RNICE Model: Evaluating the Contribution of Replication Studies in Public Administration and Management Research

• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12910

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 4, pp. 606–612. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12910.

606 Public Administration Review • July | A ugus t 201 8

Research Article RNICE Model: Evaluating the Contribution of Replication

Studies in Public Administration and Management Research

Abstract: Replication studies relate to the scientific principle of replicability and serve the significant purpose of

providing supporting (or contradicting) evidence regarding the existence of a phenomenon. However, replication

has never been an integral part of public administration and management research. Recently, scholars have called

for more replication, but academic reflections on when replication adds substantive value to public administration

and management research are needed. This article presents the RNICE conceptual model, for assessing when and

how a replication study contributes knowledge about a social phenomenon and advances knowledge in the public

administration and management literatures. The RNICE model provides a vehicle for researchers who seek to evaluate

or demonstrate the value of a replication study systematically. The practical application of the model is illustrated using

two published replication studies.

Evidence for Practice

• Replication is the process of repeating previous research efforts with the aim of confirming or extending

previous findings and serves the important purpose of providing supporting (or contradicting) evidence

regarding the existence of a phenomenon.

• Academic reflections on when and how replication adds substantive value to public administration and

management research remain implicit and sparse.

• This article presents the RNICE conceptual model to guide both scholars (producers of information)

and public administration professionals (consumers of information) when evaluating the contributions of

replication studies.

Mogens Jin Pedersen

VIVE – The Danish Centre of Applied Social Science

Aarhus University

Justin M. Stritch

Arizona State University

Justin M. Stritch is assistant professor

at Arizona State University's School of

Public Affairs and senior research affiliate

at the Center for Organization Research

and Design. His research focuses on work

motivation, public management and

performance, employee decision making,

and organizational sustainability.

E-mail: jstritch@asu.edu

Mogens Jin Pedersen is senior

researcher at VIVE – The Danish Centre of

Applied Social Science and postdoctoral

researcher in the Department of Political

Science at Aarhus University. His research

focuses on public management and

performance, employee motivation and

decision making, cognitive biases, and

research methodology.

E-mail: mjp@vive.dk

Replicability is a key tenet of the scientific

method and positivist epistemological

approaches to research. As Epstein (1980,

796) notes, “[t]here is no more fundamental

requirement in science than the replicability of

findings be established.” The validity of scientific

claims depends on the extent to which analyses

are reproducible and analytical results are reliable

and generalizable to other situations and subjects

(Campbell and Stanley 1963). Replication—the

process of repeating previous research efforts with the

aim of confirming or extending previous findings—

speaks to the principle of replicability.

Replication serves the important purpose of providing

supporting (or contradicting) evidence regarding the

existence of a phenomenon (Collins 1992; Mackey

2012). In statistical terms, replication lowers the

probability of Type I or Type II error in the testing of

any null hypothesis (Cohen 1994; Phye, Robinson,

and Levin 2005; Robinson and Levin 1997) and

provides a control for systematic extraneous variables

possibly having confounded previous findings

(Krauth 2000; Schmidt 2009). Moreover, meta-

analysis is widely thought to be the platinum standard

of evidence (Stegenga 2011)—and replications of

previous research findings are a requirement for

conducting them (Makel and Plucker 2014).1 While

replication is not a panacea (Makel, Plucker, and

Hegarty 2012; Pashler and Wagenmakers 2012),

dismissing replication implies a value of novelty

over truth (Nosek, Spies, and Motyl 2012) and a

misconception of science. As Tukey (1969, 84) notes,

“[c]onfirmation comes from repetition. Any attempt

to avoid this statement leads to failure and more

probably to destruction.”

Replication studies play an integral role in the natural

sciences for testing the reliability and demonstrating

the generalizability of scientific findings (Madden,

Easley, and Dunn 1995). However, replication has

never been an integral part of public administration

and management research. As Walker, James, and

Brewer (2017, 1231) note, “Replication is not very

widespread in public management, partly because

replications are difficult to publish and faculty