“…Most studies did not discuss criteria that justified the choice and delimited the boundary of the “case” studied (i.e., the case study or the bounded cases for field studies and ethnographies, which Ragin [] calls the overall “casing” process underlying any study). Among the few articles carefully reporting the rationale behind the overall “case” selection was Mele and Ongaro (), who justify their two reform case studies after providing a comprehensive framework of the Italian government reforms between 1992 and 2007. In contrast, most authors did not explain the selection criteria and took for granted, for example, that a local government in the United Kingdom, or, for that matter, in the United States or India, would represent a legitimate bounded case.…”
Section: Results: the Practice Of Qualitative Researchmentioning
Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five‐year period (2010–14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.
“…Most studies did not discuss criteria that justified the choice and delimited the boundary of the “case” studied (i.e., the case study or the bounded cases for field studies and ethnographies, which Ragin [] calls the overall “casing” process underlying any study). Among the few articles carefully reporting the rationale behind the overall “case” selection was Mele and Ongaro (), who justify their two reform case studies after providing a comprehensive framework of the Italian government reforms between 1992 and 2007. In contrast, most authors did not explain the selection criteria and took for granted, for example, that a local government in the United Kingdom, or, for that matter, in the United States or India, would represent a legitimate bounded case.…”
Section: Results: the Practice Of Qualitative Researchmentioning
Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five‐year period (2010–14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.
“…As Mele and Ongaro (2014) said Italy is a privileged context in which to analyse the processes of modernization of Public Administrations. Indeed, with its 18 Governments since 1990 today, Italy represents a critical case (Yin 2009) to study the effects of tumultuous alternation in government on public management reform trajectory.…”
Section: Italian Public Administration: An Open-ended Construction Sitementioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present the CVF framework has never been tested in contexts where reforming action is vague and is characterized by changes and continuous reflections on the changes introduced. The present study aims to analyze the functioning of the tool with regard to a context characterized by brief duration of political leadership due to high government turnover (Mele & Ongaro 2014), and continued uneven homogeneous reforms. The paper aims to discuss the modifications brought about by context.…”
Competing Value Framework (CVF) is a framework used to assess organizational culture in public administration and it is widely used in health services research to assess organizational culture as a predictor of quality improvement, employee and patient satisfaction, and team functioning. At present the CVF framework has never been tested in contexts where reforming action is vague and is characterized by changes and continuous reflections on the changes introduced. The present study try to fill this gap analysing how CVF works in a context characterized by continued uneven homogeneous reforms. The paper has theoretical and practical implication depicting also suggestions for politicians.
“…The November 2002 general elections marked the end of this temporal context. Mele and Ongaro (, p. 129), in their analysis of Italian public sector reforms, point out that the length of the temporal context shapes the strategies and expectation of entrepreneurs to a great extent: [U]nder circumstances of consistent political instability, that is to say when policy entrepreneurs are aware of the likelihood of a short cycling, technical feasibility tends to be assessed and sought mostly in terms of temporal feasibility (i.e., the ability of policy entrepreneurs to couple the streams within a short timeframe).…”
Section: So What? Discussion and Directions For Future Researchmentioning
Summary
How and with what effect policy entrepreneurship occurs is a persistent and intriguing question for scholars of public policy and administration and political science. So far, the main interest has been on policy entrepreneurship in developed countries rather than developing countries, which largely remains a black box. Adopting a systematic approach to reviewing the literature, this article aims to fill this void. It investigates when, why, and how policy and institutional reforms in developing countries take place, with special reference to the role of policy entrepreneurs. It reviews selected articles published in the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Social Science Citation Index database from 1984 to 2018. It aims to show the current state of empirical and theoretical knowledge about policy entrepreneurship in developing countries and persistent knowledge gaps. The present review contributes to the body of knowledge on this topic in three main ways. First, we provide a comprehensive review of policy entrepreneurship in developing countries. Second, we consolidate existing research in the political science, public policy and administration, and politicial economy disciplines. Third, we establish connections between fragmented literatures, identify gaps between different research streams, and suggest promising paths for future research on policy entrepreneurship in developing countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
