Amplifying the Voices of Practitioners in PAR

• Author: James L. Perry
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12715
• Published date: 01 March 2017
• Date: 01 March 2017

Amplifying the Voices of Practitioners in PAR 157

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 2, pp. 157–158. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12715.

Amplifying the Voices of Practitioners in PAR Editorial

A n issue with which I have dealt since

becoming Public Administration Review ’s

( PAR ) Editor in Chief is how best for this

journal to capture the voices of practitioners. The

voice metaphor leads me to ask—how do we amplify

the voices of practitioners? PAR is a forum for

practitioners and scholars, and our goal therefore

is for the voices of both constituencies to resonate

loudly and clearly.

PAR ’s recent content reflects progress in amplifying

practitioner voices. In the five years since I became

Editor in Chief, we have continued the Theory to

Practice and Administrative Profile features begun

during Richard Stillman ’ s tenure. Theory to Practice,

intended to translate theory and related empirical

research into usable lessons for practitioners, is the

source of some of our most downloaded articles.

In addition to the Administrative Profile narratives

about public administration exemplars, we recently

introduced an interview format that gives exemplars

an opportunity to tell their story in their own words.

This issue showcases Michael Willis (Berman,

2016 ), a former ICMA President distinguished by

his serving as city manager in three countries on two

different continents. Our previous issue featured Paul

O ’ Neill (Perry, 2017 ), former Treasury Secretary and

Alcoa CEO.

PAR ’s Perspective essays offer a forum for opinion

leaders to share their insights and wisdom about

important issues on the public administration agenda.

Authors provide perspective about important issues or

challenges confronting public decision makers.

Evidence in Public Administration, a new feature

introduced last year (Isett, Head, and VanLandingham,

2016 ), showcases an exchange between a practitioner

and a scholar about the challenges of evidence

and where to find it. The lead essay, written by

a practitioner, is experiential, discussing how

organizations use evidence, or pointing to evidence

that is needed to make evidence-based decisions.

The practitioner essays are paired with a substantive

expert ’ s commentary about how the practitioner ’ s

comments and experiences align with known evidence

on the topic.

The regular features above are augmented by

editorial devices to further represent the professional

voice. Many of our articles are accompanied

by commentaries by leading professionals. The

commentaries offer context and professional

perspectives—added value—about articles. We

introduced Practitioner Points for many articles in

2016 to offer practitioners key takeaways.

Changing Landscape

Perhaps the most vexing challenge, one that dates

back more than four decades, is the dearth of articles

authored by practitioners. This journal was founded

by people who occupied both the domains of practice

and scholarship. The likes of Luther Gulick, Louis

Brownlow, Paul Appleby, and David Lilienthal

epitomized early contributors to PAR .

Much has changed since the first days of PA R ,

foremost the highly differentiated nature of the

research enterprise. The standards for good science,

using both quantitative and qualitative methods, have

advanced far beyond what passed for good science

in the 1940s. It has become increasingly difficult for

practitioners to be scholars, too.

Institutions engaged in the research enterprise,

too, have changed. The Congressional Research

Service (CRS), long a home for contributors to this

journal, has ceased to play this role. Many of us can

remember the day when some of our most active

contributors were CRS staff, among them Ronald

Moe and Louis Fisher, who were regular contributors

to PAR on a range of important issues. In a recent

Washington Monthly article (Kosar 2015 ), Kevin

Kosar, a former member of the PAR editorial board,

paints a revealing picture of why he quit CRS after

eleven years. Among the reasons for the decline of

James L. Perry

Indiana University, Bloomington