The Case for Gauging as a Research Purpose in Public Administration: Connecting Purpose, Frameworks, Design, and Norms in Applied Research

• Published date: 01 February 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241303932
• Author: Patricia M. Shields,Mattia Casula,Nandhini Rangarajan
• Date: 01 February 2025

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241303932

Administration & Society

2025, Vol. 57(2) 281 –309

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997241303932

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Perspectives

The Case for Gauging as

a Research Purpose in

Public Administration:

Connecting Purpose,

Frameworks, Design,

and Norms in Applied

Research

Patricia M. Shields1, Mattia Casula2,

and Nandhini Rangarajan1

Abstract

This article proposes “gauging” as an unrecognized and useful research purpose

for public administration. Unlike an explanatory research purpose, which uses

an experimental logic and hypotheses, gauging incorporates a logic of rating

and frameworks like standards. It is used in normative assessments such as

accreditation, process evaluation, and regulatory policy. We argue that it should

be part of public administration’s research tradition because it is widespread in

public administration, links to applied research and practice, provides summative

and formative assessment, connects evidence to the logic of law, and draws on

pragmatism as a link to theory and mixed methods.

Keywords

research methods, applied research, assessment, pragmatism, academic-

practitioner, pracademic

1Texas State University, San Marcos, USA

2University of Bologna, Italy

Corresponding Author:

Mattia Casula, Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Strada

Maggiore 45, Bologna 40125, Italy.

Email: mattia.casula@hotmail.it

1303932AAS0010.1177/00953997241303932Administration & SocietyShields et al.

research-article2024

282 Administration & Society 57(2)

Introduction

Questions about the quality of research methods used in public administra-

tion (PA) have been around for a long time.1 Recently, Zhu et al. (2019)

called for a more concentrated focus on methods, noting that unlike other

fields there is no journal in PA devoted to research methods. They are con-

cerned with the relevance of the field to practitioners and see difficulties

around research methods as central to the identity crisis in PA. In addition,

they find too much focus on quantitative studies and causal inference and

call for greater pluralism in research methodology and “rigorous designs

motivated by the purpose of the research” (p. 7).

This article responds to their call. Although Zhu et al. (2019) most likely

were focusing their attention at the individual study level, we believe their

work shines a light on the importance and connection between design and

research purpose. Stepping back and taking a macro view, we draw on

Babbie’s (2007) and others’2 taxonomy of research purposes (explanation,

description, and exploration). We will show an underlying connection

between these purposes and research design. More importantly, we argue that

Babbie’s taxonomy is incomplete for public administration. We make the

case that a fourth purpose, “gauging,” should be added to the taxonomy.

Hence, we present gauging as an essential but unrecognized research purpose

for public administration. We discuss its widespread use in the practice of

public administration, its potential for framework development, and the kind

of researchers that should benefit from it.

Gauging is a normative research purpose that employs a logic of rating

and is often used in assessment. It has the potential to provide pathways to

improve the processes and activities of public administration as well as to

promote meaningful connections within and across the PA landscape.

Explanatory research generally employs quantitative methods and hypothe-

ses to examine causal connections with external validity. Gauging by contrast

often uses standards and case study methods to assess a process or program.

Explanatory research dominates the academic journals of public administra-

tion. As a new methodological instrument, gauging enables better under-

standing of administrative processes and their final impact on society.

Gauging research is more often connected to the world of practice and applied

research, for example, to accreditation of Master of Public Administration

(MPA) programs.

When an MPA program undergoes accreditation, it begins with a self-

study. This report, which is reviewed by the accrediting body, uses a set of

standards to structure the program review. It is a key document essential to

determining whether a program should be accredited. This self-study is a