Revisiting the academic–practitioner divide: Evidence from computational social science and corpus linguistics.
As a design science, public administration is focused on addressing real‐world problems. However, within public administration argument and evidence on the relevance of academic research to practice agendas is equivocal. We investigate the "academic–practitioner divide" using computational social sc...
| Publicado en: | Public Administration Review Vol. 83; no. 6; pp. 1599 - 1618 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Nov2023
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=173627273&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 173627273 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00333352 PBA jtl: Public Administration Review issn: 00333352 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Nov2023 vid: 83 iid: 6 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 173627273 10.1111/puar.13724 ppf: 1599 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P size: 595KB tig: atl: Revisiting the academic–practitioner divide: Evidence from computational social science and corpus linguistics. aug: au: Walker, Richard M. Zhang, Jiasheng Chandra, Yanto Dong, Binzizi Wang, Yao affil: Laboratory for Public Management and Policy, Department of Public and International Affairs, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Department of Government and Public Administration, Humanities and Social Sciences Building (E21B), University of Macau, Taipa, Macau, China su: Public administration Corpora Linguistic analysis Design science University research sug: subj: Public administration Other General Government Support Corpora Linguistic analysis Design science University research ab: As a design science, public administration is focused on addressing real‐world problems. However, within public administration argument and evidence on the relevance of academic research to practice agendas is equivocal. We investigate the "academic–practitioner divide" using computational social science techniques to identify the topics of "academic," "academic–practitioner," and practitioner corpora over a 25‐year period. Topic modeling results of the 50 topics identified in each of these corpora suggest that the topics of academics and practitioners have more differences than similarities: nearly seven‐tenths of the identified topics differ between the practice corpus and the academic and academic–practice corpora. Corpus linguistics analysis is applied to contrast the keyness of topics over time, and the results confirm the largely different agendas of the corpora albeit with some convergence on governance and outcomes. Corpora examined in this article is largely suggestive of a lack of relevance of academic research to practice agendas. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|