Topic Modeling the Research‐Practice Gap in Public Administration

• Author: Arjen Witteloostuijn,Jiasheng Zhang,Yanto Chandra,Richard M. Walker
• Published date: 01 November 2019
• Date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13095

Topic Modeling the Research-Practice Gap in Public Administration 931

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 79, Iss. 6, pp. 931–937. © 2019 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13095.

Topic Modeling the Research-Practice Gap in Public

Administration

Abstract: The possible existence of a research-practice gap is the topic of a long-standing debate in the field of public

administration. In this Viewpoint essay, the authors examine the agendas of scholars and practitioners using the topic

modeling technique of computational social science. Topic modeling a content analysis of 35 topics identified in Public

Administration Review and PA Times (3,796 articles) showed that just over 50 percent of topics were common

to both groups, indicating shared interests. There were, however, topics that the two groups distinctly focused on.

Moreover, scholars and practitioners attached significant differences to the weights allocated to the prominent topics in

their writing. Taken together, these findings indicate that topic modeling can shed new light on the research-practice

gap in public administration.

Simon (1947) famously described public

administration as a design science solving

complex, human-related, real-world

problems. Central to solving these problems are

the scholars and practitioners who constitute the

public administration “community.” However, the

literature on the relationships between scholars and

practitioners has typically highlighted challenges:

for instance, Newland (2000) discussed “struggles

for connectedness.” Scholars are concerned about

the extent to which their research can engage and

contribute to practice, while practitioners lament

the fact that scholarly work is not easily understood,

too abstract, or offers limited wisdom for practice.

This is what some authors have called the “two

communities” phenomenon or the “research-practice

gap” (Edwards 2005; Newman, Cherney, and Head

2016).

In this debate, one stream of research has suggested

that practitioners do not use or value academic

research, implying that there is a lack of congruence

between scholarly research and practice (Howlett and

Newman 2010). This disconnect can be explained

by the ambiguous and often conflicting goals and

expectations of research in universities vis-à-vis what

is needed in practice (van Witteloostuijn 2016).

However, another stream of research has suggested

that academic research is valuable to practitioners and

has a concrete influence on their policy advice and

decision making.

Studies have shown that policy makers use research

to varying degrees, depending on the questions

asked, the level of risk involved, and the area in

which they work, suggesting that the interaction

between policy and academia should not be seen as

a disconnect but as a continuum (Jennings and Hall

2012; Newman, Cherney, and Head 2016). To date,

studies on the research-practice gap have mainly

used observational data from surveys or interviews.

In contrast, our study used a computational social

science technique, topic modeling, to examine

whether scholars and practitioners are at opposite

ends of the continuum or whether there is common

ground between them.

We addressed this issue by identifying scholars’ and

practitioners’ topics of interest. By identifying the

main topics of concern for both groups, we could

better articulate and map their relative location in the

gap to stimulate a new conversation about how to

bridge this gap. We used topic modeling, a machine

learning technique, to analyze the content of the titles

and abstracts of Public Administration Review (PAR)

and PA Times (PAT) articles over the last decade.1 We

identified and compared various topic areas derived

from the text corpora. The analysis suggests common

ground in the gap: the two groups shared the same or

similar interests in 18 topics—just over 50 percent of

the topics—while differences were found in 17 topics.

However, the weights assigned to these topics by

scholars and practitioners varied, showing subtle but

important differences in the main topics of interest

for both groups, indicating a research-practice gap.

The findings are indicative of a continuum and not a

disconnect, but with the balance being at the side of

disjoint interests.

Jiasheng Zhang is a PhD candidate in

the Askew School of Public Administration,

Florida State University, and senior research

associate at City University of Hong Kong.

He studies public management (public

service performance, innovation, and

collaborative governance) and public

policy (sustainability policy). He is well

trained in quantitative methods, including

experimental design and big data.

Email: jzhan39@cityu.edu.hk

Stephen E. Condrey

and Tonya Neaves,

Associate Editors

Viewpoint

Yanto Chandra is associate professor in

the Department of Applied Social Sciences,

Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His

research examines questions of strategy

and performance in social innovation/social

entrepreneurship and public policy and

their linkages to sustainable development.

He is passionate about applying novel

methods, including quantitative text

analysis, computational linguistics, and

computational social sciences techniques.

Email: yanto.chandra@polyu.edu.hk

Richard M. Walker is dean of

the College of Liberal Arts and Social

Sciences, director of the Laboratory for

Public Management and Policy, and Chair

Professor of Public Management in the

Department of Public Policy, City University

of Hong Kong. His research examines

questions of management and performance

in public organizations, and he seeks to use

novel research methodologies to explore

those issues.

Email: rmwalker@cityu.edu.hk

Arjen van Witteloostuijn is dean

and professor in the School of Business and

Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the

Netherlands, and professor of business and

economics at in the Antwerp Management

School, University of Antwerp, Belgium.

His research is multidisciplinary, spanning

business, economics, political science, public

administration, psychology, and sociology.

Email: a.van.witteloostuijn@vu.nl

Richard M. Walker

Yanto Chandra

Jiasheng Zhang

Arjen van Witteloostuijn

City University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong Polytechnic University

City University of Hong Kong and Florida State University

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and University of Antwerp