Much of the public administration literature over the last 50 years has focused on the perceived gap between theory and practice, and recent studies examine the implications of such a gap for implementing and engaging in e-government initiatives. To identify solutions to such a gap, however, one must first establish that it exists. This qualitative study analyzes syllabi of 57 Master of Public Administration and Master of Public Policy (MPA/MPP) programs to assess their emphasis on information technology (IT) competencies. Our findings indicate that MPA/MPP programs teach a variety of IT components, but topics are not evenly dispersed or taught in all programs. It is beyond debate whether or not technology skills are required in the workplace—they are. This study endeavors to identify which of these skills are taught in graduate programs aimed at preparing students for the workplace—one increasingly geared toward government-citizen interaction through computer-mediated tools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrudneyJ.HyR. J.WaughW. L. (1993). Building microcomputing skills in public administration graduate education: An assessment of MPA programs.Administration and Society, 25(2), 183–203.
2.
ClarkeR. A.KnakeR. K. (2014). Cyber war. Old Saybrook, CT: Tantor Media.
3.
CulnanM. J. (2011). Social perspectives on information privacy. In van TilborgH. C. A.JajodiaS., Encyclopedia of cryptography and security (2nd ed., pp. 1228–1229). Berlin: Springer.
4.
DawesS. S. (2004). Training the IT-savvy public manager: Priorities and strategies for public management education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(1), 5–17.
5.
DenhardtR. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education.Public Administration Review, 61(5), 526–534.
6.
DesouzaK. C.BenoyJ. (2014, November 6). Big data in the public sector: Lessons for practitioners and scholars. Administration and Society, 1–22.
7.
DunleavyP.HoodC. (1994). From old public administration to new public management.Public Money and Management, 14(3), 9–16.
8.
EngelbertE. A. (1977). University education for public policy analysis.Public Administration Review, 37(3), 228–236.
9.
FerrandinoJ. (2014). Incorporating GIS as an interdisciplinary pedagogical tool throughout an MPA program.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 529–544.
10.
ForerP.UnwinD. (1999). Enabling progress in GIS and education. In LongleyP. A.GoodchildM. F.MaguireD. J.RhindD. W., Geographical information systems: Management issues and applications (2nd ed., pp. 747–757). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
11.
GibsonP. A.DeadrickD. (2010). Public administration research and practice: Are academician and practitioner interests different?Public Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 145–168.
12.
GreenR. T.WamsleyG. L.KellerL. F. (1993). Reconstituting a profession for American public administration.Public Administration Review, 53(6), 516–524.
13.
GreenhillM.MetzC.StanderP. (1982). The case for a competence-based public administration curriculum for urban managers.Innovative Higher Education, 7(1), 27–43.
14.
GrizzleG. A. (1985). Essential skills for financial management: Are MPA students acquiring the necessary competencies?Public Administration Review, 45(6), 840–844.
15.
HollowM. (2013). Crowdfunding and civic society in Europe: A profitable partnership?Open Citizenship, 4(1), 68–73.
16.
HolzerM.LinW. (2007). A longitudinal perspective on MPA education in the United States.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2), 345–364.
17.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). (2015, April 30). Practices for effective local government management. Retrieved from http://icma.org/en/university/about/management_practices.
18.
KimS.LayneK. (2001). Making the connection: E-government and public administration education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4), 229–240.
19.
KnottJ. H. (2013). Looking outward: The changing context of public service education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(1), 1–8.
20.
LazenbyS. (2010). The adequacy of MPA course content in preparing local government managers.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(3), 337–360.
21.
LeipL. A. (1999). An Internet integration plan for the MPA curriculum: A case study of Florida Atlantic University.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(3), 247–261.
22.
ManoharanA. (2013). A study of determinants of county e-government in the United States.American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 159–178.
23.
MergelI. (2012). The public manager 2.0: Preparing the social media generation for a networked workplace.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 467–492.
24.
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA), Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation. (2014). NASPAA standards: Accreditation standards for master’s degree programs. Retrieved from https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/naspaa-accreditationstandards.pdf.
25.
ParkH. M.ParkH. (2006). Diffusing information technology education in Korean undergraduate public affairs and administration programs: Driving forces and challenging issues.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(4), 537–555.
26.
PosnerP. L. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for reengaging practitioners and academics.Public Budgeting and Finance, 29(1), 12–26.
27.
RocheleauB. (1998). The MPA core course in information technology: What should be taught? Why?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(3), 193–206.
28.
Saint-GermainM. A.OstrowskiJ. W.DedeM. J. (2000). Oracles in the ether: Using an e-mail Delphi to revise an MPA curriculum.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 6(3), 161–172.
29.
ZuckermanE. (2014). New media, new civics?Policy and Internet, 6(2), 151–168.
