demands, and low regard for government-solid research, analysis, and solutions to these challenges are needed. Academia has the talent, time and mandate to do this kind of research. But much of it misses the mark.
Academia hasn't necessarily been remiss. On the contrary, scholars don't always understand practitioners' research needs because practitioners rarely communicate with or enlist the assistance of faculty and students.
Washington is an excellent example. Five major universities are close to the downtown federal establishment-some federal managers have even received degrees from these schools-but only a handful of managers have attempted to build bridges between their offices and related university departments or programs. Ignorance of university resources and a "not invented here" attitude toward campus research, among other factors, have led federal managers to let a lot of academic talent go to waste.
Meeting Demand
A new market-driven approach to public administration research would better link the academic and federal communities. Universities could generate ideas that could be refined and implemented at government agencies. Students would be better trained to enter the federal government because they would understand its theory and practice.
The needs of the marketplace-in this case the federal and nonprofit sectors-should shape the university research agenda. Researchers may balk at being suppliers in a supplier-customer chain, but graduate programs should be a source of innovation and of the next generation of federal managers and scholars. Research done without the needs of the end user in mind is unlikely to improve the structures, products and processes of public administration, or to train students for an increasingly complex and demanding profession.
Missing the Mark
Currently, university faculty and doctoral candidates test new or existing theories to advance a basic understanding of public administration concepts. These ideas often are published and disseminated to the federal community, where they may or may not be put into practice.
The approach is similar to traditional scientific research, where technological innovation occurs on a spectrum that begins with basic research and ends with commercialization. Ph.D.s and engineers pursue knowledge for its own sake, without any specific products or applications in mind. Then the knowledge is passed along to the private sector, whose manufacturing and marketing people figure out how to commercialize it.
This research theory has led to the introduction of thousands of products and pharmaceuticals, but it has been criticized in recent years for its high cost and low payoff. Indeed, as the global economy became more competitive, corporate spending got tighter, and technology aged more rapidly, flaws became apparent. First, the approach assumes there is a dividing line between theory and practice. Basic research and commercialization are not two ends of a spectrum. Knowledge flows both ways and can even occur simultaneously, as in molecular biology and genetic engineering where researchers are engaged in both research and commercialization.
Second, the time lag between basic research and commercialization, which in some cases could be measured in decades, is unacceptable to private industry, which wants to get new products to consumers in mere months.
Some companies have become disenchanted with academic research. It wasn't that the talent is lacking, but corporate executives don't see the research as relevant to their needs.
Public administration research faces the same predicament. The major forces shaping how federal agencies are run today--total quality management, business process reengineering, the National Performance Review and the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act-are based on concepts that originated in the business world, not in government.
A Partnership
Market-driven research has helped the scientific community to better link the research capital of universities with the research needs of private industry. It has sped the innovation process and helped restore the country's ability to compete in the world marketplace. How was it done?
Universities and private companies began a variety of collaborative efforts. For example, companies began participating in university industrial liaison programs (ILP), where, for a fee, they received privileged access to university research information. ILP membership gives companies a university contact who can identify ongoing research of interest to the company, or identify a specific researcher at the university who may be able to assist companies with problems. Industry has endowed research, donated equipment and funded entire research labs that put corporate scientists and engineers in daily contact with their university counterparts.
Other companies have forged closer ties with university research by sending people instead of dollars to campuses. Japanese companies, for example, renowned for their ability to turn basic research into consumer products, reportedly send their best scientists and engineers to study at universities.
The result has been that universities better understand the needs of private industry. Universities are aligning their research with business objectives. What's more, students graduate with a better understanding of production and marketing practices, thereby facilitating innovation.
Public administration researchers can benefit from the lessons the scientific community has learned in fostering closer ties between academics and practitioners.
Professors and federal managers need to talk so that faculty members can understand government's needs, and federal managers can become familiar with campus resources. Just like in the hard sciences, federal managers should be encouraged to study at colleges and universities, explore the training opportunities at campuses, and work with faculty members to tailor courses for federal employees.
Federal managers should teach at universities, and academia should welcome them. Their practical experience would clearly benefit students, but universities seem to place a higher value on recruiting those with doctoral degrees, research and publications. Doesn't practical knowledge count for anything anymore?
Federal managers should make a greater effort to engage faculty and students in their work. Faculty members could serve on advisory panels, act as a sounding board for new ideas and work as consultants. Students can be brought in as interns, part-time employees or to help out on special projects.
Such relationships help build a stronger public administration infrastructure-a powerful network of students, faculty and public managers that develops, shares and applies the tools, techniques and personnel essential for good government.
Conferences also can forge closer partnerships between the academic and federal communities. The American Society for Public Administration, for example, a professional organization with large contingents from both sectors, could help develop a research agenda of the most pressing problems facing public service. Universities could use the agenda to guide their research, knowing that the results could have immediate application.
For the scientific community, failure to close the gulf between universities and industry would have further eroded the nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace. For the federal community, the consequences of failure are just as dire: more ineffective, costly and unresponsive government.
Robert Goldenkoff is a senior evaluator at the General Accounting Office and co-author of Federal Jobs: The Ultimate Guide (ARCO, 1997). His opinions are his own.
NEXT STORY: Top 200 Government Contractors 1-100