JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - National ...

Journal of Public Affairs Education Vol. 15, No.4 Fall 2009 

Fall 2009 Volume 15, No. 4 

JPAE 

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION 

Flagship Journal of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration 

Yongbeom Hur & Merl Hackbart 

MPA vs. MPP: A Distinction without a Difference? 

Kristina T. Lambright & Yi Lu 

What Impacts the Learning in Service Learning? An Examination 

of Project Structure and Student Characteristics 

David R. Schachter & Deena Schwartz 

The Value of Capstone Projects to Participating Client Agencies 

Julie Cencula Olberding 

Indirect Giving to Nonprofit Organizations: An Emerging Model 

of Student Philanthropy 

Jeremy L. Hall 

Cognitive Styles Matching: Expanding the Efficacy of Group 

Work in MPA Courses 

Mordecai Lee 

The Return of Public Relations to the Public Administration 

Curriculum? 

Roger E. Hartley 

Putting Yourself in Their Shoes: The Analysis of Real-World 

Disputes Through Group Field Projects 

Mark Speicher 

Book Review

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration 

(NASPAA) 

Marvin Mandell, President 

Jeffrey Raffel, Vice President 

Kathleen M. Beatty, Immediate Past President 

Laurel McFarland, Executive Director 

JPAE Oversight Committee: Kathleen Beatty, Melvin Dubnick & 

Charles Menifield 

Heather E. Campbell 

Editor-in-Chief, Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs 

Iris Geva-May, Associate Editor for International and Comparative Education, Simon Fraser University Public 

Policy Program 

Michael O’Hare, Associate Editor for the Assessment and Practice of Teaching, University of California, 

Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy 

Production Editor: Wendy Paulson Editorial Assistant: Jeffrey C. Callen 

EDITOR’S COUNCIL 

H. George Frederickson, Founding Editor, University of Kansas, 

Marc Holzer, Rutgers University 

Edward T. Jennings, University of Kentucky 

James L. Perry, Indiana University, Bloomington 

Mario A. Rivera, University of New Mexico 

BOARD OF EDITORS 

Guy Adams, University of Missouri, Columbia Lee Friedman, University of California, Berkeley 

Danny L. Balfour, Grand Valley State University Nicholas Giannatasio, University of North Carolina, 

Frances Stokes Berry, Florida State University 

Pembroke 

Stuart Bretschneider, Syracuse University 

Laura Langbein, American University 

Jonathan Brock, University of Washington 

Steven R.Maxwell, Florida Gulf Coast University 

John Bohte, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 

Kristen Norman-Major, Hamline University 

John M. Bryson, University of Minnesota 

Dorothy Olshfski, Rutgers University, Newark 

Beverly Bunch, University of Illinois, Springfield 

Stephen P. Osborne, University of Edinburgh 

N. Joseph Cayer, Arizona State University 

Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr., University of Georgia 

Cal Clark, Auburn University 

Patricia M. Shields, Texas State University 

Barbara Crosby, University of Minnesota 

James Svara, Arizona State University 

Robert B. Cunningham, University of Tennessee, Barton Wechsler, University of Missouri, Columbia 

Knoxville 

David Weimer, University of Wisconsin 

Jo Ann G. Ewalt, Eastern Kentucky University 

Howard Whitton, Griffith University 

Blue Wooldridge, Virginia Commonwealth 

University 

CORRESPONDENTS 

Charlene M. L. Roach, University of the West Indies, Khalid Al-Yahya, Dubai School of Government 

St. Augustine Campus 

Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. 

Claims for missing numbers should be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publishers expect to supply 

missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit. Subscription Rates: 

Institution, $125; Individual, $50; Student, $40; Non-U.S., add $20 to applicable rate. Electronic JPAE articles can be accessed at 

www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. Change of Address: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old and new 

addresses. Please allow four weeks for the change. Postmaster: Send address changes to JPAE, National Association of Schools of Public 

Affairs and Administration, 1029 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517. Educators and Copy Centers: Copyright 

2010 National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. All rights reserved. Educators may reproduce any material for 

classroom use only and authors may reproduce their articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce 

JPAE in all other instances. Please contact Jacqueline Lewis, NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 

20005-3517, phone: 202-628-8965, fax: 202-626-4978, email: jlewis@naspaa.org. The paper used in this publication meets the 

minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, 

ANSI Z39.48-1984. JPAE is abstracted or indexed in EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Education Full Text Index. ISSN 1523-6803 

(formerly 1087-7789).

Journal of Public Affairs Education 

Fall 2009 Volume 15, No. 4 

FROM THE EDITOR 

Heather E. Campbell, Ph.D. 

MPA vs. MPP: A Distinction Without a Difference? 

Yongbeom Hur & Merl Hackbart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 

What Impacts the Learning in Service Learning? 

An Examination of Project Structure and Student Characteristics 

Kristina T. Lambright & Yi Lu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 


David R. Schachter & Deena Schwartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 



Julie Cencula Olberding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 

Cognitive Styles Matching: Expanding the Efficacy of Group Work 

in MPA Courses 

Jeremy L. Hall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 

The Return of Public Relations to the Public Administration Curriculum? 

Mordecai Lee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 

Putting Yourself in Their Shoes: The Analysis of Real-World Disputes 

Through Group Field Projects 

Roger E. Hartley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 

Book Review 

Mark Speicher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Inside back cover 

Cover design by Jeffrey C. Callen, with Heather E. Campbell 

Cover design property of NASPAA 

Cover photo: Old Main, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ by Jeffrey C. Callen

FROM THE EDITOR 

Taken as a group, the articles in this issue of JPAE are particularly strong in 

moving toward one of the goals that Michael O’Hare, Associate Editor for the 

Assessment and Practice of Teaching, and I have for the Journal: including more 

outcomes assessment. We always value and enjoy the interesting ideas that 

colleagues have about creative ways to teach specific courses, but it also is 

important that we increase the amount of assessment in PA education. 

Performing outcomes assessments on our courses accords with much of what we 

teach our students. Further, colleges and universities increasingly are under 

external pressure to do just that. 

Though written separately, four of the articles in this issue address closely 

related topics and use multi-course comparisons to provide insight. “What 

Impacts the Learning in Service Learning” surveys 78 students and seven 

different MPA classes to understand what factors affect how much students 

learn during service-learning projects. The paper includes specific suggestions 

for faculty to improve student-perceived learning from such projects. “The 

Value of Capstone Projects to Participating Client Agencies” looks at Capstonebased 

service-learning projects, and considers how this now-widespread 

MPA/MPP-student experience assists the community. Its authors survey 42 

different clients to come up with suggestions for improving the value of these 

types of service-learning projects to those being served. Service-learning projects, 

Capstone courses, and other PA courses often involve group projects. “Cognitive 

Styles Matching” compares the use of Myers-Briggs Types in creating student 

groups, to other methods of group-construction in matched courses, and 

recommends the Myers-Briggs approach. “Indirect Giving to Nonprofit 

Organizations” studies a specific type of service learning that uses a new method 

of student philanthropy and compares it to the direct giving method. The article 

provides tradeoffs and lessons learned. 

Though not using course-based outcomes assessment, the other articles in this 

issue are also excellent and of general interest to JPAE’s readers. The first article in 

this issue, on whether the MPP and the MPA are actually different, is relevant to 

the ongoing conversation — some of it published in earlier issues of this volume 

of JPAE — regarding the revision of NASPAA’s standards. It is of interest to 

administrators, faculty, and students in MPA and MPP programs. Mordecai Lee’s 

paper on “The Return of Public Relations to the Public Administration 

Curriculum” gives us a different type of comparison — not between different 

types of PA degrees, but in terms of how PA degrees change over time. And, 

“Putting Yourself in Their Shoes” is a delightful example of creative pedagogy in 

the teaching of dispute resolution. This issue of JPAE also includes the first Book 

Review under our editorship, one that discusses, not only the book it reviews, 

but goals that doctoral students have for their degree programs. 

Journal of Public Affairs Education iii

Hard as it is to believe, with this issue, the first year of the Journal of Public 

Affairs Education being hosted by the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State 

University comes to an end. It’s been an exciting and productive year, and we 

are looking forward to 2010, which will include many stimulating articles, the 

NASPAA presidential address, another Teaching Public Affairs Conference 

(TPAC) symposium, and more book reviews. 

— Heather E. Campbell, Ph.D. 

Editor-in-Chief 

iv Journal of Public Affairs Education


MPA vs. MPP: 

A Distinction Without a Difference? 

Yongbeom Hur 

Appalachian State University 

Merl Hackbart 

University of Kentucky 

ABSTRACT 

Despite several scholarly inquiries, the question of whether there are critical 

differences between Masters of Public Administration (MPA) and Masters of 

Public Policy (MPP) programs continues in the minds of prospective students, 

potential employers, and university officials. Building on previous inquiries into 

this issue, we compare the core course content of selected MPA and MPP 

programs, and expand the study by investigating whether there is a correlation 

between the academic backgrounds of program faculty and the emphases in core 

curricula. We also surveyed departments or schools that have both MPA and MPP 

programs in order to determine the reasons for offering both programs and related 

issues — it was assumed that schools and departments offering both programs 

would have vetted program goals and content issues. Our study suggests that 

MPA and MPP program curricula differ. However, such differences seem more 

likely to be associated with faculty discipline differences than with a focus on 

providing graduates the core competencies required for job and career 

options/opportunities in these fields. 

RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND STUDY PURPOSES 

Outwardly, public affairs education programs have had one of two 

orientations — traditional public administration or public policy. Although the 

curriculum differences of the two programs — Master of Public Administration 

(MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) — may be less pronounced than 

they were two decades ago, it is assumed that these differences, among other 

factors, are what distinguish policy-focused programs from administrationoriented 

programs (Lowery & Whitaker, 1994, pp. 25-26). According to 

Elmore (1986), “analysis and economic theory are still the hallmark of public 

policy programs” (p. 70). To the founders of public policy schools, public 

JPAE 15(4): 397–424 Journal of Public Affairs Education 397


administration “wore the blinders of a single discipline (political science) and 

lacked in interdisciplinary vision,” and “the content and personnel of public 

administration were thought to be low in quality and academic prestige” 

(Stokes, 1986, p. 45). In fact, some researchers note that most public policy 

programs have been developed at elite universities (De Soto, Opheim, & Tajalli, 

1999; Ventriss, 1991). 

Regarding this division of public affairs education, Lowery and Whitaker 

(1994) raised a question, saying “If there are no differences, or only very minor 

differences in emphasis, then we must ask whether separate programs and 

professional associations 1 are warranted or whether differences should be 

restored” (p. 26). Among four categories 2 that Lowery and Whitaker suggested 

as possible difference areas to explore, De Soto et al. (1999) investigated (a) if 

the psychological dispositions of students entering public administration and 

public policy programs were different, and (b) if the socializing effects of each 

program’s respective curriculum were different. They did this by surveying 

members of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 

(APPAM) and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and 

Administration (NASPAA). Based on results that showed no difference in the 

psychological dispositions of students and the socializing effects of curricula 

between APPAM and NASPAA members, De Soto et al. (1999, pp. 88-89) 

suggested that the integration of the two orientations for public affairs 

education may become more complete as public administration programs adopt 

elements of policy evaluation and analysis, and public policy programs offer 

training in management and organizational behavior. 

The question of curriculum differences between public administration and 

policy analysis programs has been explored, and the general findings support 

Lowery and Whitaker’s (1994) argument that “the stark differences between 

public administration and public policy programs seem to have eroded with 

time” (p. 25). For example, in comparing the curriculum requirements of 35 

randomly selected NASPAA members and 16 randomly selected APPAM 

members, research by Averch and Dluhy (1992) indicated that curriculum 

differences between NASPAA and APPAM members were not substantial. 

Roeder and Whitaker (1993) analyzed curriculum components 3 of NASPAAaccredited 

MPA programs, and identified two distinct curriculum emphases — 

institutional-management orientations and analytical orientations. 4 Although 

Roeder and Whitaker (1993, p. 535) did not compare the curricula of NASPAA 

and APPAM members, they concluded that both analytical and public 

management approaches already were blended in NASPAA-accredited MPA 

programs, and therefore they expected no major differences between the 

curricula of NASPAA and APPAM members. 

The principal purpose of this study is to investigate, from core-curriculum 

content and other viewpoints, whether the distinction between MPA and MPP 

398 Journal of Public Affairs Education


programs represents a fundamental difference, or whether these programs just 

have different titles. To do this, a comprehensive investigation was conducted. 

That is, based on information collected through Web site visits and a survey, we 

compared anticipated job areas and positions, the desired competencies of 

graduates, and so on, in addition to performing a curriculum comparison. We 

then extended our inquiry to examine the association between core courses of 

MPA and MPP programs, and core faculty academic disciplines, in order to 

determine whether the faculty’s academic disciplinary backgrounds were 

correlated with the curriculum content of various MPA and MPP programs. 

This inquiry followed Denhardt’s (2001, p. 531) indication that the 

distinction of theory and practice in public affairs education might largely be 

determined by the experiences and interests of individual faculty, rather than 

by different students’ needs. In the same vein, Roeder and Whitaker (1993) 

explored the reasons why programs vary in their emphasis on curriculum 

components, with an expectation that the key factor for differences in 

program curricula might be the program faculty’s disciplinary backgrounds 

and specializations. 

However, due to data unavailability in their investigation, Roeder and 

Whitaker (1993) only examined MPA programs, and used surrogate variables 

such as minimum hours of degree requirements, percentage of full-time nucleus 

faculty, and percentage of full-time students. In our study, we obtained 

information from university Web sites in the U.S. about program faculty’s 

academic disciplines, and the curriculum structure of their MPA and MPP 

programs. This information was used to investigate program similarities and 

differences, as well as possible associations between faculty backgrounds and 

curriculum emphasis. By providing a more comprehensive assessment of the 

possible relationships between MPA and MPP curricula, faculty compositions, 

and other motivations for offering these programs, this study helps answer 

Lowery and Whitaker’s (1994) questions of whether program distinctions are 

real, and whether they should be sustained. 

Therefore, this study contributes to the literature as follows. First, we 

investigated similarities and differences between policy-oriented schools and 

administration-oriented schools, in a more direct and comprehensive manner 

than previous studies. Unlike extant studies that focus on only curriculum 

differences (Averch & Dluhy, 1992; Roeder & Whitaker, 1993), we compared 

job areas and positions expected to be filled by graduates, competencies desired 

for graduates, and curricula. We surveyed directors of schools or departments 

that offer both MPA and MPP programs, and asked them how the programs are 

different in terms of (a) curriculum content, (b) expected career areas and job 

positions, (c) the desired competencies that each program aims to achieve for its 

graduates, and (d) major reasons for offering MPP programs. Given that they 

offer both degrees, these institutions also might offer unique insights into the 

Journal of Public Affairs Education 399


similarities and differences in MPA and MPP programs. Second, we compared 

curricula of MPA programs with those of MPP programs in order to make a 

direct curriculum comparison between policy-oriented and administrationoriented 

schools. In previous studies that compared program curricula, 

researchers ignored a group of schools that offered different degrees 5 or both 

MPA and MPP degrees because they randomly selected NASPAA members and 

APPAM members. Although APPAM and NASPAA members are public policyand 

public administration-oriented, respectively, merely comparing randomly 

selected curricula of their members can be arbitrary. 6 Third, we investigated the 

association between curriculum contents and the faculty’s disciplinary 

backgrounds in these programs. 

This effort will help determine whether these programs have different 

curriculum emphases, which is believed to be a way of distinguishing policyfocused 

programs from administration-oriented programs (Lowery & 

Whitaker, 1994). 

METHODOLOGY 

In order comprehensively to investigate whether the MPA vs. MPP 

distinction is fundamental or merely a difference in title, we conducted three 

assessments: 

• A comparison of MPA and MPP core curricula that were similar to the 

comparisons of previous studies; 

• An analysis of faculty academic-discipline backgrounds, in order to 

determine whether the curriculum emphasis bears a relationship to 

faculty backgrounds; and 

• A survey of program directors at the schools and departments that offer 

both degrees, in order to determine differential program goals, program 

structural design themes, and desired competencies for program 

graduates, as well as any possible recruitment and placement pattern 

distinctions. 

We conducted an Analysis of Variance 7 (ANOVA) when we investigated 

curriculum differences (i.e., the first assessment), and the relationships between 

curriculum composition and the faculty’s disciplinary backgrounds (i.e., the 

second assessment). 

To acquire program curriculum and faculty background information, in 

November and December 2005, we researched the Web sites of all 60 schools 

with both NASPAA and APPAM memberships (dual-membership schools), 8 

and we also randomly selected 30 schools that only had NASPAA memberships, 

and that offered only NASPAA-accredited MPA programs. During this Web-site 

research process, we collected data on the schools’ core curricula of MPA and 

MPP programs, and their core faculty members’ academic backgrounds. To 

follow up on earlier empirical studies (Averch & Dluhy, 1992; De Soto et al., 



1999; Roeder & Whitaker, 1993) — ones that conducted limited comparisons 

and indicated no substantial differences between public policy and public 

administration schools — this review examined the same question across more 

various categories of schools and departments (i.e., NASPAA members only, 

APPAM members only, and dual-membership schools), and in a more 

comprehensive manner. Like other curriculum-comparison studies, we assumed 

that a curriculum-content analysis would reveal the core competencies that 

MPA and MPP program faculty and directors believe are important for 

students’ success, and therefore would assist in answering the key question of 

this inquiry — are these programs truly different? 

In addition to Web-site visits, surveys were sent in May 2006 to the program 

directors of 12 dual-membership schools that offered both MPA and MPP 

programs. The surveys asked respondents to provide detailed information about 

the motivation for offering both MPA and MPP programs, including the main 

reasons for establishing each program, the desired competencies of students 

completing each program, and the targeted career and job opportunities for 

MPA and MPP degree recipients. 

In the first assessment — analyzing curriculum composition — we ignored 

elective courses and focused on required core courses. Nor did the analysis include 

capstone seminars and internship courses, although either one or both are included 

in most MPA and MPP programs. As noted previously, in order to make a 

comprehensive comparison, we researched the curricula of MPA and MPP 

programs in various categories — schools offering both MPA and MPP programs, 

schools offering only MPA programs, and schools offering only MPP programs. As 

seen in Table 1, in order to facilitate a curriculum comparison between the 

programs, we grouped courses into six areas, including, for example, (a) economics 

& policy analysis, (b) finance & budgeting, and (c) organization & human 

resource management. Core courses that did not fit into one of the six specific 

categories shown in Table 1 were put into the “others” category. The percentage of 

each core course area was calculated by dividing each core area’s credit hours by the 

total credit hours of core courses required for the various degree programs. 

While we investigated school Web sites for MPA and MPP programs, we 

observed that program faculty members usually had academic backgrounds in 

such disciplines as political science, public administration, economics, and 

others (e.g., management, sociology, and psychology). In the second assessment, 

therefore, we examined the association between these three major disciplines — 

political science, public administration, and economics — and six common core 

course areas, as seen in Table 2. When collecting information about facultymembers’ 

academic backgrounds, we limited our research to core faculty 9 with 

doctoral degrees, because we assumed that other faculty 10 were less involved in 

making decisions about department curriculum composition and structure than 

the core faculty with doctoral degrees. We categorized all other academic 



disciplines — management, sociology, and psychology — as “other” (See 

Appendix D), and when academic backgrounds were not clear on the Web sites, 

we also included these faculty in the “other” discipline category. We identified 

core faculty academic backgrounds based on Web-site information 11 and did not 

request additional information from the schools when their faculty’s academic 

disciplinary backgrounds were not available online. 

School/department Web sites typically did not provide enough information 

regarding such program design issues as the reasons for establishing each 

program (MPA and/or MPP), desired competences to be achieved by program 

completion, and expected job opportunities upon graduation. Therefore, in 

May 2006, we sent a questionnaire requesting insights and observations on 

these issues to the directors of all 12 schools 12 that offered both MPA and MPP 

programs (See Appendix B for the list). We assumed that schools or 

departments with both MPA and MPP degree programs were the most capable 

of responding to survey questions that focused on obtaining insights about 

program design and goals, as well as the differences and similarities between the 

two programs. Seven schools responded to the survey. 

RESULTS 

Assessment 1: Curriculum Comparison 

As mentioned previously, although different curriculum emphasis has been 

believed to distinguish policy-focused (MPP) programs from administrationoriented 

(MPA) programs (Elmore, 1986; Lowery & Whitaker, 1994), empirical 

studies (e.g., Averch & Dluhy, 1992; De Soto et al., 1999; Roeder & Whitaker, 

1993) have reported limited differences of curriculum, and suggested that an 

integration of the two orientations for public affairs education may be emerging. 

In this study, we investigated the same question with the following hypothesis, 

based on the findings of previous studies: 

Hypothesis 1: The curriculum composition of MPP programs is not 

different from that of MPA programs. 

The table in Appendix C summarizes the percentages of each core course area 

for different categories of schools. In the table, we observe that MPA programs 

in any school category have lower percentages of “economics & policy analysis” 

and higher percentages of “finance & budgeting” and “organization & human 

resource management” in their curricula than MPP programs do. Research 

method courses, however, seem to be similarly emphasized for both MPA and 

MPP programs. Although research course content (econometrics, basic 

regression, survey research, etc.) might differ, we assumed that research course 

content was generally equivalent across programs. (See Appendix C.) 

To test Hypothesis 1, we ran an ANOVA, using various school categories, in 

order to determine if the mean proportion of each course among core curriculum 



courses is different, depending on whether they are for MPA or MPP programs. 

As seen in Table 1, overall comparison shows that the curriculum emphasis of 

MPP programs was significantly different from that of MPA programs, except in 

policy process and research method courses. Further analysis reveals that MPA 

programs put more emphasis on “finance & budgeting,” public management, 

and “organization & human resource management,” while MPP programs placed 

more stress on “economics & policy analysis.” However, no curriculum 

composition differences were found when we compared MPA and MPP 

programs within schools that offer both MPA and MPP programs (N = 12). In 

sum, the results do not support Hypothesis 1, which was based on extant 

empirical results, but support theoretical arguments that curricula are different 

between policy-focused and administration-oriented programs. (See Table 1.) 

Assessment 2: The Impact of Faculty Academic Disciplines 

As seen in Appendix D, schools offering only MPA programs appear to have 

more core faculty members with doctorates in public administration, and fewer 

core faculty members with doctorates in economics, than schools offering only 

MPP programs, or those offering both MPA and MPP programs. However, we 

did not observe any obvious differences between MPA and MPP programs in 

the share of the faculty that hold Ph.D.s in political science. (See Appendix D.) 

Following Roeder and Whitaker’s (1993, p. 524) and Denhardt’s (2001, p. 531) 

arguments about faculty’s influence on course structure in their programs, we 

posited a hypothesis about the association between core faculty’s academic 

backgrounds, and course composition in their core curriculum: 

Hypothesis 2: Core courses of MPA and MPP programs are associated 

with their core faculty members’ academic backgrounds. 

To test this hypothesis in a comprehensive manner, we ran an ANOVA in 

different school categories — such as schools overall, schools offering MPAs, 

and schools offering MPPs. We also checked for any correlations between core 

courses and core faculty disciplines, in order to understand how faculty 

disciplines could be associated with core course emphases (correlation results not 

shown). For example, positive correlations would indicate more emphasis on the 

core courses when an ANOVA shows significant results. In the overall 

comparison of Table 2, programs with more faculty members who have 

doctorates in economics are likely to put more emphasis on “economics & 

policy analysis” and less emphasis on “organization & human resource 

management.” However, we found that, in the overall comparison, programs 

with more faculty members with doctorates in public administration are more 

likely to stress “organization & human resource management.” When we 

examined schools offering only the MPA compared to dual-membership 

schools, we observe that programs with more doctorates in political science or 



Table 1. 

ANOVA Results for Core Courses in MPA and MPP Programs 

Core Course Areas (F-Statistics) 

Research 

Methods 

Organization 

& HRMb Public 

Mngt 

Policy 

Process 

Finance & 

Budgeting 

Economics & 

Policy Analysis 

Comparison 

MPA (74) a vs. MPP (21) 30.60*** 12.02*** 2.79 8.02** 15.85*** 0.06 

Overall 

Comparison 

MPA-Only (32) vs. MPP-Only (9) 19.21*** 5.24* 0.26 12.79** 3.06 0.96 

0.33 0.41 1.64 0.27 0.00 0.08 

MPA of Both MPA- & MPP-Offered (12) 

vs. MPP of Both MPA- & MPP-Offered (12) 

Among 

Dual-Membership 

Schools 

404 Journal of Public Affairs Education 

62.63*** 13.08*** 12.32** 6.57* 34.03*** 0.00 

MPA-Only of NASPAA-Only Members (30) 

vs. MPP of Dual Members (21) 

MPA-Only of NASPAA-Only Members (30) 

vs. MPP of Both MPA- & 

MPP-Offered of Dual Members (12) 

NASPAA-Only 

Members vs. Dual- 

Membership 

Schools 

41.36*** 10.57** 9.40** 1.98 34.59*** 0.40 

Note. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 

a. Number of schools analyzed 

b. “HRM” is Human Resources Management


public administration are more likely to emphasize “finance & budgeting” and 

“organization & human resource management.” Although these associations are 

observed, the basis of the association is not clear. That is, curriculum 

composition may influence hires or faculty composition may influence 

curriculum content. 

Our analysis revealed that programs with higher percentages of faculty 

members with economics doctoral degrees are associated with more emphasis on 

“economic & policy analysis” and less emphasis on “organization & human 

resource management.” In addition, “organization & human resource 

management” courses are stressed more when the programs have relatively more 

faculty members with doctorates in public administration. When the programs 

have more faculty members with doctorates in political science, “finance & 

budgeting” is emphasized more. In sum, the core courses such as “economics & 

policy analysis,” “finance & budgeting,” and “organization & human resource 

management” are associated with faculty academic disciplines, while the other 

core courses such as policy process, public management, and research methods 

are not. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported. It should be noted that 

only the core courses that are differently emphasized by MPA and MPP 

programs have significant relationships with faculty academic disciplines. This 

analysis suggests an association rather than causality between core curriculum 

content and faculty members’ academic disciplines. Given the association we 

found, schools that have more faculty members with doctorates in a specific 

academic discipline appear to be more likely to have core curricula that contain 

more courses associated with that discipline. At the same time, the association of 

faculty background and core curriculum content may suggest that programs 

with an emphasis in certain academic content may attract faculty with similar 

academic backgrounds. Therefore, if there is any causal relationship between a 

faculty’s academic background and the core curriculum content, it remains 

ambiguous and indeterminate. (See Table 2.) 

Since more emphasis is placed on “economics & policy analysis” in MPP 

programs (contrary to Hypothesis 1) and core faculty academic disciplines have 

a partial impact on core courses (partially supporting Hypothesis 2), we 

examined the impact of core faculty disciplines on offering MPP programs and 

being APPAM members. In fact, all MPP programs are offered by APPAMmember 

schools, regardless of whether they belong only to APPAM or are dualmembership 

schools. According to ANOVA results in Table 3, among three 

major core faculty disciplines, economics and public administration are 

associated with offering MPP programs and being APPAM members. Further 

analysis (not shown) revealed that, in these programs, more faculty with 

doctorates in economics or fewer faculty with doctorates in public 

administration were significantly associated with offering MPP programs and 

being APPAM members. (See Table 3.) 



Table 2. 

ANOVA Results for Core Courses and Faculty’s Academic Disciplines 

Core Courses (F-Statistics) 

Research 

Methods 

Organization & 

Human Resource Mngt 

Public 

Mngt 

Policy 

Process 

Finance & 

Budgeting 

Economics & 


Core 

Faculty’s 

Disciplines 

Economics 2.04* ( 2.14*) f 1.02 (1.73*) 1.43 (1.70) 1.38 (1.07) 2.63** ( 5.73***) 1.06 (1.39) 

Political Science 1.48 (1.70) 1.08 (1.69*) 0.93 (1.68) 1.14 (1.41) 0.84 (1.40) 0.58 (1.35) 

Overalla (70) b 

Public Administration 1.29 (1.04) 0.79 (0.85) 0.75 (1.42) 1.35 (1.51) 2.86*** (2.62**) 0.89 (1.15) 

Economics 0.63 (.084) 1.05 (0.93) 1.93 (1.40) 0.26 (0.35) 1.71 (1.23) 0.96 (0.68) 

Political Science 1.13 (0.87) 7.32**(2.26) 1.27 (1.33) 0.66 (0.74) 0.22 (0.41) 1.77 (1.27) 

MPA-Only c 

(19) 

Public Administration 1.08 (0.47) 0.89 (26.00**) 1.31 (4.11) 0.67 (6.44*) 2.54 (10.16*) 1.00 (2.74) 


Economics 1.06 (4.60) 1.25 (1.85) 0.54 (1.64) 0.92 (6.29) 0.50 (342.47***) 0.44 (1.48) 

Political Science .040 (0.94) 1.43 (1.24) 0.85 (2.55) 1.05 (2.72) 0.91 (0.56) 1.29 (1.52) 

Public Administration 2.33 (0.47) 0.65 (0.77) 0.62 (1.07) 1.73 (1.00) 1.03 (0.86) 0.70 (1.11) 

MPP-Only d 

& 

MPA/MPPd (20) 

Economics 0.66 (0.66) 1.21 (1.21) 0.49 (0.49) 0.21 (0.21) 10.64*** (10.64***) 2.20 (2.20) 

Political Science 2.86* (2.86*) 1.42 (1.42) 1.66 (1.66) 1.29 (1.29) 2.62 (2.62) 0.89 (0.89) 

MPA-Only e 

(24) 

Public Administration 2.96* (2.96*) 0.87 (0.87) 1.63 (1.63) 1.10 (1.10) 1.32 (1.32) 1.09 (1.09) 

Note. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 

Significant ANOVA results may indicate positive or negative relationships. Further analyses were conducted to determine the direction of the relationships, 

by adding the Bonferroni option to ANOVA (see Statacorp 2003, pp. 108-109) 

a. All schools with Web sites that provided information about their core faculty’s disciplines 

b. Number of schools 

c. MPA-only-offering schools among dual-membership schools (i.e., NASPAA and APPAM) 

d. MPP-only-offering schools and both MPA/MPP-offering schools among dual-membership schools 

e. MPA-only-offering schools among dual-membership schools, among NASPAA-only members 

f. When joint-appointment faculty were included


Table 3. 

ANOVA Results for the Association Between Core Faculty Academic Disciplines 

and MPP Program Offering or APPAM Membership 

Core Faculty Academic Disciplines 

Public 

Administration 

Comparison 

Economics Political Science 

5.16* 

(7.06*) 

0.00 

(0.97) 

3.62 

(4.57*) b 

MPA-Only-Offering Among Dual-Membership Schools (19) 

vs. MPP-Offering Among Dual-Membership Schools (20) a 

MPP-Offering 

12.25** 

(22.16***) 

0.53 

(0.06) 

25.39*** 

(45.70***) 

Accredited MPA-Only-Offering Among NASPAA-Only Members (24) 

vs. MPP-Offering Among Dual-Membership Schools (20) 

4.49* 

(11.47**) 

1.26 

(0.07) 

14.10*** 

(26.62***) 

NASPAA-Ony Members (24) 

vs. APPAM Membersc (40) 

Becoming APPAM 

Members 

Note. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 

Significant ANOVA results may indicate positive or negative relationships. Further analyses were conducted to determine the direction of the relationships, 

by adding Bonferroni option to ANOVA (see Statacorp 2003, pp. 108-109) 

a. MPP-only-offering schools and both MPP/MPA-offering schools 

b. When joint-appointment faculty were included 

c. APPAM-only members were excluded from the analysis 



Assessment 3: Surveying Directors of Schools Offering Both the MPP and MPA 

As indicated, surveys were sent to the 12 schools identified as offering both 

MPA and MPP degrees. The surveys were designed to ascertain different 

program goals, desired graduate competencies, and recruitment and placement 

differences for the two programs. Although the response rate was relatively high 

(seven out of 12 schools), the small number of respondents limits the 

observations that can be drawn from the returned surveys. The survey results are 

reported in the following sections. 

1. Differences between MPA and MPP Programs. 

As seen in Appendix E, program directors responding to the survey 

generally agreed that (a) MPP programs focus more on policy analysis 

and MPA programs focus more on administrating public organizations, 

(b) MPP programs have more economics courses, but MPA programs 

have more administration-related courses, (c) MPP programs attract 

more analytically oriented students, but MPA programs attract more 

students interested in nonprofit management careers. (See Appendix E.) 

2. Desired Competencies of MPA and MPP Program Graduates. 

The ability to apply statistical models to evaluate policy outcomes, the 

ability to develop innovative approaches to solve policy issues, and the 

ability to evaluate performance of public or nonprofit organizations are 

among the competencies that both MPA and MPP programs identify as 

high priorities for their graduates, as seen in Appendix F. However, 

MPA programs put more emphasis on the ability efficiently to manage 

groups and organizations and the ability to motivate organizations than 

MPP programs do. (See Appendix F.) 

3. Expected Job Areas and Positions for MPA and MPP Graduates. 

According to the survey, there are minimal employment opportunity 

differences for MPA and MPP degree recipients. That is, 57 percent of 

participating directors said they have observed different employment 

opportunities for MPA and MPP graduates, whereas 43 percent of 

participating directors said they have not observed any difference in 

employment opportunities. In fact, as seen in Appendix G, there are 

limited distinctions between MPA and MPP graduates regarding 

expected job areas. Federal, state, and local governments plus nonprofit 

sectors are the career areas where the most jobs are expected to be 

obtained by both MPA and MPP graduates. Appendix H shows job 

positions expected to be obtained by graduates of each program, but we 

do not observe distinctions between MPA and MPP graduates in jobs 

expected to be obtained. For example, nonprofit organization 

management, program/agency management, or staff positions are 

among the most likely jobs for both MPA and MPP graduates. 

Personnel specialists, city managemers, lobbyists, and performance 



auditors are among the least likely jobs for both MPA and MPP 

graduates to take. (See Appendix G and H.) 

4. Major Reasons for Offering MPP Programs. 

Directors’ responses to the question of why they offer an MPP program 

are shown in Appendix I. Most directors indicated that they offer an 

MPP program to (a) be responsive to student career objectives, (b) 

attract students who are not interested in MPA programs, (c) respond to 

national trends, and (d) be responsive to faculty interests. It is 

noteworthy that they do not offer an MPP program to (a) attract 

specific undergraduate majors, (b) create a more research-oriented 

degree, (c) provide a steppingstone to a Ph.D., or (d) respond to 

university demands. (See Appendix I.) 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

In this study, we investigated in a comprehensive manner whether policyoriented 

programs are different from administration-oriented programs; we 

followed up on previous studies — most of which argued that these two 

orientations were becoming more integrated by adopting each other’s elements 

into their separate programs, and therefore creating an effect where there might 

be no difference between them (Lowery & Whitaker, 1994; De Soto et al., 

1999). Previous empirical studies had compared NASPAA members with 

APPAM members in terms of curricula or the psychological dispositions of 

entering students, without considering dual-membership schools and that some 

schools have different master’s degrees. In this study, however, Assessments 1 

and 3 directly compared MPA programs with MPP programs from various 

school categories, in terms of (a) curricula, (b) desired competencies and jobs 

expected to be obtained by program graduates, and (c) major reasons for 

offering different programs. In Assessment 2, we examined the impact of core 

faculty’s academic disciplinary backgrounds on (a) the programs’ core 

curriculum emphases, (b) offering MPP programs, and (c) becoming APPAM 

members. Therefore, we could establish a more proper conclusion about 

whether or not policy-oriented and administration-oriented programs are truly 

different. 

Above all, the findings of the curriculum comparison did not support the 

arguments of previous empirical studies, but instead confirmed theoretical 

arguments (Elmore, 1986; Lowry & Whitaker, 1994) that policy-oriented and 

administration-oriented schools are different in terms of their curricula. 

Although previous empirical studies indicated that differences between MPA 

and MPP programs were evaporating, this finding suggests that MPPs and 

MPAs are still different. Perhaps our analysis was conducted in a more 

comprehensive and direct manner than those studies and, as a result, program 

differences might have become more apparent. Also, unlike previous studies — 



which based their analyses on whether or not a certain course simply was 

included in the curriculum — we compared curricula, based on the proportion 

of each disciplinary core. Therefore, we believe our approach to the question of 

whether MPA and MPP programs differ is more comprehensive than previous 

approaches, and that it provides additional insights regarding the actual 

differences between these two programs. 

Our study also suggests that the curriculum differences between MPA and 

MPP programs may not result from differences in the desired competencies and 

expected placements of program graduates. Rather, the core faculty’s academic 

backgrounds may play an important role in a university’s decision to offer an 

MPP program when it already has an MPA program, or to add an MPA 

program alongside an existing MPP program. 

The findings of this study can be useful for universities, particularly when they 

consider whether or not to establish supplemental MPP or MPA programs. It 

might be appropriate for a university contemplating an additional program 

offering to determine whether the motivation for the initiative is to (a) serve 

different students, (b) provide the educational background for additional career 

opportunities or (c) simply is the result of the faculty’s desire to offer a program 

more aligned with its dominant academic backgrounds and interests. If the latter 

consideration seems to be the case, a name change or distinction adjustment to 

the existing degree program may be more appropriate than adding a new one. 

In conclusion, does the distinction between MPA and MPP programs 

represent a real difference? The answer is both yes and no. Overall curriculum 

comparisons of MPA and MPP programs indicate modest differences in 

academic content. However, the distinction between the two programs appears 

to fade when both are offered by the same school or department. To insure a 

justifiable distinction, it seems that the respective programs should possess 

differences in goals and desired student outcomes, rather than simply reflect 

differences that are associated with their core faculty’s academic disciplinary 

backgrounds. Otherwise, there may be justification for the criticism that MPP 

programs are not really distinct from MPA programs except in their names. 13 

REFERENCES 

Averch, H., & Dluhy, M. (1992). Teaching public administration, public management, and policy 

analysis: Convergence or divergence in the master’s core? Journal of Policy Analysis and 

Management, 11(3), 541-551. 

Brewer, G..A., Facer, R.L., & O’Toole, L.J. (1999). What’s in a name? Comparing D.P.A. and Ph.D. 

programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(4), 309-317. 

De Soto, W., Opheim, C., & Tajalli, H. (1999). Apples and oranges? Comparing the attitudes of 

public policy versus public administration students. American Review of Public Administration, 

29(1), 77-91. 

Denhardt, R. (2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public Administration 

Review, 61(5), 526-534. 



Elmore, R.F. (1986). Graduate education in public management: Working the seams of government. 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(1), 69-83. 

Lowery, D., & Whitaker, G.P. (1994). Comparing public administration and policy analysis 

approaches to public service education. American Review of Public Administration, 24(1), 25-41. 

Roeder, P.W., & Whitaker, G. (1993). Education for the public service: Policy analysis and 

administration in the MPA core curriculum. Administration and Society, 24(4), 512-540. 

StataCorp. (2003). Stata Statistical Software: Release 8.0 (Vol. 3). College Station, TX: Stata 

Corporation. 

Stokes, D.E. (1986). Political and organizational analysis in the policy curriculum. Journal of Policy 

Analysis and Management, 6, 45-55. 

Ventriss, C. (1991). Contemporary issues in American public administration education: The search for 

an educational focus. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 4-14. 

FOOTNOTES 

1 The Association for Public Policy and Management (APPAM) represents the policy analysis 

movement. The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) 

is broader-based, and includes many APPAM members, but it generally is more representative of 

public administration (Lowery & Whitaker, 1994, p. 25). 

2 

Two other areas of possible differences that De Soto et al. (1999) did not investigate were the 

differences in job placements for graduates of each program, and the differences in self-evaluations 

by those in the workplace. 

3 

The seven components were techniques of analysis, organization/management, political institutions, 

financial administration, economic institutions, legal institutions, and social institutions. 

4 

Institutional-management programs allocate more time to political, social, and legal institutions and 

processes, as well as organization and management concepts. Analytical programs are characterized 

by larger allocations of curriculum time to quantitative methods and statistics, financial 

administration, and economic institutions and processes (Roeder & Whitaker, 1993, p. 535). 

5 

It should be noted that, while NASPAA and APPAM member schools and departments principally 

offer MPA or MPP degrees, they may offer other master’s degrees, as in Master of Economic Policy 

Management, Master of Science in Urban Policy, or combination-type degrees, such as Master of 

Public Policy and Management. 

6 

As seen in Appendix A, ANOVA results for programs offered by NASPAA members are either similar 

or different, depending on which sample is chosen. For example, only “economics and policy 

analysis” core courses were significantly different in comparison B of Appendix A, which matched 

MPA programs offered by NASPAA-only members to MPA programs offered by dual-membership 

schools. In comparison C, which matched curricula of MPA programs offered by NASPAA-only 

members to MPP programs offered by dual-membership schools, most courses were significantly 

different. 

7 

We used Stata statistical software to run an ANOVA. As the Stata manual (StataCorp, 2003) 

indicates, either a one-way ANOVA or t-test can be used to determine if the mean value of one 

variable (e.g., the proportion of core courses in this study) is different, depending on another 

variable (e.g., MPA or MPP programs in this study). 

8 

The number of dual-membership schools was 60, as of November 1, 2005. Among these, seven were 

excluded due to having different master’s degrees, such as a Master’s of Public Policy and 

Management, or an MS in Urban Policy Analysis and Management, etc. (See Appendix B). 

Among the remaining 53 dual-membership schools, 32 offered MPA programs only, nine offered 

MPP programs only, and 12 offered both MPA and MPP programs. 



9 

They are faculty members who mainly are assigned to the department (or school). Roeder and 

Whitaker (1993) call them full-time nucleus faculty. 

10 

They are research faculty, adjunct faculty, affiliated faculty, faculty of practice, visiting faculty, 

lecturers, and faculty emeriti. 

11 

We could identify core faculty’s academic backgrounds for all nine dual-membership schools that 

provided only MPP programs, and all 12 dual-membership schools that provided both MPA and 

MPP programs. However, among 33 dual-membership schools that offered only MPA programs 

(See Appendix B), only 18 schools provided information on their Web sites about the core faculty’s 

academic backgrounds. For 30 NASPAA-only members that offered only MPA programs, we 

checked the core faculty’s academic backgrounds, as well as the composition of their curricula. 

These 30 schools were randomly selected from 147 MPA programs accredited by NASPAA (as of 

September 1, 2005). 

12 

Questions in the survey mainly were focused on similarities and differences between MPA and MPP 

programs, so we chose the schools that offered both programs, and that were most capable of 

answering the questions. For example, in the survey, we asked, “Which of the following describes 

the distinguishing difference between your MPA and MPP programs?” Out of the 12 schools that 

offered both programs, the University of Delaware offered MPA and MA programs in urban affairs 

and public policy, and the University of Pittsburgh offered MPA and MA programs in public 

policy and management. 

13 

Brewer, Facer, and O’Toole (1999) argued that Ph.D. and Doctor of Public Administration (D.P.A.) 

programs are merely distinctions without a difference. 

AUTHORS’ NOTE 

We wish to acknowledge the earlier contributions of Gabriela Wolfson on 

related research. 

Yongbeom Hur is an assistant professor of public administration in the 

Department of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University. 

His teaching and research interests include human resource management, 

research methods, and a quantitative approach to public management. 

Merl Hackbart is a professor of finance and public administration at the 

University of Kentucky. His research focuses on public financial management, 

budgeting, and debt management. 



Appendix A. 

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Results for Curriculum Comparisons Between MPA and MPP Programs 

Offered by NASPAA, APPAM, or Dual-Membership Schoolsa Economics & Finance & Policy Public Organization Research 

Policy Analysis Budgeting Process Management & HRM b Method 

VARIOUS COMPARISONS 

A MPA Program Offered by NASPAA-only Members vs. 36.22*** 6.26* 2.11 0.53 18.86*** 0.16 

Both MPA & MPP Programs Offered by Dual Members 

B MPA Program Offered by NASPAA-only Members vs. 18.98*** 0.75 0.61 0.43 3.38 0.59 

MPA Program Offered by Dual Members 

C MPA Program Offered by NASPAA-only Members vs. 62.63*** 13.08*** 5.19* 6.57* 34.03*** 0.00 

MPP Program Offered by Dual Members 

Note. *p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 

a. Dual-membership schools belong to both NASPAA and APPAM 

b. “HRM” is Human Resources Management 



Appendix B. 

Programs Offered by Dual-Membership Schoolsa Schools with Dual Membership MPA/MPP MPA MPP Other Program Remarks 

(APPAM & NASPAA) Offered Only Only Offered 

American University • 

Arizona State University • 

Baruch College 

City University of NY • 

Brown University • 

Carnegie Mellon University Master of Public Policy & Mgmt 

College of William & Mary • 

Columbia University • Master of Economic Policy Management 

Cornell University • 


Duke University • 

Florida Int’l University • 

George Mason University • 

George Washington Univ. • 

Georgetown University • Master of Policy Management 

Georgia Institute of Technology • MS in Public Policy 

Georgia State University • 

Harvard University • 

Note. a = Dual-membership schools belong to both NASPAA and APPAM 

Sources: APPAM, http://www.appam.org; NASPAA, http://www.naspaa.org, and each school’s Web site as of Oct. 15, 2005. 

“Remarks” column provides supplemental information regarding MPA & MPP Programs Continued


Appendix B. 



Indiana University • Master of Public Affairs 

Indiana University- 

Perdue University, Indianapolis • Master of Public Affairs 

Iowa State University • 

Johns Hopkins University • MA in Public Policy 

Kent State University • 

New School University MS in Urban Policy Analysis & Management 

New York University • 

Ohio State University • 

Pennsylvania State Univ. • 

Princeton University • 

Rutgers, the State 

University of New Jersey • 

Syracuse University • 

Texas A&M University • 

Univ. at Albany - SUNY • 

University of Arkansas • 


Sources: APPAM, http://www.appam.org; NASPAA, http://www.naspaa.org, and each school’s Web site as of Oct. 15, 2005 

“Remarks” column provides supplemental information regarding MPA & MPP Programs Continued 



Appendix B. 



University of Arizona • 

University of California-LA • Dept. of Public Policy 

University of Chicago • 

University of Cincinnati • MA in Political Science 

Univ. of Colorado-Denver • MA in Political Science 

University of Delaware • MA in Urban Affairs & Public Policy 

University of Georgia • 

University of Illinois • 

University of Kentucky • 


University of Maryland- • 

Baltimore County 

U. of Md.-College Park • 

University of Mass.-Amherst Master of Public Policy & Admin 

University of Mass.-Boston MS in Public Affairs 

University of Michigan • 

University of Minnesota • 

U. of Missouri-Columbia • 



“Remarks” column provides supplemental information regarding MPA & MPP Programs Continued


Appendix B. 



U. of Missouri-St. Louis Master of Public Policy & Admin 

Univ. of Nebraska-Omaha • 

Univ. of NC-Chapel Hill • 

Univ. of NC-Charlotte • 

Univ. of Pennsylvania • Master of Gov’t Administration 

University of Pittsburgh • Master of Public Policy & Mgmt 

Univ. of Southern California • 

Univ. of Southern Maine Master of Public Policy & Mgmt 

University of Texas-Austin • Master of Public Affairs 

University of Texas-Dallas • Master of Public Affairs 

University of Washington • 

U. of Wisconsin-Madison • Master of Public Affairs 

Virginia Commonwealth 

University • 

Total (60 Schools) 12 33 9 6 



“Remarks” column provides supplemental information regarding MPA & MPP Programs 



Appendix C. 

Curriculum Composition of Core Courses 

Core Course Areas (%) a 

Research 

Methods 

Organization 

& HRMb Public 

Mgmt 

Policy 

Process 

Finance & 

Budgeting 

Economics & 


Program Offered 

(No. of Schools Analyzed) 

Membership 

Others 

MPA Only (32) 14.9 11.7 12.5 14.9 12.7 18.1 15.2 

Dual- 

MPP Only (9) 30.0 4.5 19.4 4.5 7.5 23.9 10.4 

Membership 

Schools 

(NASPAA & 


MPA of MPA & MPP Offered (12) 21.6 10.8 9.6 9.6 3.6 21.6 23.4 

APPAM) 

MPP of MPA & MPP Offered (12) 27.6 6.6 14.5 7.9 2.6 20.2 20.6 

Non-Dual- 

Membership 

MPA Only (30) 5.6 14.5 8.9 13.5 15.6 20.5 21.8 

Schools 

(NASPAA Only) 

Note. a. Percentage of each category = (credit hours of each category/credit hours of all categories) * 100 

b. “HRM” is Human Resources Management


Appendix D. 

Academic Backgrounds of Core Faculty 

Faculty Members’ Doctoral Degrees (%) a 

Program Offered 

(No. of Schools) 

Membership 

Others 

Public 

Administrationc Economics b Political Science 

13.5 d (18.0) e 21.3 (22.2) 36.7 (26.8) 28.5 (34.0) 

MPA-Only 

(19) 

32.2 (26.8) 16.7 (21.2) 18.9 (7.2) 32.2 (44.8) 

MPP-Only 

(9) 

Dual-Membership Schools 

(NASPAA & APPAM) 

23.3 (26.3) 20.3 (23.8) 10.9 (6.2) 45.5 (43.7) 

MPA & MPP 

(12) 

2.7 f 15.6 17.2 64.5 

MPA-Only 

(30) 

Non-Dual Membership Schools 

(NASPAA-Accredited Only) 

Note. a. Percentage = (No. of each discipline/total number of all core faculty with a doctorate) * 100 

b. Public finance is included 

c. Public policy is included 

d. Percentage before including faculty of joint appointment 

e. Percentage after including faculty of joint appointment 

f. Percentage after including faculty of joint appointment 



Appendix E. 

Differences Between MPA and MPP Programs 

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree 

I Am 

Not Sure 

Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree 

Which of the following describes the distinguishing difference between your 

MPA and MPP programs? 

The MPP program focuses more on policy analysis than the MPA program. 14% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 57% (4) 29% (2) 

29% (2) 14% (1) 0% (0) 43% (3) 14% (1) 

The MPA program focuses more on the administration of public organizations 

than the MPP program. 

0% (0) 43% (3) 0% (0) 29% (2) 29% (2) 

The MPP program has a greater emphasis on research coursework than the 

MPA program. 

The MPP program has more economics coursework than the MPA Program. 29% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 29% (2) 43% (3) 

14% (1) 14% (1) 0% (0) 43% (3) 29% (2) 

The MPA curriculum includes more administration-related courses (personnel 

mgmt, financial mgmt, etc.) than the MPP program. 


The MPP degree has fewer course requirements than the MPA program. 29% (2) 29% (2) 0% (0) 29% (2) 14% (1) 

0% (0) 14% (1) 29% (2) 57% (4) 0% (0) 

The MPP program attracts more analytically oriented students than the MPA 

program. 

14% (1) 14% (1) 43% (3) 14% (1) 0% (0) 

The MPP program attracts more students who majored in economics than the 

MPA program. 

14% (1) 29% (2) 57% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 

The MPP program attracts more students who majored in political science than 

the MPA program. 

43% (3) 0% (0) 57% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 

The MPA program attracts more students from diverse undergraduate majors 

(arts, sciences, health, etc.) than the MPP program. 

14% (1) 14% (1) 29% (2) 43% (3) 0% (0) 

The MPA program attracts more students interested in nonprofit management 

careers than the MPP program. 

Note. Respondent numbers are in parentheses. 

The highest percentage of responses for each question is marked in boldface.


Appendix F. 

Priority Competencies for MPA and MPP Programs 

High 

Priority 

Middle 

Priority 

Low 

Priority 

Please rate the following competencies that your MPA/MPP programs are likely to aim for: 

86% (6) 

14% (1) 

14% (1) 

29% (2) 

0% (0) 

57% (4) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to efficiently manage groups and organizations 

57% (4) 

14% (1) 

43% (3) 

43% (3) 

0% (0) 

43% (3) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to motivate organizations 

43% (3) 

57% (4) 

43% (3) 

29% (2) 

14% (1) 

14% (1) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to apply statistical models to evaluate policy outcomes 

57% (4) 

14% (1) 

14% (1) 

57% (4) 

29% (2) 

29% (2) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to analyze financial statements 

43% (3) 

86% (6) 

43% (3) 

14% (1) 

14% (1) 

0% (0) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to develop innovative approaches to solve policy issues 

57% (4) 

57% (4) 

43% (3) 

29% (2) 

0% (0) 

14% (1) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to evaluate performance of public or nonprofit organizations 

71% (5) 

29% (2) 

29% (2) 

71% (5) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to communicate effectively with constituencies in the general public 

14% (1) 

0% (0) 

71% (5) 

50% (3) 

14% (1) 

50% (3) 

MPA 

MPP 

Ability to resolve disputes among individuals 


The highest percentage of responses for each question is marked in boldface. 

Seven respondents did not answer all the questions. 



Appendix G. 

Expected Employment Areas for MPA and MPP Graduates 

More than 

30% 

10–20% 20–30% 

Less than 

10% 

Please indicate the percent of your MPA/MPP graduates who find employment 

in the following areas (including further education): 

50% (3) 

40% (2) 

17% (1) 

40% (2) 

17% (1) 

0% (0) 

17% (1) 

20% (1) 

MPA 

MPP 

Federal Government 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

60% (3) 

60% (3) 

40% (2) 

40% (2) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

MPA 

MPP 

State Government 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

50% (3) 

40% (2) 

33% (2) 

60% (3) 

17% (1) 

0% (0) 

MPA 

MPP 

Local Government 

0% (0) 

20% (1) 

66% (4) 

60% (3) 

17% (1) 

20% (1) 

17% (1) 

0% (0) 

MPA 

MPP 

Nonprofit Sector 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

20% (1) 

33% (2) 

60% (3) 

67% (4) 

20% (1) 

MPA 

MPP 

Private Sector 


0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

20% (1) 

60% (3) 

80% (4) 

40% (2) 

MPA 

MPP 

Further Graduate Education (Ph.D., Ed.D., etc.) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

100% (5) 

100% (5) 

MPA 

MPP 

Professional Education (e.g. Law) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

50% (1) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

50% (1) 

100% (1) 

MPA 

MPP 

Other 



Seven respondents did not answer all the questions.


Appendix H. 

Expected Job Positions for MPA and MPP Graduates 

More than 

30% 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

20% (1) 

0% (0) 

40% (2) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

0% (0) 

10–20% 20–30% 

40% (2) 60% (3) 

60% (3) 20% (1) 

40% (2) 20% (1) 

20% (1) 0% (0) 

40% (2) 20% (1) 

25% (1) 0% (0) 

20% (1) 60% (3) 

20% (1) 40% (2) 

20% (1) 40% (2) 

20% (1) 40% (2) 

0% (1) 20% (1) 

40% (2) 0% (0) 

40% (2) 20% (1) 

40% (2) 60% (3) 

40% (2) 20% (1) 

40% (2) 20% (1) 

33% (2) 50% (3) 

20% (1) 40% (2) 

33% (2) 50% (3) 

40% (2) 40% (2) 

0% (0) 0% (0) 

60% (3) 0% (0) 

0% (0) 0% (0) 

0% (0) 0% (0) 

0% (0) 0% (0) 

0% (0) 0% (0) 

Less than 

10% 

0% (0) 

20% (1) 

40% (2) 

80% (4) 

20% (1) 

75% (3) 

20% (1) 

20% (1) 

20% (1) 

0% (0) 

20% (1) 

60% (3) 

20% (1) 

0% (0) 

20% (1) 

40% (2) 

17% (1) 

40% (2) 

17% (1) 

20% (1) 

100% (1) 

40% (2) 

100% (1) 

100% (5) 

100% (1) 

100% (1) 

Please indicate (or estimate) the types of job position or further educational opportunities 

that your MPA/MPP degree-recipients are likely to take given placements in the past five years. 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

MPA 

MPP 

Budget Analysts 

Personnel Specialists 

City Management 

Nonprofit Organization Management 

Policy Analysts 

Lobbyists 

Researchers 

Performance Auditors (e.g. GAO) 

Program/Angency Management 

Program/Angency Staff 

Doctoral Students 

Law School 

Other 



Seven respondents did not answer all the questions. 



Appendix I. 

Major Reasons for Establishing an MPP Program 

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree 

I Am 

Not Sure 

Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree 

What are the major reasons for establishing your MPP program? 

To be responsive to student career objectives. 0% (0) 0% (0) 17% (1) 33% (2) 50% (3) 

To attract students not interested in MPA. 14% (1) 14% (1) 14% (1) 0% (0) 57% (4) 

To create a more research-oriented public policy degree. 0% (0) 43% (3) 0% (0) 29% (2) 29% (2) 

To provide a stepping stone for doctoral studies. 43% (3) 29% (2) 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 

To attract students with specific undergraduate majors. 86% (6) 14% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 


To meet university demands. 57% (4) 14% (1) 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 

To be responsive to alumni and employer suggestions. 29% (2) 29% (2) 0% (0) 43% (3) 0% (0) 

To respond to national trends regarding degree offerings. 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 43% (3) 29% (2) 

To be responsive to faculty interests and capabilities. 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (1) 57% (4) 29% (2) 

Note: Respondent numbers are in parentheses. 

The highest percentage of responses for each question is marked in boldface.



What Impacts the Learning in Service 

Learning? An Examination of Project 

Structure and Student Characteristics 

Kristina T. Lambright 

Binghamton University 

Yi Lu 

City University of New York 

ABSTRACT 

This paper examines factors that can influence how effective a service-learning 

project is at achieving learning objectives. It is based on data collected from seven 

Master’s of Public Administration (MPA) courses taught during one semester at a 

large state university. We find that the key factors of influence on how effective a 

service-learning project is at achieving learning objectives are (a) the extent that 

the project is integrated with class materials, (b) whether or not students work in 

groups, and (c) whether or not the participating students are full-time. 

WHAT IMPACTS THE LEARNING IN SERVICE LEARNING? 

Service learning is an important pedagogical tool that is widely used in both 

graduate and undergraduate classrooms (Anderson & Harris, 2005; 

Fredericksen, 2000; Gallini & Moely, 2003; Litke, 2002; Strage, 2000; Wells, 

2006). It improves understanding of course content (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; 

Bushouse & Morrison, 2001; Reinke, 2003), and offers students an opportunity 

to apply the lessons being learned in the classroom to a real-life setting 

(Bushouse & Morrison, 2001; Druker, Stefanovic, & Cunningham, 1996; Jelier 

& Clarke, 1999; Parker-Gwin & Mabry, 1998). Despite its importance as a 

pedagogical tool, there is no standard definition of service learning (Eyler, 

2000). Drawing on Simons and Cleary (2006), a service-learning project for the 

purposes of this study is defined as a course project that (a) lasts at least a half a 

semester, (b) allows students to apply course concepts to real-life situations, and 

(c) benefits both students and community members. Because service learning 

has been used in a variety of contexts in MPA classrooms (Bushouse & 

Morrison, 2001; Campbell & Tatro, 1998; Denhardt, 1997; Dicke, Dowden, & 

Torres, 2004; Druker, et al., 1996; Reinke, 2003), it raises this interesting 




question: What impacts the learning in service learning? 

This paper examines the factors that influence how effective a service-learning 

project is in terms of achieving learning objectives. Its research questions focus on 

two broad sets of factors that potentially influence educational outcomes. The first 

focus is the structure of the service-learning project, which addresses this question: 

Are certain structures used for organizing service-learning projects more effective 

at achieving learning objectives than other structures? As a second focus, this 

paper examines the relationship between student characteristics and educational 

outcomes of service-learning projects, which addresses this question: Do certain 

groups of students learn more from participating in service-learning projects than 

other groups of students do? This study is based on data collected from seven 

MPA courses taught during one semester at a large state university. Students in all 

of these classes were required to participate in a service-learning project. 

There has been little empirical research in higher education to determine 

which factors influence the effectiveness of service-learning projects in terms of 

achieving learning objectives. Most of the limited, empirical research tends to 

focus on a few aspects of either (a) project structure, or (b) students’ 

characteristics on service-learning outcomes. This makes it difficult to develop a 

complete picture of the variety of factors that may influence educational 

outcomes for service-learning projects. Another weakness in this body of 

research is that it focuses almost exclusively on undergraduates. 

To fill these gaps, this study examines the wide-ranging impact of both 

project structure variables and student characteristics on educational outcomes 

for graduate students. It provides a greater understanding of which student 

characteristics impact the effectiveness of service-learning projects, and it 

highlights potential differences in classroom learning experiences for various 

types of students. This project also suggests ways that educators can structure 

service-learning projects in order to improve educational outcomes. This 

information will be particularly useful for public administration programs, as 

well as other graduate programs that rely on service learning as an important 

pedagogical tool. 

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES OF SERVICE LEARNING 

This section begins by summarizing the findings of past empirical research, 

which compares the effectiveness of service-learning and non-service-learning 

experiences in achieving different pedagogical objectives. Next, several factors 

that are likely to impact the educational outcomes of service learning are 

identified, and their hypothesized impact on educational outcomes is discussed. 

Following this are details of the past empirical findings on factors that influence 

the effectiveness of service-learning projects, in terms of achieving learning 

objectives. Finally, gaps in this body of literature are highlighted, including the 

observation that the vast majority of empirical research has focused on 




undergraduate students. 

Past empirical research that compares service-learning and non-servicelearning 

experiences indicates that service learning generally has a positive — 

and at the very least neutral — impact on learning outcomes. Scholars have 

approached this topic from a variety of angles. Several researchers have used selfreports 

to evaluate the impact of service learning on academic achievement, and 

find that service learning positively influences academic achievement (Gallini & 

Moely, 2003; Hesser, 1995; Kendrick, 1996; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993). 

Researchers also have assessed the impact of service learning by using more 

direct measures of classroom outcomes. The conclusions of this body of research 

have been more mixed than the research based on self-reports, and they indicate 

that service learning has either a positive or neutral impact on academic 

achievement (Batchelder & Root, 1994; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Fredericksen, 

2000; Kendrick, 1996; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993; Strage, 2000). 

While there is a general consensus that service learning has a generally 

positive — and at the very least neutral — impact, it is less clear which factors 

influence its educational impact. For example, certain structures for organizing 

service learning may be more effective than others. Instructors who (a) play 

active roles in service-learning projects, (b) closely integrate projects with course 

material, and (c) structure regular reflection about the service-learning 

experience into class time may enhance educational outcomes. By playing an 

active role in service-learning projects, instructors may facilitate the process for 

students to make critical connections, and to apply lessons learned in other 

classroom contexts. Integration and reflection provide students with the 

cognitive guidance necessary to generalize the meaning and skill-acquisition of 

their personal experiences to broader contexts (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Mabry, 

1998), and also encourage them to see service learning as “academic material,” 

rather than as training or as professional socialization (Mabry, 1998; Parker- 

Gwin & Mabry, 1998). In addition, regular intervals of structured reflection 

may be important, because it establishes a routine for students, and because its 

cognitive components stimulate academic learning where the service component 

alone might not (Hatcher et al., 2004). 

Other aspects of project structure also may influence educational outcomes. 

Providing more opportunities for students to interact with service beneficiaries 

and increasing the duration or intensity of the service-learning experience may 

have a positive impact, by expanding the amount of learning “material” that 

students are exposed to (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Mabry, 1998). Another aspect 

of project structure that may be important is student autonomy. Giving students 

influence over the direction of a service-learning project may help create a sense 

of accountability among students, and may motivate them to work harder, 

thereby improving educational outcomes. On the other hand, making service 

learning mandatory may negatively impact educational outcomes. Students who 




are required to take a service-learning class may be less enthusiastic about it, and 

be less motivated to work hard on their service projects, when compared to 

students who choose to take a service-learning course. As a final aspect of 

project structure, whether or not students work in groups also may impact 

educational outcomes. Structuring service learning as a group project may 

increase student perceptions of accountability (Barron, et al., 1998) and 

logically could be expected to expose participants to a greater diversity of 

perspectives. On the other hand, individual projects might be more effective for 

achieving learning objectives, because students are not distracted by difficult 

group dynamics, such as problems with free-riders. 

In addition to project structure influencing the educational outcomes of 

service learning, a student’s characteristics may impact how much is learned 

from participating in a service-learning project. For instance, gender and race 

can impact a variety of interactions in the classroom, and may influence 

students’ experiences with service learning (Warren, 1998). There is some 

evidence suggesting that females and students with prior volunteer experience 

are more likely to participate in service-learning projects (Parker-Gwin & 

Mabry, 1998; Sax & Astin, 1997). Given this, one also might expect that these 

groups would show more academic gain from participating in service learning. 

Another student characteristic that may be important is past service-learning 

experience. Students with more of this experience may be better able to handle 

the uncertainty associated with service learning (Jelier & Clarke, 1999), and 

gain more from this pedagogical tool. Alternatively, it is possible that students 

with considerable service-learning experience may feel “burned-out,” due to its 

labor- and time-intensive nature, and show less academic gain. 

Finally — although it is not theorized in literature on service learning — two 

student characteristics that are particularly relevant to graduate programs also 

may influence educational outcomes: (a) whether a student has past work 

experience and (b) whether a student is full-time or part-time. One might 

expect that students with past work experience would benefit more academically 

from service learning, because they may be more skilled in linking theory to 

practice. One also might expect full-time graduate students to gain more from 

service learning because they tend to have fewer commitments outside of the 

classroom. It may be more difficult for part-time students to devote enough 

time to service learning to receive its full benefits. 

The remainder of this section summarizes the limited empirical research that 

examines factors influencing the effectiveness of service learning projects in 

terms of achieving learning objectives, and it also highlights gaps in this body of 

literature. Reflection is the one factor that has considerable empirical research to 

show its positive impact on the educational outcomes of service learning. 

Hatcher, et al. (2004) find a positive relationship between course quality and 

the use of reflection activities that are structured, regularly scheduled, and that 




allow for clarification of values. In a survey of undergraduate students, Parker- 

Gwin and Mabry (1998) report that reflection activities can deepen interest in 

service-learning course content. In addition, Eyler & Giles (1999) present 

national survey data — collected primarily from undergraduates — and find a 

consistent link between academic learning outcomes and the quantity and 

quality of reflection. Other studies specifically have focused on in-class 

reflection, and present evidence suggesting that it improves educational 

outcomes (Batchelder & Root, 1994; Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Mabry, 1998). 

More-limited empirical research exists on other potentially important aspects 

of project structure. A few studies have examined the educational impact of 

closely integrating a service-learning project with course material, and report a 

positive relationship. Based on interviews with 57 students from six colleges, 

Eyler & Giles (1999) found that those who took classes where service learning 

was well-integrated, also demonstrated a greater ability to understand and apply 

knowledge — when compared to students who took courses where there was no 

service learning, or where service learning was not well-integrated. Eyler and 

Giles’ measure of integration is in part based on the frequency of reflection 

opportunities. According to their study, service learning is well-integrated into a 

class when the service experience is closely connected to course activities, and 

when students have frequent opportunities to reflect on the connection between 

the service experience and course material. Similarly, Hatcher, Bringle, and 

Muthiah (2004) — in their study of 471 undergraduates from nine colleges — 

report that the integration of academic content with the service experience is 

positively related to course quality. 

There also is limited empirical evidence that suggests a positive relationship 

between the amount of time spent on service learning and its educational 

outcomes. Conrad and Hedin (1982) found that experiential education 

experiences lasting for at least a semester, plus those that were more timeintensive, 

were associated with better outcomes in a study of 27 experiential 

education programs for youths ages 12 to 19. Consistent with this, Mabry 

(1998) conclude that service hours are positively associated with academic 

learning — based on survey data collected from 144 undergraduate students. 

A handful of studies have examined other aspects of project structure. Mabry 

(1998) reported that there is a positive relationship between student contact 

with service beneficiaries and academic learning. Batchelder and Root (1994) 

create a combined measure of service-learning instructional quality that is based 

on (a) the level of student autonomy, (b) the extent of in-class reflection on 

service-learning experiences, and (c) the level of instructor support. They found 

that service-learning instructional quality is positively related to some measures 

of cognitive and pro-social cognitive outcomes. Finally, Parker-Gwin and Mabry 

(1998) conclude that required participation does not have a consistent positive 

or negative impact on educational outcomes for service learners. 




Empirical research assessing the impact of student characteristics on the 

educational outcomes of service learning also is limited. A few scholars have 

examined the impact of gender, but report conflicting findings. Eyler and Giles 

(1999) report that females are more likely than males to believe that service 

learning helped them (a) develop an understanding of complex issues, (b) gain 

knowledge about the work of specific agencies, and (c) see issues in new ways. 

Ropers-Huilman, Carwile, and Lima (2005) reach similar conclusions, and find 

that females in an undergraduate biological engineering course are more likely 

than their male counterparts to report that their service-learning experience 

positively impacted their learning outcomes. On the other hand, Fredericksen 

(2000) compares course performance for service and non-service learners, and 

finds that service learning is associated with higher grades on both the second 

and final exams of a course for males only. Similarly, Mabry (1998) finds that 

males are more likely than females to believe they academically benefit from 

service-learning experiences. 

Race is another characteristic that has been considered by researchers as a 

potential influence on the academic benefits received by participating in 

service-learning projects. But findings from these studies have been mixed. 

Ropers-Huilman, et al. (2005) report that non-white students are more likely 

than white students to say that service learning improved their learning 

outcomes. Consistent with Ropers-Huilman, et al. (2005), Scales, 

Roehlkepartain, Neal, Kielsmeier, and Benson (2006) found that principals of 

high-poverty, urban, and majority non-white middle and high schools were 

more likely to describe service learning as having a very positive impact on 

student attendance, engagement and academic achievement. On the other 

hand, Eyler and Giles (1999) report that white students are more likely than 

non-white students to believe that service learning helped them understand 

and apply academic material. Mabry (1998) concludes that there is no 

difference between reports by whites and non-whites regarding the academic 

benefits they receive from service learning. 

A few studies have examined the impact of yet more student characteristics. 

Mabry (1998) found that the frequency of past volunteer work does not 

influence the academic benefits that students say they receive from service 

learning. Eyler and Giles (1999) reach similar conclusions, and report that 

involvement in other community service activities does not impact students’ 

perceptions of the academic benefits of service learning. In addition, there is 

limited evidence that past work experience may influence the educational 

outcomes of service learning. The sole empirical study in this review that was 

based on data collected primarily from graduate students (Bushouse & 

Morrison, 2001) reports that only students with prior professional experience 

found that service-learning reflection assignments helped them make linkages 

between course material and practice. (See Table 1.) 




Table 1. 

Empirical Research on Factors Influencing Service Learning’s Educational Impact 

Project Structure 

Reflection 

Integration 

Time Spent on Service Learning 

Research Focused 

on Undergraduate Students 

Batchelder & Root (1994); Conrad 

& Hedin (1982); Eyler & Giles 

(1999); Hatcher et al. (2004); 

Mabry (1998); Parker-Gwin & 

Mabry (1998) 

Eyler & Giles (1999); 

Hatcher et al.(2004) 

Conrad & Hedin (1982); 

Mabry (1998) 

Contact with Service Beneficiaries Mabry (1998) 

Instructor Guidance Batchelder & Root (1994) 

Student Influence Batchelder & Root (1994) 

Required Service Participation Parker-Gwin & Mabry (1998) 

Group/Individual Project 

Student Characteristics 

Gender 

Race 

Work Experience 

Eyler & Giles (1999); 

Fredericksen (2000); Mabry (1998); 

Ropers-Huilman et al. (2005) 

Eyler & Giles (1999); Mabry 

(1998); Ropers-Huilman et al. 

(2005); Scales, et al. (2006) 

Volunteer Experience Eyler & Giles (1999); Mabry (1998) 

Full-time/Part-time Student 

Research Focused 

on Graduate Students 

Bushouse & Morrison 

(2001) 




As summarized by Table 1, the existing body of research on the different 

factors that influence the educational outcomes of service learning is 

fragmented. With the exception of Mabry (1998) and Eyler & Giles (1999), 

these studies tend to focus on the impact of just a few aspects of how either 

project structure or students’ characteristics affect service-learning outcomes. By 

contrast, some potentially important aspects of project structure and student 

characteristics identified by this paper have received no attention in prior 

empirical research. The subsequent analysis attempts to address this gap in the 

literature and present a more complete picture of the impact that a variety of 

factors have on the educational outcomes for service-learning projects. 

METHODOLOGY 

This study is based on data collected from seven MPA courses taught during 

the Spring 2007 semester at a large state university. Service-learning projects 

were conducted as part of each course. Table 2 briefly describes these servicelearning 

projects. (See Table 2.) 

At the end of the semester, students who enrolled in each of these seven 

courses were asked to complete a brief survey about their service-learning 

project. Some students were enrolled in more than one of these courses. These 

students were asked to complete a separate survey for each service-learning 

project in which they had participated. The surveys were completed during 

Table 2. 

Service Learning Project Description 

Administrative Law 

Capstone Seminar 

Evaluation 

Logic of Inquiry 

Proposal Preparation/ 

Grant Management 

Course Service Learning Project Description 

Public Management/Public 

Administration 

Public and Nonprofit Finance 


Students researched legal aspects of inter-municipal services 

arrangements, focusing on New York. 

Students researched and analyzed an organization problem 

and made recommendations to address it. 

Students designed an evaluation plan for a university 

scholarship program. 

Students conducted a survey and analyzed data from the 

survey for the local public transportation agency. 

Students wrote grant proposals for local community groups. 

Students conducted assessments of a university public 

information technology system and prepared requests for 

proposals based on those assessments. 

Students examined the feasibility of consolidating four 

service areas for a local county government.



classroom time. The survey administrator and instructor left the classroom while 

students completed the survey, in order to protect the anonymity of those 

participating in the study. Of the 88 students enrolled in each of these classes, 

78 completed our survey, representing a response rate of 88.6 percent. 

The student survey can be found in the Appendix and includes both open- and 

close-ended questions. In the open-ended question section, students were asked to 

describe the service-learning project and suggest ways that they felt the project 

could be improved. As part of the close-ended questions, students were asked to 

rate the helpfulness of the service learning project toward achieving a variety of 

goals, which included (a) mastering course material, (b) tying together course 

concepts, (c) applying course concepts to real situations, (d) developing a deeper 

understanding of course material, and (e) developing a deeper understanding of 

material outside the course, but still relevant to their graduate program. In 

addition, the survey asked several close-ended questions about the structure of the 

service-learning project. Topics included questions on instructor guidance, project 

integration with course material, in-class time for reflection, the amount of time 

spent on the project, the student’s influence over the direction of the project, and 

whether the project involved group activities. (See Appendix.) If students 

participated in group activities, they were asked to assess how well their group 

worked as a team. Finally, the students were asked a series of questions about their 

backgrounds, including their gender, race, volunteer experience, service-learning 

experience, work experience, and status as full-time students. 

Instructors teaching each of the seven courses included in this study also were 

asked to complete a brief survey about the service-learning project. The instructor 

survey primarily included questions on project structure. Instructors also were 

asked to describe the service-learning project. In addition, they were asked closeended 

questions about (a) the number of different service-learning projects that 

were conducted as part of the course 1 , (b) the level of contact students had with 

service beneficiaries, (c) who selected the topic of the service-learning project, and 

(d) whether the major activities and graded assignments involved group and/or 

individual work. If the project involved group work, the instructors then were 

asked who determined group composition. Finally, instructors were asked if the 

course was required or an elective in the MPA program. 

Survey data were analyzed by using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and 

multiple regression. For this analysis, we created an index score that is intended 

to measure students’ perceptions of how effective a service-learning project is for 

achieving several educational goals. This index score is based on the sum of scores 

for five educational outcome measures: (a) mastering course material, (b) tying 

together course concepts, (c) applying course concepts to real situations, (d) 

developing a deeper understanding of course material, and (e) developing a 

deeper understanding of material outside of the course that is relevant to the 

graduate program. With each of these outcome measures, students were asked to 




Table 3. 

Descriptive Statistics: The Educational Effectiveness Index Score 

and Its Components 

Components of the Index Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min Max 

Mastery of Course Material 79 3.58 1.15 1 5 

Linkage of Course Concepts 79 3.86 1.07 1 5 

Application of Course Concepts to Real 

Situations 

Development of a Deeper Understanding of 

Course Material 

Development of a Deeper Understanding of 

Material Outside of the Course Relevant to 

the Graduate Program 

Note. *The reason the minimum value listed for the index is a 7 rather than a 5 is because no survey 

respondent actually selected a 1 for each of the components of our educational effectiveness index. 

use a scale, of 1 to 5, to rate how helpful the service-learning project was at 

achieving this outcome. A 1 indicated that the project was not helpful, and a 5 

indicated that the project was extremely helpful. Thus, index scores could range 

from a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 25. Descriptive statistics for the 

educational effectiveness index score and its components are included in Table 3. 

(See Table 3.) 

To examine which factors influence the educational outcomes of service 

learning, we began by using ANOVA to test whether there were statistically 

significant relationships between each of the factors we had hypothesized as 

influencing the educational outcomes of service learning, and our educational 

effectiveness index. Next, we conducted multiple regression analysis in order to 

assess the relative contribution of different factors for explaining the educational 

outcomes of service learning. The dependent variable in this regression equation 

— the educational effectiveness index score — is modeled as a function of 

project structure and student characteristics. Multiple regression enables us to 

isolate the impact of each variable on educational outcomes, while holding other 

variables constant. 

For our multivariate analysis, we included only the significant factors from 

the ANOVA results. A sensitivity analysis was performed, in order to compare 

our streamlined model to a model that included all of the variables that our 

ANOVA analysis showed as potentially influencing the educational outcomes of 

service learning. We chose this more parsimonious model for a variety of 


79 4.09 0.95 1 5 

78 3.83 1.10 1 5 

79 4.08 0.93 1 5 

Educational Effectiveness Index Score 77 19.45 4.58 7* 25



reasons. First, including all potential independent variables does not increase 

explanatory power. The adjusted R-square in the streamlined model (0.515) 

actually is slightly higher than in the fuller model (0.488). Second, there is more 

multicollinearity in the fuller model. Finally, given our modest sample size of 

75, we were concerned that adding several insignificant variables would further 

reduce our model’s statistical power. 

FINDINGS 

According to our analysis of ANOVA results, some structures for organizing 

service-learning projects are significantly more effective than others. As depicted 

in Table 4, there are significant differences in the educational effectiveness index 

scores of students based on the following: (a) the level of instructor guidance 

provided on the project, (b) the extent of project integration with course 

material, (c) the amount of in-class reflection time, (d) the level of student 

influence over the project, (e) the level of contact between students and service 

beneficiaries, and (f) whether the project involved group activities. With 

projects involving group activities, there are also significant differences in the 

educational effectiveness index scores of students, depending on how well they 

believed their group acted like a team. By contrast, other aspects of project 

structure do not appear to make a difference in the educational effectiveness 

index scores of students. These variables include the amount of time working on 

a project, and whether the course was required or elective. (See Table 4.) 

While many aspects of project structure make a significant difference in 

reported educational outcomes, ANOVA results provided in Table 5 indicate 

that only a few student characteristics make a significant difference. The only 

one that appears to matter is full-time student status. Full-time students have a 

higher mean educational effectiveness index score than part-time graduate 

students do. On the other hand, there are no significant differences in 

educational effectiveness index scores that are based on student gender, race, 

past volunteer experience, past service-learning experience, and past work 

experience. (See Table 5.) 

Table 6 reports the regression analysis of factors influencing the 

effectiveness of service learning with respect to achieving educational goals. 

Overall, the model explains 56 percent of the variance in the educational 

effectiveness index scores of students. Two aspects of project structure have a 

significant impact on service learning and its effectiveness at achieving 

educational goals: (a) integrating the service-learning project with class 

material, and (b) whether the activities took place in a group setting. A oneunit 

increase in integration leads to a 4.283-point increase in the educational 

effectiveness index, significant at the 0.01 level. This represents approximately 

17 percent of the range of values in the index. 




Table 4. 

ANOVA Analysis of Project Stucture Variables and Effectiveness Score 

Project Structure Variables Educational Effectiveness Index Score 

Instructor Guidance on this Project 


Mean Std. Dev. 

Number of 

Observations 

A little guidance 14.11 4.04 9 

Some guidance 18.96 3.13 26 

A great deal of guidance 20.9 4.61 42 

Integration of Project With Course Material 

Not at all integrated 12 4.4 7 

Somewhat integrated 18.08 3.55 39 

Very well integrated 23 2.36 30 

In-Class Reflection Time 

A little time 16.2 5.33 15 

Some time 19.11 4.05 38 

A great deal of time 22.17 3.42 23 

Hours Per Week Spent Working on the Project Outside of Class 

Less than 2 hours 18.5 5 4 

2-5 hours 18.5 4.25 30 

More than 5 hours 20.02 4.77 41 

Student Influence Over Project 

A little influence 14.29 5.38 7 

Some influence 19 4.3 30 

A great deal of influence 20.7 4.03 40 

Contact Between Students and Service Beneficiaries 

A little contact 19.10 4.50 42 

Some contact 18.14 4.76 22 

A great deal of contact 22.85 2.82 13 

Project Involved Group Activities 

No 20.75 4.26 24 

Yes 18.87 4.65 53 

Extent To Which Group Members Work As a Team 

Not at all like a team 14 7.7 4 

Somewhat like a team 17.93 3.85 14 

Very much like a team 19.97 4.34 35 

Required Class 

No 19.76 4.65 21 

Yes 19.34 4.6 56 

Significance 

(Prob>F) 

***



Table 5. 

ANOVA Analysis of Student Characteristics Variables and Effectiveness Score 


As % of 

Total Number 

of Students 

Educational 

Effectiveness 

Index Score 

Gender 

Male 28% 20.85 

Female 

Race 

72% 19.18 

White 80% 19.58 

Non-white 

Involvement in Volunteer Activities 

20% 19.73 

Not at all involved 19% 19 

Somewhat involved 51% 19.03 

Very involved 30% 20.27 

Number of Prior Service-Learning Projects (Participated In) 

None 39% 18.48 

1-3 projects 31% 20.4 

More than 3 projects 

Public/Nonprofit Work Experience 

30% 19.65 

None 36% 19.63 

3 years or less 31% 21.09 

4 years or more 

Full-Time Graduate Student Status 

33% 18.64 

No 35% 18.04 

Yes 

***



Table 6. 

Factors Influencing Educational Effectiveness of Service Learning (Regression) 

Independent Variables Coefficient Std. Err. P>|t| 

Project Structure 

Instructor Guidance 0.912 0.656 0.169 

Integration with Class Material 4.283 0.805 0.000*** 

Students’ Influence 0.480 0.632 0.450 

Reflection 0.341 0.679 0.617 

Contact with Service Beneficiaries -1.167 0.930 0.214 

Group Work (1=Yes) -2.439 1.442 0.095* 


Full Time Students (1=Yes) 1.391 0.805 0.088* 

Constant 8.217 2.618 0.003 

Number of Obs. 75 

Prob>F 0.000 

R-squared 0.561 

Adjusted R-squared 0.515 

***



skills than a traditional class would. Some crucial skills for conducting servicelearning 

projects — such as interpersonal skills — may not even be related to 

the course subjects. 

When designing service-learning projects, instructors also should weigh the 

tradeoffs involved with having students work together. Due to their size and 

scope, service-learning projects often require students to work in groups, which 

makes the workload manageable. However, our findings indicate that students 

who worked in groups gave their service-learning project a lower educational 

effectiveness rating than the students who did not participate in group activities 

did. Among the students who worked in groups, we find significant differences 

in student educational effectiveness ratings depending on how well students 

believed their group acted like a team. This highlights the importance of group 

dynamics in service learning, and suggests that, for service-learning projects that 

rely heavily on group work, instructors should carefully consider group 

composition and monitor group cohesion. 

Another critical consideration for instructors is the students’ capacity to 

perform the service-learning project. Service-learning projects can be very laborand 

time-intensive. Part-time students may not be able to devote enough time 

to gain the full academic benefits of the service-learning approach. Service 

learning may be a more effective pedagogical tool for some graduate MPA 

programs than it is for others. MPA programs that primarily serve part-time 

students should consider whether the emphasis placed on service learning in 

their curricula is realistic, given their student populations. 

Aside from status as a full-time graduate student, our ANOVA and 

multivariate analyses indicate that most student characteristics do not impact 

the educational outcomes of service learning. However, this finding may be 

unique to MPA programs. Many MPA students are strongly committed to 

public service, and generally may be more receptive to service learning than 

other types of graduate students. Further research should explore whether the 

impact of student characteristics on the educational outcomes of service learning 

matters more for different types of graduate programs. 

Reflection is the one factor that has considerable empirical research to show 

its positive impact on the educational outcomes of service learning. While there 

are significant differences in the educational effectiveness index scores of 

students based on their amount of in-class reflection time, we find that other 

factors are more important for determining the educational effectiveness of 

service-learning projects. One possible explanation for this is that our analysis 

only focuses on in-class reflection time. Perhaps if we had included measures of 

both in-class and out-of-class reflection time, we would have found that it had a 

more significant impact on the educational outcomes of service learning. 

Another reason for our findings may be because some of the studies that 

emphasize the importance of reflection do not consider the impact of project 




integration. Moreover, none of the studies that focus on reflection examine the 

impact of group dynamics or full-time student status on the educational 

outcomes of service learning. In addition, the vast majority of research on 

factors that influence the educational outcomes of service learning has focused 

on undergraduates. The focus and content of service-learning projects 

performed by graduate students may be fundamentally different than of those 

performed by undergraduates. As a result, the factors that influence the 

educational impact of service learning for graduate students may be different 

than those that influence its impact on undergraduates. 

CONCLUSION 

The 2009 standards for the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs 

and Administration (NASPAA) stress that “our public service degrees give 

graduates the competitive skills they need to lead the public sector” (NASPAA, 

2009, Mission Statement). As one of the many strategies aimed at achieving this 

goal, service learning brings the community into the classroom, and provides 

students an opportunity to grapple with real-life problems. Our preliminary 

findings indicate that the key factors of influence on the effectiveness of a 

service learning project in achieving its learning objectives are (a) the extent to 

which the project is integrated with class materials, (b) whether or not students 

work in groups, and (c) whether or not participating students are full-time. 

Given the limited literature on service learning in the field of public affairs, 

we believe that more research is needed on this topic. In particular, our research 

suggests it would be helpful to know more about how to structure successful 

groups, and how to determine which strategies are the most effective for 

integrating service learning with class materials. Our research focused on servicelearning 

projects as seen from the perspective of students and instructors. 

However, community organizations also play a crucial role in these projects. 

Researchers should examine how community-university relationships impact 

service-learning outcomes, and explore how community organizations and 

universities can work together to facilitate the learning process. Ideally, future 

research will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors 

influencing the educational outcomes of service learning, particularly for 

graduate students. 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, D., & Harris, B. (2005). Teaching social welfare policy: A comparison of two pedagogical 

approaches. Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 511-526. 

Barron, B.J.S., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J.D., & The 

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1998). Doing with understanding: 

Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 

271-311. 




Batchelder, T., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic learning 

and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341- 

355. 

Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of 

Higher Education, 67, 221-239. 

Bushouse, B., & Morrison, S. (2001). Applying service learning in Master of Public Affairs programs. 

Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7, 9-17. 

Campbell, H., & Tatro, B. (1998). Teaching program evaluation to public administration students in a 

single course: An experiential solution. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4, 101-122. 

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experiential education on adolescent development. 

Child & Youth Services, 4, 57-76. 

Denhardt, R. (1997). Foreword: Experiential education in public administration. Journal of Public 

Administration Education, 3, 149-151. 

Dicke, L., Dowden, S., & Torres, J. (2004). Successful service learning: A matter of ideology. Journal 

of Public Affairs Education, 10, 199-208. 

Druker, M., Stefanovic, D., & Cunningham, B. (1996). Student teams studying organizations: 

Connecting the classroom through field experience. Journal of Public Administration Education, 2, 

131-142. 

Eyler, J. (2000). What do we most need to know about the impact of service-learning on student 

learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special Issue (Service Learning Research), 

11-17. 

Eyler, J., & Giles, G.E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 

Publishers. 

Fredericksen, P. (2000). Does service learning make a difference in student performance? Journal of 

Experiential Education, 23, 64-74. 

Gallini, S., & Moely, B. (2003). Service learning and engagement, academic challenge, and retention. 

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10, 5-14. 

Hatcher, J.A., Bringle, R.G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing effective reflections: What matters to 

service learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11, 38-46. 

Hesser, G. (1995). Faculty assessment of student learning: Outcomes attributed to service-learning and 

evidence of changes in faculty attitudes about experiential education. Michigan Journal of 

Community Service Learning, 2, 33-42. 

Jelier, R., & Clarke, R. (1999). The community as a laboratory of study: Getting out of the ivory 

tower. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5, 167-180. 

Kendrick, J. (1996). Outcomes of service-learning in an introduction to sociology course. Michigan 

Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 72-81. 

Litke, R. (2002). Do all students “get it?:” Comparing students’ reflections to course performance. 

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8, 27-34. 

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. (2009). Mission statement. In 

NASPAA standards 2009: Defining quality in public affairs education. Retrieved August 4, 2009, 

from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/standard2009/goal.asp 

Mabry, J.B. (1998). Pedagogical variations in service learning and student outcomes: How time, 

contact, and reflection matter. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 32-47. 

Markus, G., Howard, J., & King, D. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction 

enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 

410-419. 




Parker-Gwin, R., & Mabry, J.B. (1998). Service learning as pedagogy and civic education: Comparing 

outcomes for three models. Teaching Sociology, 26, 276-291. 

Reinke, S. (2003). Making a difference: Does service-learning promote civic engagement in MPA 

students? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9, 129-138. 

Ropers-Huilman, B., Carwile, L., & Lima, M. (2005). Service learning in engineering: A valuable 

pedagogy for meeting learning objectives. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30, 155-165. 

Sax, L.J., & Astin, A.W. (1997). The benefits of service: Evidence from undergraduates. The 

Educational Record, 78, 25-32. 

Scales, P.C., Roehlkepartain, E.C., Neal, M., Kielsmeier, J.C., & Benson, P.L. (2006). Reducing 

academic achievement gaps: The role of community service and service learning. Journal of 

Experiential Education, 29, 38-60. 

Simons, L. & Cleary, B. (2006). The influence of service learning on students’ personal and social 

development. College Teaching, 54(4), 307-319. 

Strage, A. (2000). Service-learning: Enhancing student learning outcomes in a college-level lecture 

course. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 5-13. 

Warren, K. (1998). A call for race, gender, and class sensitive facilitation in outdoor experiential 

education. Journal of Experiential Education, 21, 21-25. 

Wells, M. (2006). Teaching notes: Making statistics “real” for social work students. Journal of Social 

Work Education, 42, 397-404. 

FOOTNOTES 

1 

In some courses, all students worked on the same service-learning project. In other courses, students 

worked on different projects. 

Kristina T. Lambright is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at 

Binghamton University’s College of Community and Public Affairs. She teaches 

classes on research methods and evaluation. Her research interests include 

service learning, service delivery structure, contracting and privatization, 

organizational ownership, and networks. She recently has had articles published 

in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Journal of Policy 

Analysis and Management, American Review of Public Administration, Nonprofit 

and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, and in the Journal of Public Affairs Education. Email: 

klambrig@binghamton.edu. 

Yi Lu is an Associate Professor with the Department of Public Management at 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice-City University of New York. Her research 

interests are performance management and budgeting, shared services, and MPA 

education. Her studies have been accepted for publication in such journals as 

Public Budgeting and Finance, Public Performance and Management Review, the 

Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, and the 

Municipal Finance Journal. She can be reached at ylu@jjay.cuny.edu. 




Appendix 

Student Survey 

Course Number and Name: ________________________________________ 

Section Number: __________________________________________________ 

1) Describe the service-learning project for this course in two to three sentences. 

2) On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate how helpful the service-learning project in this course 

was at achieving the following goals: 

1 = Project was not helpful 5 = Project was extremely helpful 

Mastering material covered in this course 1 2 3 4 5 

Tying together concepts covered in this course 1 2 3 4 5 

Applying concepts covered in this course to real situations 1 2 3 4 5 

Developing a deeper understanding of material covered 

in this course 

Developing a deeper understanding of material outside 

of this course that is relevant in your graduate program 

Developing a better understanding of the role of 

public/nonprofit administrators 

Increasing my enthusiasm for a career in public/nonprofit 

administration 

1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

1 2 3 4 5 

Learning to work more effectively with people 1 2 3 4 5 

Improving my problem-solving skills 1 2 3 4 5 

Improving my oral communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 

Improving my written communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 

Developing my leadership skills 1 2 3 4 5 

Feeling more connected to my community 1 2 3 4 5 

Developing a deeper understanding of the complex 

problems facing my community 

1 2 3 4 5 

Becoming more involved in volunteer activities 1 2 3 4 5 

3) How could this service-learning project be improved? 

4) How much guidance did the instructor provide on this project? 

• A little guidance 

• Some guidance 

• A great deal of guidance 

5) How integrated was this project into the material covered in this course? 

• Not at all integrated 

• Somewhat integrated 

• Very well integrated 

6) How much time in class was spent discussing this project? 

• A little time 

• Some time 

• A great deal of time 




7) On average, how many hours per week did you spend working on this project outside 

of class? 

• Less than 2 

• 2–5 

• More than 5 

8) How much influence did you have over how this project progressed? 

• A little influence 

• Some influence 

• A great deal of influence 

9) Are you currently participating in a major service-learning project for another class you 

are taking this semester? 

Yes No 

10) If you answered Yes to Question 9, how much has the work you have done on the 

service-learning project in this class helped you with the service-learning project for the 

other class? 

• Not at all 

• Somewhat 

• A great deal 

Only answer questions 11 and 12 if you participated in group activities as part of the service 

learning project for this course. 

11) How many members were in your group? ______ 

12) How well did you group work as a team? 

• Not at all like a team 

• Somewhat like a team 

• Very much like a team 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

13) Gender: Male Female 

14) Age: 21-29 30-39 40-49 50 or older 

15) Race/Ethnicity _________________ 

16) Are you a domestic or international student? 

• Domestic 

• International 

17) What was your undergraduate major? ___________________ 

18) What is your graduate student status? Full-time Part-time 

19) How many years of public and/or non-profit administration paid work experience do 

you have? 

• None 

• 3 years or less 

• 4-5 years 

• More than 5 years 

20) Prior to this semester, how involved were you in volunteer activities? 

• Not at all involved 

• Somewhat involved 

• Very involved 

21) Prior to this semester, how many major service-learning projects did you participate in as 

an undergraduate and/or graduate school student? 

0 1 2 3 More than 3 



The Value of Capstone Projects 

to Participating Client Agencies 

David R. Schachter 

New York University 

Deena Schwartz 

New York University 

ABSTRACT 

Many schools have experiential learning projects, often termed “capstones,” where 

students combine theory and practice for the benefit of an outside agency. New 

York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service (NYU 

Wagner) has devoted a great deal of thought and effort to strengthening and 

sustaining its Capstone program from the students’ perspective, and it has seen 

significant improvement. But we knew less about whether the project work our 

students performed was helpful to participating Capstone client organizations, as 

well as what factors made certain projects more successful from the clients’ point 

of view. In an effort to assess and understand this perspective, we undertook a 

post-project survey of recent Capstone clients. The results indicate very strongly 

that the services offered and tools created by our Capstone teams are useful to 

these outside agencies, and the feedback offers indications of how to increase the 

value of these projects going forward. 

THE VALUE OF CAPSTONE PROJECTS TO PARTICIPATING CLIENT AGENCIES 

Many National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration 

(NASPAA) and Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 

(APPAM) schools — such as those at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz 

School, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, 

George Washington University’s Trachtenberg School, New York University’s 

Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, Princeton University’s 

Woodrow Wilson School, Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, and Texas 

A&M’s Bush School — build experiential learning opportunities into their 

curriculum through capstone programs, where students work on projects for 



governmental or nonprofit agencies. The format of these projects varies from 

four-week, intensive workshops to year-long courses, but a common theme is 

their emphasis on the opportunity for students to complete work in a “realworld” 

environment. 

The benefit of experiential learning opportunities to graduate students in 

public administration and public policy programs has been the focus of much 

research. Whitaker and Berner (2004) discuss the value of Master of Public 

Administration (MPA) public service team projects for helping students develop 

research and management skills. Bernstein, Ohren and Shue (2003) cite greater 

civic engagement as one benefit of the service-learning program at Eastern 

Michigan University, and conclude that the benefits of service learning outweigh 

the costs. Smith (2005) notes that in addition to providing NYU Wagner 

students with the opportunity to integrate the knowledge, understanding, and 

skills they’ve developed at school, Capstone students also “experience the value 

of professional networks and get an early introduction to many value conflicts 

and ethical dilemmas similar to those they will face in their careers” (Smith, 

2005, p.195). Many other articles emphasize the general value of enabling 

students to bridge theory and practice through work with the wider community 

(Jelier & Clarke, 1999; Allard & Straussman, 2003; Denhardt, Lewis, Raffel, & 

Rich, 1997; Cohen, Eimicke, & Ukeles, 1995). 

Most research on experiential learning programs focuses on their benefits to 

students, not to the client organizations. Yet, implicit in the development of 

these programs is the assumption that students are providing a valuable public 

service. Input from organizations that participate in such programs supports 

this assumption. For example, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a 

frequent client of capstone projects, states that their “involvement in such 

programs can benefit the students, the school, the Congress, and CRS in 

multiple ways” (CRS, 2007, p.5). The client comments included in Whitaker 

and Berner’s (2004) article, as well as Bernstein et al.’s (2003) discussion of the 

benefits to the City of Ypsilanti, offer more evidence for the use of such 

projects to the client organization. 

And, NASPAA has deemed the public service component of experiential 

learning programs as important, too. NASPAA’s Data Task Force (McFarland, 

2007) — whose charge is to identify “appropriate, relevant and verifiable 

measures of the educational quality and characteristics of public affairs 

programs” and to “counter the federal government’s pressure for public 

accountability with their own voluntary data efforts” (p.1) — has identified 

“discernable impacts on community well-being and advancement” (p.3) as a 

desired data-collection effort. 

NYU Wagner sought to find out more formally and definitively if capstone 

projects indeed “address challenges and identify opportunities for a client 

organization” and “contribute not only to the students’ education, but also to the 



public good,” as written in the description of our Capstone program (NYU 

Wagner, n.d., overview). We also wanted to identify any consensus about which 

projects were most and least beneficial to our client organizations, and examine 

whether certain project characteristics were associated with better outcomes for 

our clients. And, finally, we thought that the size of our program might give us 

perspective that would be useful not only to us, but to our peer schools as well, as 

we evaluate and strengthen this type of experiential learning academic program. 

We did so via a survey of recent Capstone clients, inquiring as to the long-term 

usefulness the work done by our students may have had to their agencies. 

PROGRAM BACKGROUND 

NYU Wagner’s Capstone program was started in 1995. Since then, more than 

2,600 students have participated in more than 500 projects for approximately 

400 organizations. Our Capstone program is the final event for all MPA and 

Master of Urban Planning (MUP) candidates. Covering an academic year (two 

full semesters), students enroll in a Capstone section, based on a combination of 

their academic programs (either Public and Nonprofit Management and Policy, 

Health, or Urban Planning) and their specializations (Management, Policy, 

Finance, or International). Each Capstone section consists of a class that is 

scheduled to meet once a week with a faculty member, as well as a team-based 

project that addresses a real concern for a local, national, or international 

government or nonprofit agency. Client-based projects are solicited through an 

open RFP process that begins in the month of March, prior to the academic 

year that the project work will take place. Faculty and students also can suggest 

potential Capstone clients. Prospective clients receive e-mail messages and 

postcards announcing that the school is accepting proposals, and are referred to 

a Web site that outlines proposal guidelines as well as the program’s major 

components (www.wagner.nyu.edu/capstone). This Web site includes 

application and selection procedures, the suggested engagement fee structure, 

information on previous projects, and tips as to common themes among the 

best Capstone proposals — that they be important but not urgent; achievable 

within the academic timeframe and with the resources available; and provide a 

reasonably clear definition of the problem or issue to be addressed. All selected 

Capstone clients are invited to attend a group meeting in the beginning of the 

academic year. At this meeting, they explore ways to maximize the quality and 

effectiveness of their Capstone project by engaging with Capstone 

administration and faculty, as well as previous Capstone clients and former 

Capstone students. A memo summarizing the discussion of helpful tips is emailed 

to all clients, whether or not they attend this event. 

Capstone clients are asked, but not required, to complete an evaluation of the 

team’s work toward the end of the project cycle in April, in order to assess team 

performance and the quality of the product to date. All Capstone teams submit 



a final written report to the Capstone client, and many also present their 

findings and recommendations in person. 

Three-hundred-four students participated in NYU Wagner’s Capstone 

program during the 2006-2007 academic year. The vast majority of students 

participated in client-based Capstone projects (278, or 91 percent, in the 2006- 

2007 academic year), while a much smaller number elected to conduct a teambased 

research project without a client organization (26 students in the 2006- 

2007 academic year). Capstone was taught by 20 faculty members in 

2006-2007, and 62 projects were conducted throughout the year (57 clientbased 

projects and five research-based projects). In the 2006-2007 academic 

year, NYU Wagner received 129 project proposals from prospective clients, of 

which 57, or 44 percent, were selected. 

METHODOLOGY 

In November 2007, approximately six months after the students completed 

their work with the Capstone program, we surveyed all 57 clients from the 

2006-2007 academic year. 1 A request to fill out an on-line survey (see 

Appendix A) was sent to the client project liaisons who worked with Capstone 

teams, and an accompanying e-mail was sent to explain the purpose of the 

survey. (See Appendix B.) 

After two rounds of reminders and direct contacts, 42 out of 55 client 

agencies responded, with a total survey response rate of 74 percent. Two 

agencies had multiple responses; for the purposes of this analysis, their 

quantitative responses were averaged and counted as one response. 

The survey required respondents to give their name, indicate their own role 

in relation to the Capstone project (e.g., wrote the original project proposal, 

served as the primary liaison to the NYU Wagner Capstone team, worked with 

the team during the project year, etc.), and also the content of the project (e.g., 

conducting organizational assessments, evaluating programs, reviewing or 

examining financial viability of projects or endeavors, conducting 

neighborhood or community assessments, assisting with strategic planning, 

evaluating client satisfaction, etc.). 

The survey also had respondents indicate whether the Capstone team had 

provided the client with specific tools or resources, and separately asked whether 

the team had made specific recommendations as part of the project. Additional 

questions addressed whether the client organization was using those tools and/or 

resources or following the teams’ recommendations, and how useful the 

organization had found the tools and resources or recommendations to be. 

The primary variables of interest were survey questions that asked whether 

Capstone had been helpful to the organization, whether the Capstone project 

had a lasting impact on the organization, and the respondents’ overall 

satisfaction with the Capstone team. These items were assessed using a 5-point 



Likert scale, with the top rating of 5 indicating the most positive assessment, 3 

representing neutral or somewhat helpful appraisals, and the lowest rating of 1 

representing the most negative assessment. 2 

In addition to numerical responses, the survey gave participants the 

opportunity to add comments, and asked participants several open-ended 

questions regarding the lasting impact of the Capstone project, overall 

satisfaction with the program, and suggestions for further improvement. 

FINDINGS 

Overall Satisfaction and Lasting Impact 

Participants indicated high overall satisfaction with the Capstone program, 

with a mean rating of 4.2 (N = 41; all rating scales up to 5.0), and rated the 

helpfulness of the Capstone project to their organizations with a mean rating of 

3.9 (N = 42). Clients commented that the work gave them a reference point 

from an outside perspective that was helpful, and that provided an understanding 

of “best practices” that enabled the client to feel, as one described, “secure in the 

knowledge we are on the right path.” Another client said “having another 

organization be involved with the project has helped with the advancement of 

the project.” Yet another client elaborated further, by saying: 

The Capstone evaluation [of our work] is the first objective, outside 

evaluation of the model and, as such, of key importance in providing a 

measure of “reality check.” We are very reassured by the fact that the 

model appears to be objectively feasible and desirable. Most of the 

recommendations provided by the Capstone team corresponded with 

what we already suspected we need. This is very helpful and reassuring 

as it affirms that we are on the right track. 

Many projects provided a needed foundation of knowledge or an approach 

for the client, as illustrated by one saying “we are changing practices to follow 

recommendations,” and by another client who was appreciative that the work 

“provided the foundation for our Center’s projected operating budget.” Another 

satisfied client reported that the Capstone project had a “positive impact on our 

strategic planning and a positive impact on our donor messaging.” 

Though less strong in their opinions, clients also indicated that they believed 

the Capstone project would have a lasting impact, with a mean rating of 3.5 (N 

= 35), as indicated by this response: 

I think we will continue to draw on the recommendations for some 

time to come — both for our planning and our fundraising. 

It is important to note that five respondents to the comments section indicated 

that the lasting impact may not be known for awhile, as exemplified by a 



respondent saying, “It’s too soon to determine whether the impact is lasting. In a 

few years, as other events unfold, we’ll be better able to reply to that question.” 

The three primary variables of interest (respondents’ ratings of the Capstone 

team project’s helpfulness to their organization, their assessment of the Capstone 

project’s lasting impact, and their overall satisfaction) all were significantly and 

positively correlated to one another. 

Client Satisfaction with Capstone Team’s Deliverables 

Initial desired deliverables are requested of all prospective clients by NYU 

Wagner as part of the client’s project proposal. Many proposals are dismissed 

during the vetting process, due to unrealistic or excessively far-reaching 

expectations of what is reasonable for a Capstone team to achieve. Once a 

project has been picked up by a student team, the team members meet with 

the client liaison to scope out the project and develop a project work plan. 

There usually are interim deliverables expected throughout the two semesters 

of Capstone, with the final product presented to the client agency at the end of 

the second semester. 

Fifty percent of respondents said the Capstone team had developed or 

acquired specific tools or resources for the organization, such as evaluation tools, 

survey instruments, policy and procedure manuals, comprehensive community 

assessments, resource lists, logic models, databases, and reports on the analysis of 

large datasets. Eighty-three percent of respondents reported that the Capstone 

team made specific recommendations for the organization, including 

recommending expansion or reduction of programs, client outreach plans, 

communications improvements, technical assistance, strengthening management 

structures, and further research. Seven percent reported that the team neither 

developed or acquired tools, nor made recommendations for the organization, 

and instead created case studies for the client agency. 

Tools and Resources as Deliverables 

Of those agencies whose projects included developing or acquiring tools or 

resources, 85 percent rated them at or above a 4.0 (the other 15 percent of 

respondents rated them at 3.0). Responses included the following three 

comments: 

• This compiled data and analysis performed by the team does not exist 

anywhere else. It is a unique asset. 

• The tools provided will probably be a better measure of our program 

impact. It has helped us create a rationale and a plan for more formal 

program evaluation. 

• We now have an updated manual which is critical for an organization 

our size. 

Independent sample t-tests indicated that those respondents for whom the 



Table 1. 

Mean Ratings of Primary Outcome Variables Based on Respondents’ Indication of 

Whether the Capstone Team Did or Did Not Develop or Acquire Tools or Resources 

Developed or 

Acquired Tools or 

Resources 

Note. N may not equal 42 due to items skipped by respondents. 

Did Not Develop or 

Acquire Tools or Resources 

n Mean n Mean t p-value 

Helpfullness 19 4.4 17 3.7 -2.93 0.006 

Lasting Impact 16 3.8 14 3.5 -0.78 0.44 

Overall Satisfaction 19 4.6 16 4.1 -2.09 0.04 

Capstone team created or acquired new tools or resources reported a significantly 

higher level of satisfaction and a significantly higher rating for helpfulness of the 

project, as well as a higher rating of lasting impact (though not statistically 

significant) than those for whom the project did not. (See Table 1.) 

Recommendations as Deliverables 

Of those for whom the Capstone team made recommendations, 71 percent 

reported that the agency followed the recommendations at least somewhat, and 

74 percent of these clients rated the recommendations at 4.0 or higher. Some 

responses were as follows: 

• Policy recommendations were sensible and were well-connected to the 

research and analysis. 

• The recommendations were sensible and in line with existing mission 

and intentions for growth. 

• The recommendations reflected thoughtful analysis of the data and who 

we are as an organization. 

However, 37 percent of respondents noted that they did not find the 

recommendations particularly helpful, with the majority of these responders 

claiming that if they followed the recommendations fully, it would have 

required them to provide additional resources or funding that they did not have. 

Six percent stated that they don’t think the recommendations would be helpful 

at all, or that they were, as one person noted, “not appropriate in our 

judgment.” There were no significant differences in satisfaction, impact, or 

helpfulness between those projects where the team made recommendations and 

those where they did not. 

Content of the Project 

Capstone projects can take a wide variety of approaches to assisting client 

agencies. The survey asked respondents to identify the nature of the project 



Table 2. 

Mean Ratings of Primary Outcome Variables Based on Respondents’ 

Indication of Whether the Capstone Team’s Project Did or Did Not 

Encompass an Organizational Assessment. 

Encompassed 

Organizational 

Assessment 

(e.g., conducting organizational assessments, evaluating programs, reviewing or 

examining financial viability of projects or endeavors, conducting neighborhood 

or community assessments, assisting with strategic planning, evaluating client 

satisfaction, etc.) with the ability to choose all that apply. 

Clients whose projects encompassed organizational assessments reported 

significantly higher scores for lasting impact, helpfulness and overall satisfaction. 

(See Table 2.) 

There was a modest but significant positive correlation between the number 

of different types of work the projects encompassed (M = 4.2, N = 36) — for 

example, the work the Capstone team conducted combined organizational 

assessments, conducting external policy analysis, gathering and/or synthesizing 

empirical data, and assisting with strategic planning — and the clients’ overall 

satisfaction with the Capstone experience (M = 4.4, N = 35), at a 5 percent 

confidence level. However, there was no significant correlation between number 

of different types of work the project encompassed and respondents’ ratings of 

the lasting impact or helpfulness of the project. 

Client Suggestions 

Clients were asked in the survey for any suggestions about improving the 

Capstone program. We received 25 responses to this open-ended question (60 

percent of respondents); five respondents wrote that they did not have any 

suggestions at all, and six replied by saying that their experience was a positive 

one and had no suggestions for enhancement, as shown by the following: 

• If all Wagner teams were to be as flexible and resourceful as ours, every 

project would be a success. 

• We found the program to be very well conceived and organized and we 

appreciated the opportunity to take part. 


Did Not Encompass 

Organizational Assessment 

n Mean n Mean t p-value 

Helpfullness 18 4.4 18 3.8 -2.4 0.021 

Lasting Impact 16 4.1 14 3.2 -2.3 0.031 

Overall Satisfaction 18 4.8 17 3.9 -3.4 0.002 

Note. N may not equal 42 due to items skipped by respondents.


Fourteen respondents provided suggestions for enhancement, ranging from 

“it would be great if they could actually be on-site more — like a placement” 

to difficulties with travel expense reimbursement procedures. A few 

suggestions focused on how the client is prepared for the experience and 

introduced to the students: 

I think that a first “generic” step would be to work with the client to 

think through what would be the optimal resource/staff commitment 

from the organization. I think this could be part of a general orientation 

to new clients. In hindsight, I wish I would have been more proactive in 

getting some other staff and board members involved in the project 

early on. Obviously, that is my responsibility, but I think some very 

specific discussion/training at the beginning of the process would have 

helped me think more about this. 

Perhaps it would be nice to ask soliciting organizations to come to class 

to make preliminary pitches about project purpose. 

Additional enhancement suggestions focused on clarifying expectations, better 

communication, and clear project scoping once the project was selected: 

• There needs to be a commitment to stick with the agreed-upon scope. 

If the team is unable to deliver, then that should be made clear in 

advance of concluding the study. 

• Our one issue was that our project was too broad in scope. While we 

designed the project, perhaps a little feedback on it would have helped 

us narrow it a bit. 

• In retrospect, it would have been good to have pressed the team on the 

initial goal [of the project]. 

Other Comments 

The final question of the survey asked for any other comments that the 

client would like to share. Many responses focused on the student teams, 

calling them “interested and engaged,” “excellent,” “dedicated, attentive, 

competent, and sensitive to the uniqueness of the organization and its 

programs,” “extremely professional,” and “five enthusiastic and intelligent 

team members who were a pleasure to work with.” One client encompassed 

several of the comments by saying: 

We had a great team: very professional, well-organized and flexible. 

Also, they conveyed a respect for our organization which was 

appreciated and also helped us approach the work enthusiastically and 

made us open to the recommendations forwarded. Smart group who I 

bet have since gone on to great things. 



Some clients referred to elements of the experience that were problematic. 

One client said “The effort was fair. Not enough fieldwork was done and was a 

shortcoming in the final analysis,” and another acknowledged that “the faculty 

member in charge of the team disappeared during the term of their engagement. 

Though I’m sure this is very unusual, it appeared to be disruptive and the group 

was not as focused as it perhaps could have been.” 

Additional comments emphasized the positive experience they had through 

Capstone, with clients saying “I enjoyed the experience,” “thanks for allowing us 

the chance to participate,” “it is a great program!!” and “I enjoyed the project 

from soup to nuts.” One client summed it up by saying: 

Please keep it up. It’s such a great service to the nonprofit community 

and a great learning opportunity for the students. A win-win 

arrangement. 

DISCUSSION 

Overall, our clients reported that participation in NYU Wagner’s Capstone 

program was very helpful to their organizations, and that the Capstone projects 

have had a lasting impact on them. Our study shows some trends worth noting, 

as well as some opportunities to continue enhancing this kind of program 

experience, not only for NYU Wagner, but also for our peer schools. 

Encourage Concrete Deliverables 

Projects for which teams developed or acquired specific tools and resources 

had significantly higher ratings compared to those that did not. This implies 

that Capstone teams provide value to their clients with concrete deliverables. 

This finding should guide the outreach during the RFP and selection processes, 

so that prospective clients think about the kinds of projects that might engender 

usable resources. In addition, students and faculty can encourage and push for 

tangible results as part of their deliverables. 

Recommendations Should be Scaled to the Agency’s Reality 

Any recommendations made to clients need to take into account the unique 

realities of the participating agencies. When devising recommendations, students 

should be encouraged to look at the entire organizational system — its 

resources, culture, politics, opportunities, constraints — and not just their own 

discrete project. The ability to look at organizational challenges through a 

variety of lenses and perspectives only will enhance the likelihood of 

sophisticated problem solving. Incorporating a thorough and nuanced 

understanding of the complex environments in which their clients work should 

enhance the receptivity to the recommendations that students make. Student 

teams need not abandon their bold recommendations if they provide a tiered set 

of suggestions to the client that include: 



• a set of recommendations that provide relatively quick wins and easy 

enhancements for the agency; 

• a set of recommendations that require a bit more energy and resources 

but are do-able with the right amount of attention; and 

• a set that stretches the agency and might be viable in the long-term. 

Administrative Communication with Clients 

There is no reason to assume that Capstone client agencies will have had 

previous experience with graduate students, let alone with a process as complex 

as Capstone. While we have spent a lot of time and energy devising 

programmatic support to Capstone students and faculty, we could increase the 

level of communication between administration and clients throughout the 

year. While we encourage faculty to invite prospective clients into their 

classrooms to present their projects to students, not all faculty do so. We can 

encourage this even more, by explaining that its benefits are not only to the 

students in making their project choices, but that it also helps the clients — by 

forcing them to think about their projects in a way that puts this work into the 

context and process of an educational environment. And, while we invite all 

clients to attend an initial Capstone client meeting in October, not all of them 

attend. We can emphasize the value of attending this event, as it covers a lot of 

information that will be helpful for them as they think about their role in this 

partnership, and we can use on-line resources for liaisons who are unable to 

attend this event in person, so that they still can benefit from the discussion. In 

addition, checking on the projects’ interim deliverable status, monitoring how 

the process is going, and providing tips for successful engagement also can be 

integrated into the program design. 

Life Happens 

Life doesn’t always happen the way we want it to. And neither does Capstone. 

Data may not be readily available, the scope of a project may become unworkable, 

hidden agendas may arise that shift the nature and tone of the project, a key 

stakeholder may interrupt the progress of the work, or deeply considered 

recommendations may not be well-received. Dilemmas like these are to be 

expected. What the students choose to do with these challenges can influence not 

only their learning, but also their ability to deliver a viable end product to their 

client. We want to encourage our students to face these challenges among 

themselves and with the client, rather than avoid them. We want students to 

recognize that when these perplexing situations come along it doesn’t mean that 

they did something wrong, or that the client did something wrong, or that the 

administration did something wrong — because this aspect of the learning process 

is exactly what we anticipate, and we actually want our students to go through. 

The benefit of this trial-and-error effect happening in Capstone is that it is 



occurring in a relatively safe environment, where learning and reflection are 

purposefully built into the process. A key to managing this expected messiness is 

keeping the dialogue going. We need to teach our students to stay at the table, to 

manage the impasse, to be generous of spirit and exercise resiliency 

Messaging the Value of these Programs to Various Audiences 

Our survey research affirms for us that the work we’re doing is of benefit to 

the community, and that we can and should use this information when we 

report community impact data to a variety of stakeholders. We can use this 

information when we reach out to prospective clients, and can let them know 

with confidence that participating in this program will bring value to them. We 

can present this information to our student body, who may struggle with the 

concept of whether or not all the work they put into Capstone has an impact on 

their client agencies. We can thank our Capstone faculty members who provide 

the valuable oversight and guidance to our Capstone students, knowing that 

they are contributing not only to the development of our students but also to 

the many clients we serve each year. We can inform our university government 

and community affairs staff that we are having a positive impact on a broad 

swath of communities. And NASPAA can help schools like ours in devising 

strategies for this type of data collection by using this survey as a data template. 

CONCLUSION 

Past research has led us to draw strong conclusions about the positive impact 

that experiential learning and Capstone projects can have on the student 

experience. 3 The foregoing, however, has focused on the impact to an equally 

important, though less-examined, player in the Capstone experience — the 

client organization. Many of our Capstone clients found comfort, through the 

Capstone teams’ work, in knowing they were on the right track, and we, too, 

are reassured and energized by the findings of this evaluation. 

While case studies and problem sets remain as integral elements to the 

learning process, experiential learning opportunities (whether Capstone projects, 

projects tied to program evaluation courses, assessments connected to 

management classes, or other similar endeavors) supplement these important 

methods by coupling students with a real-life project for a real agency in real 

time, and by providing opportunities to test theories as well as to create theory 

from practice. 

Universities have a responsibility to give back to their communities in ways 

that enrich and deepen the relationship. Capstone programs provide a valuable 

way to do this. These findings give us more confidence that we are living up to 

New York University’s motto as “a private university in the public service.” 

Finding ways to measure, in a meaningful format, the impact that our types of 



schools are having on the community-at-large can be daunting. Sharing and 

recommending data-collection methods is a role that NASPAA has rightly 

committed itself to, and we believe that measuring the impact Capstone projects 

have on participating agencies will add positively to the discourse. 

REFERENCES 

Allard, S.W., & Straussman, J.D. (2003). Managing intensive student consulting capstone projects: the 

Maxwell School experience. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, 689-702. 

Bernstein, J.L., Ohren, J., & Shue, L. (2003). A collaborative-teaching approach to linking classes and 

community. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9, 117-127. 

The Bush School of Government and Public Service. (n.d.) Masters of public service administration 

capstones. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://bush.tamu.edu/research/capstones/mpsa/ 

Carnegie Mellon Heinz School. (n.d.) Systems synthesis — the Capstone project. Retrieved January 

30, 2008, from http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/current-students/capstone-projects/index.aspx 

Cohen, S., Eimicke, W., & Ukeles, J. (1995). Teaching the craft of policy and management analysis: 

The workshop sequence at Columbia University’s graduate program in public policy and 

administration. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14, 606-626. 

Congressional Research Service. (2007). University capstone projects for academic year 2007-2008. 

Denhardt, R.B., Lewis, J.R., Raffel, J.R., & Rich, D. (1997). Integrating theory and practice in MPA 

education: The Delaware model. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 3, 153-162. 

Jelier, R.W., & Clarke, R.J. (1999). The community as a laboratory of study: Getting out of the ivory 

tower. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5, 167-180. 

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. (n.d.) Master of public 

administration: Master’s handbook and course guide. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from 

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/pa/HANDBOOK%202007%20-%202008.pdf 

McFarland, L. (2007). NASPAA data task force: Report to the executive council. Retrieved March 19, 

2008, from http://naspaa.org/DataTaskforce/document/DataTaskForceReportOct07.pdf 

Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University. (n.d.) The Capstone 

program: Capstone overview. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://wagner.nyu.edu/capstone/ 

The School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. (n.d.). Description of core 

courses. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from 

http://sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degree_programs/mpa/curriculum/core.html 

Smith, D.C. (2005). Practice, practice, practice: The clinical education of policy analysts at the 

NYU/Wagner School. In I. Geva-May (ed.), Thinking like a policy analyst: Policy analysis as a 

clinical profession. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 187-211. 

The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at The George Washington 

University. (n.d.) Master of public administration courses. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from 

http://www.gwu.edu/~tspppa/academics/MPA/MPA_courses.cfm 

Whitaker, G.P., & Berner, M. (2004). Learning through action: How MPA public service team 

projects help students learn research and management skills. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4, 

279-294. 

The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. (n.d.) MPA 

curriculum — degree requirements. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from 

http://wws.princeton.edu/grad/mpa/curriculum/ 



FOOTNOTES 

1 

Of the 57 client-based Capstone projects completed during the 2006-2007 academic year, three 

clients had two separate Capstone projects that were selected by students. These projects involved 

different content and different client liaisons, and were overseen by different faculty members, so 

they were considered separate projects for this evaluation. One agency had two related projects 

with the same client liaison and same overseeing faculty member; these projects were considered as 

one for the purposes of this analysis. 

2 

Language used for Ratings of 5 included “very,” “fully,” and “extremely”; ratings of 3 used the words 

“somewhat,” “moderate,” and “some”; and ratings of 1 were characterized as “not at all,” “very 

poor,” and “no.” 

3 

See references: Smith, 2005; Whitaker & Berner, 2004; and Bernstein, Ohren, & Shue, 2003. 

David R. Schachter is the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs and Co-Director of 

the Capstone program at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate 

School of Public Service. He received the 2006 NACE/Chevron Outstanding 

Achievement Award for Innovative Programs in Career Services for his 

partnership with Action Without Borders/Idealist.org to create the Institute on 

Public Service Careers (IPSC), a program series designed to educate college 

career services professionals on how to increase the visibility and accessibility of 

public service careers to their students. He contributed chapters to The Idealist 

Guide to Nonprofit Careers and The Idealist Guide to Nonprofit Careers for Sector 

Switchers, and he teaches NYU Wagner’s Composing Your Career workshop. He 

received a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from NYU's Tisch School of the Arts 

and a Master's Degree in Public Administration from NYU Wagner. 

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to David R. 

Schachter, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, Robert F. Wagner Graduate 

School of Public Service, New York University, 295 Lafayette Street, New York, 

NY 10012. E-mail: david.schachter@nyu.edu. 

Deena Schwartz was the 2007-2008 NYU Wagner Capstone Project Assistant 

and earned her Master of Public Administration degree from NYU Wagner, 

specializing in public policy analysis. She currently is working in the Labor 

Market Initiatives department at Public/Private Ventures. Before coming to 

NYU Wagner, she worked at the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s 

Services, and the psychiatry department at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine 

on research regarding children exposed to traumatic events. She earned her 

Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Connecticut College. 



Appendix A. 

Online Survey 

1. Your Name: _________________________ 

2. Name of Organization:_________________ 

3. Title:_______________________________ 

4. What was your role with the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone Project? Check all 

that apply: 

I wrote the original project proposal 

I served as the primary liaison to the NYU Wagner Capstone team 

I was not the primary liaison to the NYU Wagner Capstone team, but I worked with the 

team during the project year 

I have worked on the NYU Wagner Capstone team's project in the time since the project 

was completed 

Other (please specify) ___________________________________________________________ 

5. Which of the following did the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone Project encompass? 

Check all that apply: 

Conducting organizational assessments 

Evaluating programs 

Addressing resource development needs 

Developing impact statements 

Conducting external policy analysis 

Gathering and/or synthesizing empirical data 

Reviewing or examining financial viability of projects or endeavors 

Designing and planning new initiatives 

Designing and planning program expansion 

Conducting neighborhood or community assessments 

Assisting with strategic planning 

Reviewing internal procedures 

Evaluating client satisfaction 

Other (please specify) ___________________________________________________________ 

6. Did the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone team develop or acquire specific tools or 

resources (e.g. surveys, new protocols) for your organization to use? 

Yes No 

7. If yes, what tools did the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone team develop or acquire? 

8. How useful have you found the tools and resources developed by the 2006-2007 NYU 

Wagner Capstone team to be? 

Not at all useful Somewhat useful Very useful N/A 

9. 

Please explain: _________________________________________________________________ 

If you haven't used these tools or resources, which, if any, of the following apply? 

We're planning to use them, but haven't yet 

Using these tools or resources would require additional resources or funding that we do 

not currently have available 

There are individuals within the organization who have concerns about using these 

tools or resources 

There are internal structures in place that create challenges in using these tools or 

resources 

We don't think the tools and resources will be useful 

N/A 

Other (please explain) __________________________________________________________ 

10. Did the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone team make specific recommendations for 

your organization? 

Yes No 

11. If yes, what were some of the recommendations the team made? 



12. Were these recommendations appropriate and well reasoned? 

Not at all appropriate and well reasoned 

Somewhat appropriate and well reasoned 

Very appropriate and well reasoned 

N/A 

13. How were the recommendations received by other members of your organization? 

Very poorly received Moderate Very well received N/A 

14. Have you implemented the team's recommendations? 

Did not implement the recommendations at all 

Implemented the recommendations somewhat 

Implemented all the recommendations fully 

N/A 

15. If you have implemented the recommendations, have they been helpful? 

Not at all helpful Somewhat helpful Extremely helpful N/A 

16. If you haven't been able to follow the team's recommendations, which, if any, of the 

following apply? 

We're planning to follow the recommendations, but haven't yet 

Following through with these recommendations would require additional resources or 

funding that we do not currently have available 

There are individuals within the organization who have concerns about implementing 

these recommendations 

There are internal structures in place that create challenges in implementing these 

recommendations 

We don't think the recommendations will be helpful 

N/A 

Other (please explain)___________________________________________________________ 

17. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with the recommendations made by the 2006- 

2007 NYU Wagner Capstone team. 

Not at all satisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied N/A 

18. Did you use any other internal or hired resources (i.e. consultants) to follow up on or 

complement the work done by the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone team? 

Yes No Other 

If you answered yes or other, please explain:______________________________________ 

19. Please indicate how helpful the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone team's project was to 

your organization. 

Not at all helpful Somewhat helpful Extremely helpful 

20. Has the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone project had a lasting impact on your 

organization? 

No lasting impact Some lasting impact 

Very significant lasting impact N/A 

21. In what ways (if any) has the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone project had a lasting 

impact on your organization? What have been the outcomes from this 2006-2007 NYU 

Wagner Capstone project? 

22. How satisfied are you overall with your experience with the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner 

Capstone team?? 

Not at all satisfied Somewhat satisfied Extremely satisfied N/A 

23. Do you have any suggestions as for how to improve the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner 

Capstone program? 

24. Do you have any other comments regarding the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone 

program? 



Appendix B. 

Online Survey – Explanation Letter. 

Thank you for participating in the 2006-2007 NYU Wagner Capstone 

program. 

In addition to being a critical part of our graduate school students’ education, 

we envision Capstone as a university resource for the public good. We have 

received anecdotal evidence and feedback that hints to the benefit of the 

Capstone program to participating organizations, and in order to more formally 

measure any long-term impact the Capstone program has had on the greater 

community through our students’ projects with participating agencies, we are 

now embarking on a more comprehensive survey. 

Toward that end, we ask that you please answer a series of questions regarding 

your experience with last year’s Capstone program. We understand that many 

people in your organization may have worked with the NYU Wagner Capstone 

team or have worked on the project since the end of the team’s academic year, so 

please feel free to forward the link to this survey to any colleagues who are 

familiar with the project. We welcome responses from more than one individual 

at each organization. 




Indirect Giving to Nonprofit Organizations: 

An Emerging Model of Student Philanthropy 

Julie Cencula Olberding 

Northern Kentucky University 

ABSTRACT 

Student philanthropy is an experiential learning approach that provides 

students with the opportunity to study social problems and nonprofit 

organizations, and then make decisions about investing funds in them. The 

limited literature on student philanthropy has focused on the original model, 

called “direct giving,” which provides students with funds to make small grants 

to nonprofit organizations. But the literature has not addressed an emerging 

model, called “indirect giving,” which partners a class with a corporation or 

foundation, and has students evaluate “real” grant proposals and make funding 

recommendations. This article examines the impact of an indirect-giving 

program on MPA students at Northern Kentucky University (NKU). A 

majority of students indicated that the program helped them to become more 

aware of social problems (64.8%) and nonprofit organizations (77.8%), learn 

the curriculum (75.7%), apply the course principles (75.7%), and gain 

academic skills or knowledge (62.1%). The article also discusses some “lessons 

learned” about the indirect-giving model of student philanthropy. 

INTRODUCTION 

Student philanthropy has been defined as an experiential learning approach 

that provides students with the opportunity to study social problems and 

nonprofit organizations, and then make collective decisions about investing 

funds in one or more nonprofits (Ahmed & Olberding, 2007/2008). To date, 

student philanthropy has been the subject of a very limited number of scholarly 

articles in public administration and nonprofit management outlets. The 

existing literature has focused on one approach to student philanthropy, which 

provides students in a class with funds in the range of $1,000 to $5,000. 

Participating students are responsible for researching community problems and 

nonprofit organizations, conducting a request for proposals (RFP) process, and 

deciding which proposals to fund or not to fund (Ahmed & Olberding, 

2007/2008; Irvin, 2005). This could be seen as the original model, because it 

seems to be the earliest means of directly engaging students in philanthropy and 




it is still the means most commonly used. This model also has been called 

“direct giving,” because students have the responsibility of making decisions that 

directly impact the funding of nonprofit organizations (Northern Kentucky 

University [NKU], 2007). 

In addition to direct giving, there is at least one other model of student 

philanthropy that has emerged in the past two years or so. With this new 

approach, students evaluate grant proposals submitted by nonprofit organizations 

to a corporation or foundation in the “real world.” The students make 

recommendations to the corporation or foundation about which proposals to fund 

and which proposals not to fund, and the corporation or foundation makes the 

final funding decisions. Because students are not making the funding decisions 

themselves, this new model has been called “indirect giving” (NKU, 2007). 

While scholarly articles on student philanthropy in public administration and 

nonprofit management are few and far between, articles focusing on the new 

indirect-giving model are apparently nonexistent. So, this article begins to fill 

the gap in the literature by describing the indirect-giving model of student 

philanthropy, discussing its use in MPA classes at NKU, and examining its 

impact on students who have participated in it. 

Further, the limited literature on student philanthropy courses in public 

administration and nonprofit management primarily have looked at the impact 

of this pedagogy on students’ awareness, attitudes, interests, and intentions 

related to the nonprofit sector (i.e., their awareness of nonprofit organizations, 

their interest in a career in the nonprofit sector, their intentions to volunteer 

and donate money to charity, etc.). This study gives attention to another 

important goal of student philanthropy — enhancing students’ interest in the 

course and their learning of the course content. 

This article begins with a literature review that focuses on student 

philanthropy and its impacts, as well as the two models of student philanthropy 

— the original, direct-giving model, and the new, indirect-giving model. It then 

describes the research methodology that was used to analyze the indirect-giving 

model of student philanthropy at NKU, presents the results of these analyses, 

and discusses key findings and lessons learned. 

STUDENT PHILANTHROPY AND ITS IMPACTS 

Student philanthropy is a relatively new teaching strategy and thus the 

literature focusing on it is sparse, relative to other teaching strategies. Student 

philanthropy is an experiential education strategy that has similarities to service 

learning, which is much more established in literature as well as in practice. 

Service learning has been defined as “a teaching and learning approach that 

integrates community service with academic study to enrich learning, teach civic 

responsibility, and strengthen communities” (National Service Learning 

Clearinghouse, 2005, home page menu). So, student philanthropy could be 




defined as a teaching and learning approach that integrates charitable giving with 

academic study, in order to enrich learning, teach civic responsibility, and 

strengthen communities. Scholars and observers of service learning have 

identified a number of goals that are relevant to student philanthropy. Based on 

the existent literature on student philanthropy and service learning, as well as 

descriptions of student philanthropy programs, the goals are to 

• Enhance students’ awareness of social problems and nonprofit 

organizations in the community (Ahmed & Olberding, 2007/2008; 

Midland College, 2007); 

• Influence students’ attitudes, interests, intentions, and behaviors related 

to social responsibility and civic engagement (Markus, Howard & King, 

1993; Ahmed & Olberding, 2007/2008); 

• Increase students’ knowledge of philanthropic processes, particularly 

grant-seeking and grant-making (NKU, 2007; Palka, 2007; University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [UNC-Chapel Hill], 2007); 

• Enhance their understanding of the academic content of the course by 

integrating theory and practice (Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Astin & Sax, 

1998; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Rockquemore & Schaffer, 2000; 

Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000; Reinke, 2003; Dicke, Dowden, & Torres, 

2004); and 

• Improve their critical thinking, communication, leadership, and 

other work-life skills (Dicke, Dowden, & Torres, 2004; Midland 

College, 2007). 

Irvin (2005) was one of the first professors to incorporate student 

philanthropy or “grant-making” into a public administration course. She taught 

a freshman seminar at the University of Oregon that was an introduction to the 

nonprofit sector. Irvin secured $5,000 from Wells Fargo for the students to 

invest in a nonprofit organization. She had the students work in groups to 

research nonprofit organizations, select organizations, and persuade their 

classmates to invest the $5,000 in “their” organization. Irvin provided some 

qualitative evidence of the student philanthropy project. “When I asked the 

founding year’s students if their experience in the course affected their intention 

to volunteer, 16 of the 18 students responded positively; some in glowing but 

general terms, about their hope to become involved in the nonprofit sector” 

(Irvin, 2005, p. 320). Irvin also incorporated a similar student philanthropy 

project into a graduate seminar in philanthropy at University of Oregon, but 

she did not provide any measures of outcomes of this effort. 

Ahmed and Olberding (2007/2008) conducted the most extensive evaluation 

of student philanthropy to date. The authors cumulated and analyzed 

quantitative, end-of-the-semester data from about 1,000 students who 

participated in the Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project at NKU from 2000 

to 2005. According to survey results, 89.6 percent of students agreed that the 




philanthropy project increased their awareness of social problems, and 94.9 

percent agreed that it increased their awareness of nonprofit organizations. In 

addition, a majority indicated that their participation in a philanthropy project 

increased (a) their sense of responsibility to help others in need (88.6%), (b) 

their intention to give money to charity (83.7%), and (c) their intention to do 

volunteer work (82.6%). 

Interestingly, Ahmed and Olberding (2007/2008) found that the impact of the 

philanthropy project — in terms of awareness, interests, and intentions related to 

the nonprofit sector — was much less for MPA students than undergraduate 

students. The authors suggested that a potential reason for the lesser impact of 

NKU’s student philanthropy project on MPA students — of which more than 

90 percent are in-career — is that they enter courses with relatively high levels of 

awareness in terms of social problems and nonprofits, and relatively strong 

attitudes and interests in terms of their sense of responsibility to help others and 

their intentions to volunteer and donate money. Therefore, these in-career 

graduate students have a very limited capacity to improve in these areas. Ahmed 

and Olberding pointed to studies of service learning that have made similar 

conclusions — that is, service learning tends to have a relatively limited impact 

on MPA students because they enter the service-learning experience with strong 

feelings of civic responsibility and public service, as well as high levels of civic 

engagement (Reinke, 2003; Dicke, Dowden, & Torres, 2004). 

As stated earlier, there are multiple goals of student philanthropy. One is to 

enhance awareness, interests, and intentions related to the nonprofit sector, 

while another is to provide students with a richer understanding of the academic 

content of the course. There has not been a published article that looks at the 

impact of a student philanthropy project on learning by MPA students; 

however, scholarly research on service learning offers some insight. Overall, a 

number of studies have found that service learning has a positive impact on 

student learning (Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Astin & Sax, 1998; Eyler & Giles, 

1999; Rockquemore & Schaffer, 2000; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000; Reinke, 

2003; Dicke, Dowden, & Torres, 2004). Specific to the field of public 

administration, students in three MPA courses at Augusta State University were 

“unanimous in concluding that the service-learning project enhanced their 

understanding and mastery of course material” (Reinke, 2003, p. 134). On the 

evaluations of an MPA course on public-private partnerships at Texas Tech 

University, “67 percent of students reported that the service learning project had 

helped them gain a better understanding of the course material” (Dicke, 

Dowden, & Torres, 2004, p. 204). 

TWO MODELS OF STUDENT PHILANTHROPY 

Student philanthropy programs have been springing up across the country in 

recent years, and there seem to be two distinct approaches or models. As stated 




earlier, direct giving is the original model and the more commonly used 

approach. The indirect-giving model is a new or emerging approach. Each of 

these models is discussed in greater detail in this section. 

1. Direct Giving: The Original Approach to Student Philanthropy 

The direct-giving model of student philanthropy allots a certain amount of 

funds to a class or another group of students for the grant-making process. Then 

students invite nonprofit organizations to apply for grants through a request for 

proposal (RFP) process. Students evaluate proposals and make collective 

decisions about which ones to fund. In the “early years” of direct-giving student 

philanthropy — the early 2000s — individual professors initiated and 

administered a philanthropy project for their classes. As discussed in the 

literature review, a professor at the University of Oregon started direct-giving 

student philanthropy projects at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In 

addition to individual professors initiating student philanthropy projects, a 

growing number of universities have begun to create programs that serve 

students from various classes, disciplines, and departments. Usually, student 

philanthropy projects are funded by a corporation or foundation, although one 

or two individual professors have been know to put up their own money. 

The Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement at NKU has a directgiving 

program that is one of the most well-established — and most inclusive 

for the range of academic disciplines involved — in the United States, and it 

also is the largest, based on the number of courses, students, nonprofit 

organizations, and funding. NKU’s student philanthropy effort began in 1999 

with a grant from the Manuel D. and Rhoda Mayerson Foundation. About five 

classes per semester were designated as Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project 

courses, and each class was provided with $4,000 to invest in nonprofit 

organizations in the region. Since 1999, more than 2,000 students participated 

in the Mayerson project in 40 different courses, including MPA and MBA 

courses, as well as undergraduate courses in communication, literature and 

language, marketing, philosophy, sociology, and theatre. These classes have 

invested about $420,000 in 300 nonprofit agencies in the Greater 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky metropolitan area. 

Within the past couple of years, a number of universities have created courses 

or student organizations that generally incorporate student philanthropy, 

specifically using the direct-giving model. For example, at Arizona State 

University, a new graduate degree program in nonprofit studies began offering a 

course in Spring 2007 called Theory and Practice of Philanthropy. The students 

made site visits, prepared cases for support, and ultimately awarded $10,000 to 

a nonprofit organization in Phoenix (Palka, D., 2007). 

The Carolina Center for Public Service in the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill) developed a one-credit class for undergraduate 




students called Promoting Change Through the Nonprofit Sector. A Web site 

description of the class says, “This one credit hour course is designed to offer 

undergraduate students an opportunity to learn about the nonprofit sector and 

to promote change in local communities by working together to fundraise, 

design grant award criteria, solicit grant proposals and decide on recipient 

nonprofit agencies” (UNC-Chapel Hill, 2007, Public Service Scholars section). 

Each semester, about eight to 15 students are selected, based on their 

applications, with preference for enrollment given to students in the university’s 

Public Service Scholars program. 

At other universities, student philanthropy has been established in an 

extracurricular council or club. Generally, these clubs involve a mix of students 

representing a variety of academic disciplines and levels (i.e., freshmen, 

sophomores, juniors, and seniors). Interested students compete for a limited 

number of positions on the student philanthropy council or club through an 

application and interview process. For example, Midland College in Texas has 

developed the Students In Philanthropy (SIP) club to teach “the importance of 

philanthropy and the role of nonprofit organizations in the community” 

(Midland College, 2007, student life/clubs/SIP). Students in the club raise 

funds, award grants to nonprofits, and “gain leadership and stewardship training 

through a structured program designed to educate, support and promote 

philanthropic leadership in the community” (Midland College, 2007, student 

life/clubs/SIP). Each year, up to 25 students are selected through an application 

and interview process. The selected students participate in the club’s activities 

for a full academic year, and attend weekly meetings designed to enhance their 

knowledge of the nonprofit and philanthropic communities. 

The Upstate Institute at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, initiated 

the Student Philanthropy Council (SPC). “During the fall semester, experts in 

these fields lead seminars to guide the SPC in its efforts. In the winter, the SPC 

designs, solicits and evaluates Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from regional nonprofits, 

and reaches group consensus on which will receive funding. In the 

spring, the SPC disburses a total of $10,000 in grants to support regional nonprofit 

organizations” (Upstate Institute, 2007, home page + philanthropy 

council). Sophomores and juniors can apply for the council and, through a 

competitive process, 10 to 12 are selected to serve. The Student Philanthropy 

Council was funded with $50,000 from the Brennan Family Foundation, which 

is enough to hold five seminars through 2011 (Jenkins, 2006). 

2. Indirect Giving: A New Approach to Student Philanthropy 

In Spring 2007, the Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement at NKU 

developed a new model of student philanthropy, while maintaining the original 

direct-giving model. With the new model — called “indirect giving” — students 




evaluate grant proposals submitted by nonprofit organizations to a corporation or 

foundation in the “real” world. Students complete the following tasks: 

• Familiarize themselves with the philanthropic mission of the 

corporation or foundation; 

• Review proposals submitted to the corporation or foundation; 

• Develop written evaluations of all proposals, regardless of whether or 

not they are being recommended for funding; 

• Discuss the proposals with other students in the class — particularly 

their strengths and weaknesses — and prioritize the proposals for 

funding; and 

• Present the class’s funding recommendations to the corporation or 

foundation board (limited to a few students). The board considers these 

recommendations, but it is ultimately responsible for making final 

decisions about which proposals to fund and not to fund. 

In addition, the professor may decide to require or encourage that students take 

on other activities, such as 

• Researching the nonprofit organizations — beyond their grant proposals 

— by using Guidestar, the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, and other 

sources; and 

• Conducting site visits or interviews with one or more representatives of 

nonprofit organizations that have submitted proposals. 

NKU seems to be the only university with a formalized indirect-giving 

program, based on a search of student philanthropy programs on the Internet. 

But, this is not conclusive at this point because there may be universities — or 

even individual professors — that have an indirect-giving program that does not 

appear on the Internet. 

Relative to the original direct-giving model of student philanthropy, the 

indirect-giving model has some notable advantages and disadvantages. One 

advantage is that the university or professor does not have to raise funds for the 

student philanthropy program or project, because a corporation or foundation 

provides the dollars to fund proposals. In contrast, the direct-giving model 

requires the university or professor to raise funds, usually from a foundation or 

corporation. As discussed in the literature review, direct-giving student 

philanthropy programs at other universities involve $10,000, $30,000, or 

$50,000 per year. A disadvantage from the university and/or faculty perspective 

is that it requires communication and coordination with another community 

partner — a corporation or foundation — that has its own priorities, schedules, 

personalities, etc. 

From the student perspective, an advantage is that the indirect-giving model 

provides an opportunity to participate firsthand in the grant-making process of 

a corporation or foundation and, thus, observe “what works and what doesn’t” 

in grant proposals. A disadvantage is that, relative to the direct-giving model, 




students have less say in the decision-making process for funding proposals, 

because they make recommendations to a corporation or foundation board that 

itself makes the final decisions. The board’s final decisions can align with the 

students’ recommendations, they can completely go against the students’ 

recommendations, or they can be somewhere in-between. With direct giving, 

the students make the final decisions related to funding of proposals. 

From the corporation or foundation perspective, one advantage is that 

students review the grant proposals, research the nonprofit organizations, 

conduct site visits, and write evaluations. This input may provide the board 

members and staff with valuable information and insight, and it may save them 

some time and energy in their own review of the proposals. Another advantage 

is that, by working with students, a corporation or foundation may get some 

satisfaction from helping to nurture a stronger sense of philanthropy and 

stewardship among young adults in their region. A disadvantage from the 

corporation or foundation perspective is that representatives should meet with 

the faculty and students at least twice — first, to introduce their organization 

and its philanthropic approach and, second, to hear students’ evaluations of 

grant proposals and funding recommendations. 

In Spring 2007, the indirect-giving model was incorporated into four classes 

at NKU, including a course that I teach, called Resource Acquisition and 

Management (PAD 621). This course is an elective for the MPA program and a 

requirement for the Nonprofit Management certificate. It is designed to help 

students gain a more comprehensive understanding of how nonprofit 

organizations acquire funds — including the sources of funds, fundamental 

principles of fundraising, and different types of fundraising programs and 

methods. It also looks at how nonprofits manage financial resources — 

including the basics of budgeting, accounting, and financial reporting. A 

student-learning outcome that is most relevant to the student philanthropy 

project is to “learn more about the grant-seeking and grant-making processes.” 

During the “pilot” semester, there were a few challenges. One challenge was 

that the number of proposals was much lower than originally planned, and this 

was not learned until after the semester started. For my Resource Acquisition 

class, the corporation originally was supposed to forward about 30 proposals the 

week before classes started, but it provided only eight proposals during the 

second week of class. This change impacted a number of factors related to the 

class, including the descriptions and guidelines of certain assignments, and the 

organization of students into “boards” or small groups. A second challenge was 

related to the fact that four classes at NKU were involved in the indirect-giving 

model, yet the involved corporation had a limited amount of funds for its 

philanthropy program. The board followed the funding recommendations of a 

couple of classes — particularly a compressed class that only met during the first 

eight weeks of the semester class and presented its funding recommendations to 




the board much earlier than other classes. The board did not fund any of the 

proposals that were recommended by students in my Resource Acquisition class, 

which made some of them feel as if their work had little impact on the final 

decision-making process. A third challenge was that the grant proposals were 

very inconsistent in their length and quality. For instance, some proposals were 

10- to 12 pages in length and used a common grant application form required 

by some funders in the region, while other “proposals” consisted of a one-page 

letter with an organizational brochure attached. These differences made it 

difficult for students to evaluate and make recommendations, as in the 

“comparing apples and oranges” metaphor. 

After the pilot semester, the Scripps Howard Center hired an outside evaluator 

to look at the indirect-giving model of student philanthropy. Based on this 

evaluation, some major changes were made to the indirect-giving model, such as 

having only one class work with the corporation. In Fall 2007 and Spring 2008, 

the one class selected was my Resource Acquisition course. In addition to the 

changes made at the program level, I made changes at the course level — most 

important was the addition of site visits to the nonprofit organizations by the 

students who were evaluating their proposals. In Spring 2007 — the pilot 

semester — students were not required to conduct site visits because there was an 

expectation that the corporation was going to forward about 30 proposals to the 

class, and the prospect of 30 site visits in two weeks seemed potentially 

problematic. In Fall 2007 and Spring 2008, the expectation — and the reality — 

was that the corporation would forward six to eight proposals to the class. Each 

“board,” or group, of students was required to conduct a site visit for each of the 

two proposals that it was assigned to evaluate, although not every student took 

part in the site visits due to work schedules or for other reasons. 

This evaluation of the indirect-giving model helped eliminate or diminish a 

few challenges. For example, the change from multiple classes to one class 

resulted in improved communication and coordination. It also led to the one 

class having more influence — or at least a perception of more influence — on 

the corporation’s funding decisions. But at least one challenge remained through 

the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 semesters — inconsistency in the quality and 

length of the grant proposals submitted by nonprofit organizations. 

METHODOLOGY 

This study has four research questions. Questions #1 and #2 are based on the 

study of student philanthropy by Ahmed and Olberding (2007/2008). These 

questions address the goals of student philanthropy that are based on enhancing 

students’ awareness, interests, and intentions as related to the nonprofit sector. 

Question #3 is based on another set of goals that has been identified for student 

philanthropy — i.e., enhancing learning. Question #4 is designed to identify 

underlying factors that relate to the outcomes of the student philanthropy 




project. The following lists the four research questions: 

1. To what degree does participation in student philanthropy — 

particularly the indirect-giving model — increase students’ awareness of 

social problems and nonprofit organizations? 

2. To what degree does participation in the indirect-giving model of 

student philanthropy enhance the development of certain interests and 

intentions related to the nonprofit sector? 

3. To what degree does student philanthropy generally enhance learning, 

and to what degree does the indirect-giving model specifically enhance 

learning? Does it increase students’ interest in the course, their learning 

of the course content, their ability to apply the knowledge and skills in 

the real world, and their acquisition of knowledge and skills? 

4. Do certain characteristics of the course and the philanthropy project 

influence or impact students in terms of their awareness, interests, 

intentions, and learning? 

The Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement at NKU systematically 

collects data on the Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project. The data for this 

study came from an end-of-semester survey of students in the Resource 

Acquisition course who participated in the indirect-giving, student philanthropy 

project (Spring 2007, Fall 2007, and Spring 2008). Seventeen students completed 

the evaluation in Spring 2007, eight students completed it in Fall 2007, and 12 

students completed it in Spring 2008, for a total of 37 respondents. This study 

includes variables that have been used in earlier research on student philanthropy, 

particularly Ahmed and Olberding (2007/2008), because both articles analyze 

data from the Mayerson project survey by NKU’s Scripps Howard Center. 

Specifically, both studies include the following variables: Students’ awareness of 

social problems, awareness of nonprofit organizations, interest in community 

service, consideration of a career in the nonprofit sector, intention to do volunteer 

work, intention to give money to charity, interest in the course, interest in taking 

another course with a philanthropic or service component, learning of the course 

material, gaining of knowledge and skills, and application of course principles. 

This study analyzes data from the Mayerson project survey in the following 

ways: 

• Percentages of responses. In terms of the variables listed above, this 

study looks at the percentage of MPA students who indicated that the 

student philanthropy experience had a positive effect, and the 

percentage who indicated that it had a negative effect. The items asked 

respondents to assess the various effects of the student philanthropy 

experience on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being “very negative” and 5 

being “very positive.” In order to simplify and clarify the findings, 

responses to the 5-point Likert-scale items are collapsed into three 

categories, which get labeled as: 




1. “Very negative or negative” effect. 

2. “No effect.” 

3. “Very positive or positive” effect. 

• Means and standard deviations. Another way that this study analyzes 

the effects of student philanthropy is to look at the mean response to 

each of the survey items listed. It also looks at the standard deviations, 

in order to assess the amount of variation across the 37 students who 

responded to the survey. 

• Regression analyses. The regression analyses attempt to explain 

variation in the effects that the indirect-giving project has on students. 

There are two types of dependent variables here: 

1. Students’ awareness, interests and intentions related to the 

nonprofit sector, and 

2. Students’ interest in and learning of the course content. 

There also are two sets of independent variables that may have 

moderated the effect of the philanthropy project on students. The first 

set consists of student activities related to the philanthropy project: 

1. Whether the student participated in site visits, and 

2. Whether the student presented to the corporation’s philanthropic 

board. 

In regards to site visits, the project did not have site visits in Spring 

2007. It did have site visits in Fall 2007 and Spring 2008, but a few 

students were not able to participate in them. In regards to board 

presentations, the number of student-presenters was limited to three 

each semester, due to the size of the board room. 

The second set of independent variables consists of student assessments 

of key elements of the philanthropy project in two areas: 

1. Satisfaction with the quality of proposals submitted by nonprofits, 

and 

2. Satisfaction with the final monetary awards or grants by the 

corporation’s philanthropic board. 

In addition, all of the regression models included control variables 

related to demographic characteristics of individual students, for which 

data were collected on the end-of-semester surveys. (See Appendix B for 

a condensed version of the survey instrument.) These demographic 

control variables included age (1 =



Table 1. 

The Effects of the Indirect Giving Model of Student Philanthropy on Participants 

What effect did this [student philanthropy] experience have on the following: 

Survey Item Percentage of Student Participants 

Number of Student Participants 

Very Neg. & Negative No Effect Very Pos. & Positive Total 

Awareness of Social Problems 2.70% 32.40% 64.80% 100.00% 

(1) (12) (24) (37) 

Awareness, Interests & 

Intentions Related 

to the Nonprofit Sector 

Awareness of Nonprofit 13.90% 8.30% 77.80% 100.00% 

Organizations (5) (3) (29) (37) 

Interest in Community Service 2.80% 41.70% 55.60% 100.00% 

Organizations (1) (15) (21) (37) 

Consideration of a Career in 16.20% 37.80% 45.90% 100.00% 

the Nonprofit Sector (6) (14) (17) (37) 


Intention to Do Volunteer Work 2.70% 51.40% 45.90% 100.00% 

(1) (19) (17) (37) 

Intention to Give Money to 5.40% 45.90% 48.60% 100.00% 

Charity (2) (17) (18) (37) 

Interest in This Course 5.40% 32.40% 62.10% 100.00% 

(2) (12) (23) (37) 

Interest in Taking Another Course 10.80% 35.10% 54.00% 100.00% 

with a Philanthropic or (4) (13) (20) (37) 

Service-learning Component 

Interest in the Course 

and Learning of the 

Course Content 

Learning the Course Material 10.80% 13.50% 75.70% 100.00% 

(4) (5) (28) (37) 

Application of Course Principles 2.70% 21.60% 75.70% 100.00% 

to Address a Community Need (1) (8) (28) (37) 

Gaining of Academic Skills or 2.70% 35.10% 62.10% 100.00% 

Knowledge (1) (13) (23) (37)



RESULTS 

Percentages of Responses 

Table 1 shows the percentages of responses to various measures of effects 

generated by the indirect-giving student philanthropy project. Looking at the 

“very positive and positive” column, 77.8 percent of respondents indicated that 

the student philanthropy experience had a positive effect on their “awareness of 

nonprofit organizations,” 64.8 percent said that it had a positive effect on their 

“awareness of social problems,” 75.7 percent of respondents indicated that the 

student philanthropy experience had a positive effect on their “learning of the 

course material,” and 75.7 percent also said that it had a positive effect on their 

“application of course principles to address a community need.” About 62 

percent of respondents indicated that the student philanthropy project had a 

positive impact on their “gaining of academic skills or knowledge.” It is worth 

noting that there were some negative responses on these measures, too. Looking 

at the “very negative or negative” column, 16.2 percent indicated that the 

student philanthropy experience had a negative impact on their “consideration 

of a career in the nonprofit sector,” and 13.9 percent said it had a negative 

impact on their “awareness of nonprofit organizations.” (See Table 1.) 

Overall, Table 1 shows that the indirect-giving student philanthropy project 

had a lesser impact on students’ interests and intentions, as related to the 

nonprofit sector, than the other areas. Less than half of the students said that the 

student philanthropy project had a positive effect on their “consideration of a 

career in the nonprofit sector” (45.9 percent), their “intention to do volunteer 

work” (45.9 percent), and their “intention to give money to a charity” (48.6 

percent). These results are similar to those in Ahmed and Olberding 

(2007/2008), which state that the original model of student philanthropy — the 

direct-giving model — had a relatively small impact on MPA students’ attitudes 

and intentions. As discussed in the literature review, Ahmed and Olberding 

suggest that a potential reason is because more than 90 percent of MPA students 

at NKU are in-career — usually in the nonprofit sector or government sector — 

so they enter courses with relatively established patterns of behavior in terms of 

giving their time and money to charities. Therefore, these in-career graduate 

students have a very limited opportunity for an increase on these measures. 

Means and Standard Deviations 

Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the various effects from 

the indirect-giving model of student philanthropy. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 

being “very negative” and 5 being “very positive,” the highest mean response 

was 3.9 for an item about the effect of the student philanthropy project on the 

“application of course principles to address a community need.” Two other 

items related to learning had relatively high means at 3.8; these were “learning 

of course material” and “gaining of academic skills or knowledge.” In addition, 

the other set of outcomes with relatively high means looks at awareness related 




Table 2. 

The Effects of the Indirect Giving Model 

of Student Philanthropy on Participants 

What effect did this [student philanthropy] experience have on the following: 

Awareness, 

Interests & 

Intentions 

Related 

to the 

Nonprofit 

Sector 

Interest in 

the Course 

and Learning 

of the Course 

Content 

Note. N = 37. Survey items were based on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being Very Negative Effect 

and 5 being Very Positive Effect. For each item, the minimum response was 1.0, and the maximum 

response was 5.0. 

to the nonprofit sector. The mean was 3.8 for both “awareness of social 

problems” and “awareness of nonprofit organizations.” (See Table 2.) 

Table 2 also displays standard deviations for the responses to each survey item 

that measured outcomes. Some of these standard deviations are high, relative to 

the means. For example, a couple of standard deviations are greater than 1, with 

means of less than 4; the S.D. is 1.31 for “consideration of a career in the 

nonprofit sector,” and 1.08 for “awareness of nonprofit organizations.” This 

indicates that there is great variation in the effects of the student philanthropy 

project across the 37 students in this study. The next couple of sections discuss 

efforts to explain some of this variation, including two sets of regression analyses 

and an overview of narrative responses by participants in the indirect-giving 

student philanthropy project at NKU. 


Survey Item Mean SD 

Awareness of Social Problems 3.8 0.83 

Awareness of Nonprofit 

Organizations 

3.8 1.08 

Interest in Community Service 

Organizations 

3.6 0.83 

Consideration of a Career in 

the Nonprofit Sector 

3.3 1.31 

Intention to Do 

Volunteer Work 

3.5 0.73 

Intention to Give Money 

to Charity 

3.5 0.77 

Interest in This Course 3.7 0.88 

Interest in Taking Another 

Course with a Philanthropic or 

Service-learning Component 

3.5 0.90 

Learning the Course Material 3.8 0.92 

Application of Course Principles 

to Address a Community Need 

3.9 0.81 

Gaining of Academic Skills 

or Knowledge 

3.8 0.86



Regression Analyses 

Table 3 shows results of the regression analyses that attempt to explain 

variation in the effects of the philanthropy project on students’ awareness, 

interests, and intentions, as related to the nonprofit sector. There are six 

regression models in this set of analyses, each with a unique dependent variable 

that measures an effect of the student philanthropy project. The independent 

variables in these models include each sudent’s activities that were related to the 

philanthropy project (whether he/she conducted site visits to the nonprofits and 

whether he/she made a presentation to the corporation’s philanthropic board), as 

well as each student’s assessment of certain key elements of the philanthropy 

project (the degree to which he/she was satisfied with the quality of the 

nonprofits’ proposals, and the degree to which he/she was satisfied with the final 

grants by the corporation’s philanthropic board). The control variables are each 

student’s age, race, and gender. 

Please note that the “pilot semester” control variable was dropped from all of 

the regression models due to multicollinearity. Most noteworthy was a correlation 

of -0.95 between the “pilot semester” and the independent variable “site visit.” 

Recall that the pilot semester of the philanthropy project in the MPA class did not 

involve site visits, because there was an expectation of a large number of proposals 

from nonprofits, which would have made site visits unfeasible. 

The amount of variation explained by each model ranges from very little to 

quite a lot. R 2 is only 0.214 in the model with “awareness of social problems” as 

the dependent variable, but it jumps up to 0.608 in the model with “awareness 

of nonprofits” as the dependent variable. The demographic control variables 

included age (1 =



Table 3. 

First Set of Regression Analyses: How Student Activities and Assessments of the Philanthropy Project 

Moderate Its Impact On Their Awareness, Interest and Intentions Related to the Nonprofit Sector 

Dependent Variables 

Unstandardized Coefficients 

Intention to Give 

Money to a Charity 

Intention 

to Volunteer 

Consideration of 

a Career in Nonprofit 

Interest In 

Community Service 

Awareness 

of Nonprofits 

Awareness of 

Social Problems 

Independent Variables ß s.e. ß s.e. ß s.e. ß s.e. ß s.e. ß s.e. 

Constant 2.028 1.282 -0.436 1.215 0.891 1.252 -1.322 1.573 0.702 1.128 0.986 1.155 

Student Activities 

Site Visits 0.617 0.419 1.848 0.398*** 0.735 0.408* 1.311 0.515** 0.589 0.369 0.597 0.378 

0.254 0.419 -0.377 0.398 -0.036 0.408 -0.503 0.515 -0.023 0.369 -0.032 0.378 

Presentation 

to the Board 


Student Assessments 

Satisfaction With 

0.262 0.243 0.975 0.230*** 0.524 0.245** 0.760 0.298** 0.390 0.214* 0.131 0.219 

Proposal Quality 

0.036 0.153 -0.068 0.145 0.159 0.151 0.215 0.187 0.086 0.134 0.033 0.138 

Satisfaction With the 

Final Grant Awards 

Control Variables 

Age 0.041 0.193 0.191 0.183 0.176 0.189 0.144 0.237 0.186 0.170 0.277 0.174 

Gender 0.299 0.377 0.411 0.358 0.122 0.366 0.823 0.463* 0.482 0.332 0.496 0.340 

Race 0.270 0.490 0.298 0.465 0.323 0.517 -0.491 0.601 -0.154 0.431 -0.432 0.442 

R-Square 0.214 0.608 0.325 0.449 0.271 0.235 

Note. N = 37 

* = Significant at p



coefficients in terms of size or magnitude (1.848 in the “awareness of 

nonprofits” model and 1.311 in the “consideration of a career in the nonprofit 

sector” model). This evidence indicates that the philanthropy project had a 

much more positive impact on those students who conducted site visits — 

relative to those students who did not — in terms of their awareness of and 

interest in the nonprofit sector. The other student activity — “presentation to 

the board” — is not significantly related to any of the dependent variables that 

measure the philanthropy project’s effects. So the impact of philanthropy project 

was not statistically different for students who presented to the board, when 

compared to those who did not, all else equal. 

Two other independent variables are student assessments of particular 

elements of the philanthropy project — satisfaction with the quality of 

proposals submitted by nonprofit organizations, and satisfaction with the 

funding decisions. Recall that some proposals were 10 to 12 pages in length and 

used a common grant application form, while other “proposals” consisted of a 

one-page letter with an organizational brochure attached. “Satisfaction with 

proposal quality” is positively and significantly related to four of the six 

dependent variables measuring the philanthropy project’s effects (“awareness of 

nonprofits,” “interest in community service,” “consideration of a career in the 

nonprofit sector,” and “intention to volunteer”). The coefficients on 

“satisfaction with proposal quality” are the second-largest coefficients, next to 

those on “site visits.” Thus, the philanthropy project had a more positive impact 

on students who assessed the proposals that they reviewed as being of high 

quality. Interestingly, “satisfaction with the final grant awards” is not 

significantly related to any of the dependent variables. 

Only one of the control variables is significant in only one of the six models. 

“Gender” is positively and significantly related to “consideration of a career in 

the nonprofit sector.” In other words, holding constant the other factors in the 

philanthropy project, female students were more likely to consider a nonprofit 

career than males. 

Table 4 shows results of the regression analyses that attempt to explain 

variation in the philanthropy project’s effects on students for learning about and 

being interested in the course content. There are five models in this set of 

analyses, each with a unique dependent variable that measures an effect of the 

philanthropy project. In this set of analyses, R 2 ranges from a low of 0.255 in the 

model showing “interest in taking another course with a philanthropic or service 

learning component” as the dependent variable, to a high of 0.377 in the model 

with “learning of the course material” as the dependent variable. (See Table 4.) 

As with the previous set of regressions, this set included two student activities 

that varied across students — whether the student conducted site visits of the 

nonprofit organizations that submitted grant proposals to the corporation, and 

whether the student made a presentation of the class’s funding recommendations 




Table 4. 

Second Set of Regression Analyses: How Student Activities and Assessments of the Philanthropy Project 

Moderate Its Impact On Interest In the Course and Learning 

Dependent Variables 

Unstandardized Coefficients 

Gaining of Academic 

Skills or Knowledge 

Application of 

Course Principals 

Learning of the 

Course Material 

Interest in Another 

Philanthropic Course 

Interest in This Course 

Independent Variables ß s.e. ß s.e. ß s.e. ß s.e. ß s.e. 

Constant 1.777 1.321 1.993 1.381 1.002 1.243 0.968 1.117 1.594 1.268 

Student Activities 

Site Visits 1.140 0.432** 0.975 0.452** 0.879 0.407** 0.968 0.385** 1.012 0.415** 

0.183 0.432 0.235 0.452 0.464 0.407 -0.056 0.385 -0.740 0.415 

Presentation 

to the Board 

Student Assessments 


0.277 0.251 0.166 0.262 0.549 0.236** 0.498 0.223** 0.334 0.240 

Satisfaction With 

Proposal Quality 

-0.081 0.157 -0.074 0.165 -0.119 0.148 -0.062 0.140 -0.062 0.151 

Satisfaction With the 

Final Grant Awards 

Control Variables 

Age 0.094 0.199 0.043 0.208 0.151 0.188 0.193 0.178 0.173 0.191 

Gender 0.349 0.389 0.365 0.406 0.483 0.366 0.487 0.346 0.276 0.373 

Race 0.055 0.505 0.101 0.528 0.101 0.475 0.158 0.450 0.362 0.485 

R-Square 0.315 0.255 0.377 0.342 0.278 

Note. N = 37 

* = Significant at p



to the corporation’s philanthropic board. Table 4 indicates that the independent 

variable for “site visits” is positively and significantly related to all five of the 

dependent variables (“interest in the course,” “interest in taking another course 

with a philanthropic or service learning component,” “learning the course 

material,” “application of course principles,” and “gaining of academic skills or 

knowledge”). As with the first set of regression analyses, the coefficients on “site 

visits” are the largest coefficients in terms of size or magnitude (e.g., 1.140 in 

the “interest in the course” model and 1.012 in the “gaining of academic skills 

or knowledge” model). This evidence indicates that the philanthropy project 

had a much more positive impact on students who conducted site visits — 

relative to those students who did not — in terms of their interest in and 

learning of the course content. Also similar to the first set of regression analyses, 

the “presentation to the board” is not significantly related to any of the 

dependent variables measuring the philanthropy project’s effects. 

In terms of the independent variables measuring student assessments of 

particular elements of the philanthropy project, “satisfaction with proposal 

quality” is positively and significantly related to two of the dependent variables 

measuring the philanthropy project’s effects (“learning course material” and 

“application of course principles”). Again, the coefficients on “satisfaction with 

proposal quality” are the second-largest coefficients, next to those on “site 

visits,” and indicate that the philanthropy project had a more positive impact on 

students who saw the proposals they reviewed as being of high quality. 

Interestingly, “satisfaction with the final grant awards” is not significantly related 

to any of the dependent variables in these models. None of the control variables 

is significant in any of the five models. 

Qualitative Data 

Appendix A provides excerpts of narrative responses by students who 

participated in the indirect-giving student philanthropy project at NKU. These 

excerpts are organized by themes that are related to the key variables of this 

study (e.g., awareness of nonprofits, interests and intentions related to 

nonprofits, etc.). The following comments are some of the positive narrative 

responses: 

• I was also considering the Public Administration/Government sector but 

now will be seeking a nonprofit career. 

• I want to explore grant writing as a career. 

• I will be volunteering for more things and trying to support local NPOs 

in multiple ways. 

• It was experiential and reinforced the textbook material in a less 

mundane way. 

• I have more skills to be able to enter the nonprofit sector as a 

professional. 




• As someone who has written grants in the past, I was glad to have the 

opportunity to review the process from the point of view of the funder. 

(See Appendix A.) 

The following comments represent some negative perceptions of and 

experiences by students who participated in the indirect giving student 

philanthropy project at NKU: 

• Many nonprofits are striving to meet the needs of the community with 

little help and resources. 

• Many grant proposals are weak, cut-and-paste documents with limited 

attention to detail and extremely limited assessment of outcomes. 

• The proposals given were hit or miss. For each, excellent proposal, there 

was a substandard proposal. 

• In our capacity of reviewing and making recommendations, we could 

objectively evaluate the proposals, but even though we kept [the 

corporation’s] perceivable goals and funding strategies in mind, their 

board chose differently than our class. 

The following comments provide some insight on why the indirect-giving 

student philanthropy project may have had a limited impact on MPA students: 

• I already work in the nonprofit sector so it didn’t enhance my desire to 

do so. 

• Most students with the MPA program already volunteer ... a lot! 

DISCUSSION 

This article has attempted to fill a gap in the literature by describing the 

indirect-giving model of student philanthropy, and examining its effects on 

MPA students at NKU who have participated in it. Overall, this study found 

that the indirect-giving student philanthropy program had a number of benefits. 

A majority of MPA students indicated that the project helped them become 

more aware of social problems and nonprofit organizations, and it helped them 

to learn the course material, apply the course principles to address a community 

need, and gain academic skills or knowledge. 

It is worth noting again that the indirect-giving student philanthropy 

program had some negative effects on a minority of participants. Specifically, 

16.2 percent indicated that it negatively impacted their consideration of a 

career in the nonprofit sector. One reason may be that the indirect-giving 

program at NKU is in the early stages of development, and the data in this 

study are from the pilot semester and two semesters that followed. Therefore, 

the program has some “kinks” that need to be worked out (and that are, in 

fact, being worked out). For example, as stated earlier, there was inconsistency 

in the quality of grant proposals in all three of the semesters in this study. But 

NKU worked with the corporation to encourage the use of a common grant 




application form used by other funders in the region. Another reason for the 

negative effects of the indirect-giving student philanthropy program on 

participants may be that it opened their eyes to some realities of the nonprofit 

sector and corporate philanthropy. Specifically, it may have changed some 

perceptions that all or most nonprofit organizations are very knowledgeable 

about grant-seeking, and very professional in grant-writing. These realizations 

seem apparent in the narrative responses by a few students regarding the 

qualitative data. For example, one student said that “[many] grant proposals are 

weak, cut-and-paste documents with limited attention to detail.” 

Based both on the analyses in this study and on my personal experience, this 

section highlights some “lessons learned” about using the indirect-giving model 

of student philanthropy: 

• Require or encourage site visits. This study found that site visits had 

the most significant and largest positive influence on students during 

their participation in the indirect-giving philanthropy project. 

Therefore, the professor should encourage or require site visits, if 

possible, in order to “make the most” of the philanthropy program. 

• Work with the corporation or foundation to ensure consistency in 

the proposals. This study found that student satisfaction with proposal 

quality had a number of positive and significant impacts. The challenge 

is that proposal quality is not a factor that the professor controls 

directly, but rather it is more in the hands of the funder and nonprofit 

organizations. With that said, the professor — or a center or 

department if the philanthropy program is university-wide — can work 

with funders to educate them about the importance of using a common 

grant application form, or some other standardized form, by 

emphasizing that it will help not only the students, but also their board 

members, in evaluating the proposals more fairly and wisely. (This 

lesson is probably more relevant to corporations, as most foundations 

have moved to standardized forms.) 

• Limit one class per funder, if possible. As discussed earlier, NKU 

started its indirect-giving program with four classes working with one 

corporation. This turned out to be somewhat difficult in terms of 

communication and coordination between the corporation, the 

university, and multiple professors. After the pilot semester, a change 

was made such that only one class would work with the corporation. 

This lesson does not imply that the program should be limited in terms 

of funders or classes. It implies that they should grow together; as the 

number of funders increases, then the number of classes can increase. 




• Manage student expectations. In particular, it is important that the 

professor periodically remind students that they are just making 

recommendations — not final decisions — and that the primary 

purpose of the philanthropy project is to help them to learn the course 

content and gain skills related to grant-seeking and grant-making. An 

interesting and somewhat surprising finding was that “satisfaction with 

the final grant awards” was not significantly related to the project’s 

impacts on students (all else equal), because one might assume that 

students who disagree with the corporation’s funding decisions may find 

the entire project less meaningful and impactful. This result may be 

partly due to the fact that I tried to remind students that the 

corporation had the final say in terms of funding decisions, and that the 

primary goal was to enhance their learning. 

• Keep nonprofit organizations in the loop. During one semester, the 

nonprofit organizations that had submitted proposals to the corporation 

were not informed that NKU students were involved in the 

philanthropic process. So, some of them were caught off guard when an 

NKU student contacted them about doing a site visit. Ideally, the 

corporation or foundation should send a letter and/or email message to 

the nonprofits, briefly explaining the student philanthropy project, 

potential benefits, ways in which students will be engaged in the 

process, etc. 

• Look for ways to leverage the program. The indirect-giving model of 

student philanthropy can be a “win-win-win” situation for the students, 

funders, and nonprofit organizations. And there should be ways to make 

these “wins” even bigger for the parties involved. As discussed above, one 

way is that the professor and students can provide information and 

insight to funders, which may help them with the grant-making process 

and grant application forms. Another way is that the professor and 

students can help nonprofit organizations with their grant writing. 

Specifically, student evaluations of grant proposals should be shared with 

the nonprofits in order to help them learn their strengths and weaknesses. 

• Maintain some flexibility in the course. During the first semester that 

I incorporated the indirect-giving model of student philanthropy, I 

developed a syllabus with very specific descriptions of the assignments, 

etc. Again, I expected 30 proposals, but received only eight, so this led 

to various changes in the course structure, assignments, etc. After that 

experience, I learned to include more general descriptions in the 

syllabus, and add more details as the semester progressed. 




CONCLUSION 

Student philanthropy is a relatively new pedagogy in public administration 

and nonprofit management, so its literature is quite limited. Most of the 

literature focuses on the original direct-giving model for which a class is allotted 

funds — usually a few thousand dollars — and the students research social 

problems, identify nonprofit organizations, request funding proposals, evaluate 

them, and decide which ones to fund. This article focuses on the emerging 

indirect-giving model, where students work with a corporation or foundation, 

evaluate real proposals submitted by nonprofit organizations, and make funding 

recommendations to the corporation or foundation. This article takes a few 

steps toward filling the gap in the literature by describing the indirect-giving 

model, discussing its use in MPA classes at Northern Kentucky University, and 

providing some evidence of its impact on students. 

The advantages of an indirect-giving program include the following: 

1. The university or professor does not need to raise money, as the funds 

for grants are supplied by a corporation or foundation; 

2. Students work with a corporation or foundation on grant-making in 

the real world, which gives them insight on both grant-making and 

grant-seeking; 

3. The corporation receives evaluations of grant proposals by students — 

possibly a “first cut” at the review process — and perhaps some 

satisfaction in knowing that they may be nurturing future 

philanthropists. 

The disadvantages include the following: 

1. The university or professor needs to communicate and coordinate with 

another community partner — the corporation or foundation — which 

takes time and energy; 

2. Students have less say or influence on the funding decisions — relative 

to direct giving — because they are making recommendations and not 

final decisions; 

3. The corporation or foundation needs to make plans to work with the 

class, which takes time and energy. 

The few published studies on student philanthropy primarily have examined 

the degree to which it impacts participants’ awareness of social problems and 

nonprofit organizations, interest in community service and the nonprofit sector, 

and intentions to donate time and money to charity. This article examines these 

potential impacts, as well as the participants’ interest in the course, learning of 

the curriculum, and acquisition of academic skills or knowledge. It may be the 

first study that attempts to measure this broad range of potential effects. Data 

from a survey of 37 students indicate that the philanthropy project helped most 

of them to become more aware of social problems and nonprofit organizations, 

more interested in the nonprofit sector, more engaged in the curriculum, and 

more knowledgeable and skilled. 




REFERENCES 

Ahmed, S., & Olberding, J.C. (2007/2008). Can student philanthropy help to address the current 

nonprofit identity crisis? A case study of a multiyear, multidisciplinary project at Northern 

Kentucky University. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(3/4), 593-615. 

Astin, A.W., & Sax, L.J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of 

College Student Development, 39(3), 251-263. 

Cohen, J., & Kinsey, D.F. (1994). Doing good and scholarship: A service-learning study. Journalism 

Educator, 48(4), 4-14. 

Dicke, L., Dowden, S. & Torres, J. (2004). Successful service learning: A matter of ideology. Journal of 

Public Affairs Education, 10(3), 199-208. 

Eyler, J., & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Irvin, R.A. (2005). The student philanthropists: Fostering civic engagement through grant making. 

Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(4), 325–336. 

Markus, G.B., Howard, J.P.F., & King, D.C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom 

instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy 

Analysis, 15(4), 410-419. 

Midland College. (2007). Students In Philanthropy. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from 

http://www.midland.edu/sip/ 

National Service Learning Clearinghouse (2005). What is service learning? (home page menu item). 

Retrieved August 4, 2008, from Learn and Serve America’s National Service Learning 

Clearinghouse Web site: http://www.servicelearning.org/what-service-learning 

Northern Kentucky University, Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement and Nonprofit 

Development. (2007). The Mayerson student philanthropy project. (Scripps home page + get 

involved). Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://civicengagement.nku.edu/ involved/ 

mayerson.php 

Palka, Debra. Graduate students experience philanthropy firsthand. (2007). Retrieved August 4, 2008, 

from Arizona State University, ASUNews Web site: http://www.asu.edu/news/ 

stories/200705/20070504_SLHI.htm 

Reinke, S.J. (2003). Making a difference: Does service-learning promote civic engagement in MPA 

students? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9(2), 129-138. 

Rockquemore, K.A., & Schaffer, R.H. (2000). Toward a theory of engagement: A cognitive mapping 

of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, (7), 14-25. 

Upstate Institute. (2007). Student Philanthropy Council. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from Colgate 

University’s Upstate Institute Web site: http://upstate.colgate.edu/ui-philanthropy.htm 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Center for Public Service. (2007). Promoting 

change through the nonprofit sector. (Public Service Scholars section), Retrieved August 13, 2009, 

from the Carolina Center for Public Service Web site: http://www.unc.edu/cps/students-scholarsphilanthropy.php 

Vogelgesang, L.J., & Astin, A.W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community service and servicelearning. 

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, (7), 25-34. 

Julie Cencula Olberding is an assistant professor in the MPA program and 

Nonprofit Management certificate program at Northern Kentucky University. 

She teaches Foundations of Public Administration, Resource Acquisition and 

Management, Volunteer Management, and other courses. In addition to student 




philanthropy, her research has focused on collaboration among government 

agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector for economic 

development. Her research has been published in the Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, Public Administration Review, the International Journal of Public 

Administration and Economic Development Quarterly. Correspondence 

concerning this article should be addressed to Julie Cencula Olberding, MPA, 

Ph.D., Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, Northern 

Kentucky University, 424E Founders Hall, Highland Heights, KY 41099. 




Appendix A. 

Qualitative Data: Excerpts of Narrative Responses by Participants in the 

Indirect-Giving Model of Student Philanthropy. 

Awareness Of Nonprofits 

Positive 

• There are far more philanthropic organizations and community needs than I had 

imagined. 

• The most significant thing is learning to understand the NP sector and learning of 

more NPOs. 

Negative 

• Many nonprofits are striving to meet the needs of the community with little help and 

resources. 

• Many organizations do not know enough about the logistics of philanthropy. 

Additional information would allow them to be better seekers of funding. 

• Many grant proposals are weak cut-and-paste documents with limited attention to 

detail and extremely limited assessment of outcomes. 

Interests And Intentions Related To Nonprofits – Career 

Positive 

• I was also considering the Public Administration/Government sector but now will be 

seeking a nonprofit career. 

• I want to explore grant writing as a career 

• I already work for a nonprofit but it expanded my knowledge about what is out there. 

Neutral/no effect 

• I already work in the nonprofit sector so it didn't enhance my desire to do so. 

• I already have a career in the nonprofit sector. 

• I'm here because I have a career in the nonprofit sector. 

Interests And Intentions Related To Nonprofits - Volunteer Work 

Positive 

• One guest speaker's story led me to apply as a volunteer at her organization. 

• I will be volunteering for more things and trying to support local NPOs in multiple 

ways. 

• Yes, I have already explored/joined organizations that match my interests. 

• After I complete school, my volunteer time will increase. 

Neutral/no effect 

• Full time work and full time school leave little extra time. I currently volunteer for 

special events at my place of employment. 

• Too busy with school, work and family. 

• Most students with the MPA program already volunteer ... a lot! 

Interests And Intentions Related To Nonprofits - Giving Money 

Positive 

• Philanthropy is extremely important; when I am financially in a position to contribute 

and make a significant impact, it will be good. 

Course & Student Philanthropy 

Positive 

• It was experiential and reinforced the textbook material in a less mundane way. 

• The hands-on approach was nice. Really helped to demonstrate what we also learned 

in class. 

• Great way to apply the material and concepts 

Negative 

• The project wasn't really appropriate for this particular course. 

Learning & Application 

Positive 

• I have more skills to be able to enter the nonprofit sector as a professional. 

• I learned the grant process from the inside out. I thought that was interesting. 

• I learned the process of grant evaluation and feel better able to help secure funding. 




• I learned that grant seeking is not a scary process — that it might be enjoyable for 

someone who can follow directions/guidelines and can write. I also learned how NOT 

to write grant proposals. 

• What a grant is comprised of and what makes a good grant effective and efficient. 

• I know how hard it is to make a decision when an organization needs funding. 

Negative 

• I learned that the philanthropic process is often not professional. The choices are 

generally not educated ones. 

• It did not increase knowledge or skill. 

What Did You Most Appreciate About The Student Philanthropy Project? 

• The opportunity to review and evaluate proposals for the first time. 

• As someone who has written grants in the past, I was glad to have the opportunity to 

review the process from the point of view of the funder. 

• The hands on interviews with the administrative staff of the nonprofit groups. The fact 

that my input and recommendation was honored and put into practice, my program 

evaluation received funding. 

• I appreciated the experience of interviewing and recommending a local agency for 

funding and knowing that my opinion matters. 

• The opportunity to learn and be involved in actual projects and not just case studies in 

a book. 

Other Comments 

Quality of Proposals 

• The proposals given were hit or miss. For each, excellent proposal, there was a 

substandard proposal. 

Final Award(s) to Nonprofits 

• In our capacity of reviewing and making recommendations, we could objectively 

evaluate the proposals, but even though we kept [the corporation's] perceivable goals 

and funding strategies in mind, their board chose differently than our class. 

• I did not feel that our recommendation was taken very seriously. 

• I was disappointed that [the corporation] didn't fund any of our recommendations. 




Appendix B. 

The Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project – Student Reflection and Evaluation. 

Name of Course: _____________________________________________________________________ 

Major: ______________________________________________________________________________ 

Minor or Area of Concentration: ______________________________________________________ 

Gender: Male Female 

Do you live on NKU's campus? Yes No 

Age: < 18 18-25 26-35 36-45 > 45 

Ethnicity: American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black or African American 

Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White 

Other:_________________________ 

Year in School: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other 

# of credits earned at NKU, not including this term: ________ 

# of college credits earned at other colleges/universities, not including this term: ________ 

This Mayerson class has helped me to … 

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree] 

Learn the course material. 

Develop a greater awareness of nonprofit organizations in the community. 

Apply principles from this course to addressing a need in the community. 

Consider a career in the nonprofit sector. 

List three (3) activities and/or assignments that increased your involvement and participation 

in this class. 

1. _________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. _________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. _________________________________________________________________________________ 

List three (3) activities and/or assignments that increased your learning in the class. 

1. _________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. _________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. _________________________________________________________________________________ 

What effect did this Mayerson class experience have on the following? 

1 = Very Negative 2 = Negative Effect 3 = No Effect at All 4 = Positive Effect 5 = Very Positive Effect 

Your intention to do volunteer work. 

Your intention to give money to a charity to help those in need. 

Your interest in community service. 

Your awareness of the societal problem/need(s) addressed in this class. 

Your sense of personal responsibility to the community in which you live. 

The belief that you can make a difference in the world. 

Your sense of purpose or direction in life. 

Your intention to work on behalf of social justice. 

Your belief that you have a responsibility to help others in need. 

Your interest in taking another course with a philanthropic or service-learning 

component. 

Your interest in this course. 

Your academic skills or knowledge. 

Your relationship with the professor. 

Your relationship with other students in the class. 

Your desire to stay in college or complete a degree. 

Your attitude toward “experiential” programs like this one. 




Your willingness to contact community and civic leaders to learn about an issue. 

The development of functional life skills (e.g., communication, assertiveness, problemsolving). 

Your attitude toward those in need of services. 

Read the list of activities and indicate whether this is something you did (or will do) this 

semester in connection with the Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project. 

Answer with Y = Yes, N = No, or NS = Not Sure 

___I made an initial call to a nonprofit to learn about the services they offer or to see if 

they were interested in submitting a proposal. 

___I made at least one onsite visit to a nonprofit agency being considered for an award. 

___I submitted the name of a nonprofit agency for funding consideration. 

___I submitted the name of a nonprofit agency that eventually received funding. 

___I submitted the name of a nonprofit agency that did not receive funding. 

___I This semester I volunteered at one of the nonprofits being considered by my class for 

funding. 

___I This semester, I made a donation (money, material items) to at least one of the 

nonprofits being considered. 

___I served as a group (board) leader/co-leader. 

___I coordinated the visit of a nonprofit agency to speak to the class. 

___I presented (or will present) an award to one of the chosen agencies at the award 

ceremony. 

___I wrote a letter to a nonprofit agency indicating that its RFP had been selected (or not 

selected) for funding. 

___I coordinated (or am coordinating) at least one agency's visit to the award ceremony. 

___I have made plans to volunteer at a nonprofit agency next semester. 

___I made a presentation to a corporate philanthropy board. 

___I played other roles in the selection process that are not listed. 

Please respond to the following six philanthropy and volunteerism questions. 

In the 12 months prior to this course, I donated (money or material items) to a 

nonprofit agency. 

Yes No If yes, please list the name of the agency(ies): _______________ 

As a result of this course, I increased the amount that I donate (money, materials) to 

nonprofit agencies. 


As a result of this course, I increased the number of nonprofit agencies that I donate to. 


In the 12 months prior to this course, I volunteered my time to nonprofit agency(ies). 


As a result of this course, I increased my number of volunteer hours with nonprofit 

agencies. 


As a result of this course, I increased the number of nonprofit agencies that I volunteer 

with. 


Please indicate your level of satisfaction with … 

1 = Not Satisfied at All 2 = Unsatisfied 3 = Neutral 4 = Satisfied 5 = Satisfied 

The overall quality of the proposals nonprofits submitted for your consideration. 

The monetary award(s) this class made. 




Name the most significant things you learned this semester about your community, the 

nonprofit sector or the philanthropic process. (Please use a few sentences to elaborate on your 

answers.) 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

As a result of this course do you plan to make any changes in your life that relate to your 

level of involvement in campus or community life? 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

What did you most appreciate about the Mayerson Project experience? 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Is there anything you would like to bring to our attention about the Mayerson Project? 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

We would appreciate the opportunity to ask you a few additional questions about your 

experience via email before the end of the semester. Please provide your name and email 

address so we can contact you. 

Name _______________________________________________________________________________ 

Email address:________________________________________________________________________ 

NKU may want to contact Mayerson students in the future for follow-up evaluations. Please 

give us an address where you will continue to live or where someone can forward 

correspondence to you in the event you move. 

Name _______________________________________________________________________________ 

Street _______________________________________________________________________________ 

City ________________________________________ State _______ ZIP Code _________________ 


Cognitive Styles Matching: Expanding the Efficacy of Group Work in MPA Courses 

Cognitive Styles Matching: Expanding the 

Efficacy of Group Work in MPA Courses 

Jeremy L. Hall 

University of Texas at Dallas 

ABSTRACT 

This essay describes a unique approach to assigning Master’s of Public 

Administration (MPA) students to groups in order to enhance the value of the 

overall classroom team experience. The relevant mechanism of interest is the 

Cognitive Styles Matching (CSM) group-selection process, combined with a brief 

explanatory session. Many instructors utilize groups for various reasons, without 

considering that the selection process can be altered to maximize relevant learning 

and interpersonal skills development. In this approach, a Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator within a CSM process is used to configure groups for semester-long 

course projects. The essay takes the additional step of examining the approach’s 

performance, by using a post-only evaluation design that considers academic 

performance and a survey of student perceptions regarding the CSM treatment 

and potential alternatives. The benefits associated with the CSM process — 

product consistency and learning to work with others in a collaborative public 

service environment — suggest a meaningful role for broader use of the CSM 

selection process in the MPA curriculum. 

INTRODUCTION 

Public affairs programs are challenged to prepare students for careers in public 

service with a curriculum that is matched to current trends and demands from 

the public and nonprofit sectors. Programs are attuned to these demands and 

the curriculum has developed accordingly. Moreover, the pedagogy has adapted 

to meet these expectations. In MPA programs, students are asked to complete 

assignments that are applied in nature. The capstone course has replaced the 

thesis in many programs, or is the students’ dominant choice in others. We also 

subject students to group assignments to simulate the collaborative work 

experience that most of them will encounter at some point during their careers 

— what Kahn (1995) refers to as experiential learning. 

Public managers require skills that include the ability to communicate and 

interact with others and, increasingly, to do so across traditional organizational 

boundaries. As McGuire (2006) observes, networks take on broad tasks that 



extend beyond concurrent actions by independent organizations. Because 

problems do not regard the boundaries into which we attempt to categorize 

them, “no bureaucracy, however conceived or designed, can encompass any 

problem that matters” (Kettl, 2006, p.15). The capacity needed to work in 

networks is different than that needed to work within a single organization 

(Agranoff & McGuire, 1998). To be successful, managers engaged in 

collaborations will come to rely on such skills as team-building, conflictresolution, 

and problem-solving to reach and employ mutual understanding 

(Agranoff & McGuire, 1998). 

The use of groups in MPA programs is now fairly common, and the literature 

presents pedagogical techniques and ideas for incorporating group work into 

courses (Kahn, 1995; Schumaker, 2005; Reineke, 2001). What has gone 

unnoticed in such prescriptions for real-world experience is that the effectiveness 

of working together in a group depends on group composition and participant 

characteristics. The selection process matters in terms of how individuals 

interact with one another. It most likely affects work output quality, and it 

certainly influences student satisfaction with the course, as well as the process of 

conducting group work in classroom settings. Instructors should weigh the 

purpose of group effort in the classroom against the costs and benefits associated 

with potential processes for assigning group membership. 

There are many ways of assigning students to groups. While the method used 

may be tied to an inherent goal, each has its pitfalls. For example, students may 

self-select their groups. This method caters to student satisfaction — people 

select persons they prefer to work with — but in the real world we do not 

always get this opportunity. Instructors may opt for random assignment, which 

caters to our deep concern for equity, but ignores the potential benefits of 

purposeful assignment. Arbitrary assignment also may be used to achieve 

diversity (e.g., gender, race, age) in each group, but these differences are 

external. Our internal differences may affect mutual work to a greater extent. 

There are many ways to assign groups, and instructors use approaches that meet 

their underlying process goals, or that minimize their effort both at the time of 

assignment, and during the course of group effort. 

While MPA programs seek to train various types of public servants, our focus 

is on preparing public managers — persons who not only will be working in 

groups, but who also will have the opportunity to create and manage groups 

within their institutions in the future. Clearly we view group pedagogy as 

something more than a process to convey content, or we simply would ask 

students to work independently. During the process of developing and 

implementing syllabi for classes at a new institution, I encountered a general 

latent frustration that many students seemed to have with group work in any 

format. In order to understand this frustration, I began to consider ways to 

make the group process more meaningful. As a result of this learning process, I 



have come to view the use of groups, and the group-selection method, as 

fundamental components of the broader MPA curriculum. 

This essay first provides background on the relationship between individual 

cognitive style and group or organizational performance. I then describe the 

process of Cognitive Styles Matching (CSM) by using a Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator (MBTI) to assign student groups in MPA courses. I continue by 

discussing the method’s usefulness for developing management skills (like 

developing conflict resolution in peer relationships; Heimovics & Herman, 

1989), and I evaluate the method’s efficacy — using a post-only evaluation 

methodology. Surveys evaluate student satisfaction with the CSM method, and 

its value for helping them to do better work with others. An evaluation of 

survey findings also addresses the effect of inherent goal conflict, and weighs the 

importance of student satisfaction against learning objectives in pedagogy. 

BACKGROUND: COGNITIVE STYLES AND GROUP PERFORMANCE 

Research in psychology has examined the role of personality in organizations 

and work settings (O’Conner, 1992; Simon, 1987). The subfield has grown and 

includes journals expressly or predominantly dedicated to the topic (e.g., 

Educational and Psychological Measurement, the Journal of Psychological Type, the 

Journal of Personality Assessment, and Group & Organization Management). 

Personality tests have been used extensively by organizational consultants to help 

people more effectively work together, and several organizations provide training 

to administer the official MBTI instrument (e.g., Personality Pathways, the 

Center for Applications of Psychological Type, the American Management 

Association, the Association for Psychological Type, and Type Resources of 

Effectiveness Enhancement, Inc., to name a few). On the Internet, it is easy to 

find quick personality tests to determine your type and profile, as well as your 

compatibilities and conflicts with other types. Popular attention 

notwithstanding, there is a clear evidence-base documenting the utility of 

cognitive style assessment. 

Cognitive style refers to “a person’s preferred way of gathering, processing, 

and evaluating information,” which “influences how people scan their 

environment for information, how they organize and interpret this information, 

and how they integrate their interpretations into the mental model and 

subjective theories that guide their actions” (Hayes & Allinson, 1998, p. 850). 

Understanding our own cognitive style clarifies our preferred way of interacting 

with the world and defines the nature of our interactions with others. While no 

style is better or worse than another, some styles are predisposed toward certain 

tasks. For example, extravert/perceivers are more comfortable than 

introvert/judgers when making presentations where hard questions will be 

asked. We all have natural comfort zones and proclivities that shape our 

approach to tasks. For example, intuitive persons look for connections and 



linkages that explain the big picture, while sensing persons are attentive to detail 

and substantiating facts. 

The effects of cognitive style on individual and organizational performance 

have been the subject of previous research. Armstrong (2000) investigated the 

effects of cognitive style on individual academic performance. Among students 

in an undergraduate management program, those with analytic cognitive 

styles outperformed those with non-analytic styles on specific tasks, and in 

their overall degree grades. Individuals from different backgrounds drew upon 

their pools of tacit and explicit knowledge to contribute to group work. In 

fact, the tacit dimensions of their knowledge base (including cognitive style) 

made these individuals especially valuable contributors to group projects 

within organizational or inter-organizational settings (Leonard & Sensiper, 

1998, p. 117). Without interaction among those with varied cognitive styles 

— which group activities stimulate — unique perspectives based on such tacit 

knowledge will fail to coalesce (Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). 

Hayes and Allinson (1998) examine the interaction between individual 

cognitive style and organizational performance. Specifically, they explore how 

cognitive style provides a basis for designing interventions that will improve 

learning and performance in organizations. Among the interventions they 

consider are matching the learning demands of the job/task to individual 

preferences, and managing group composition to promote effective learning. 

The former addresses the allocation of tasks within the organization according 

to preference; the latter addresses the composition of groups to shape the way 

they interpret information. There are two methods of managing group 

composition—seeking diversity and seeking homogeneity. 

Seeking and managing diversity involves assigning individuals with different 

cognitive styles to the same group, in order to promote synergy. To be 

successful, this approach requires the manager to “increase awareness about 

communication difficulties that can arise from differences in cognitive style and 

help organizational members recognize the value of contributions by others who 

have a different approach to thinking” (Hayes & Allinson, 1998, p. 865). The 

authors add that it is essential for managers to play an integrating role to ensure 

sharing of information and interpretations, and to keep employees from forming 

cohesive subgroups with unique views of the world. Teams may continue to 

respond well in the face of change, as long as they include some members whose 

information-processing style corresponds to the information-processing 

demands of the new situation (Hayes & Allinson, 1998). 

A danger associated with homogeneous groups, on the other hand, is 

formation of a shared mental model that encourages stereotypical thinking 

(Hayes & Allinson, 1998, p. 866). “If all individuals in the group approach a 

task with highly overlapping experiential backgrounds, they may be subject to 

‘groupthink,’ i.e., a comfortable common viewpoint leading to closed- 



Figure 1. 

The 16 MBTI style preferences 

ISTJ ISTP ISFJ ISFP 

INTJ INTP INFJ INFP 

ESTJ ESTP ESFJ ESFP 

ENTJ ENTP ENFJ ENFP 

Note. Letters indicate elements of the four 

dimensions: Introverts and Extraverts (I/E), 

Intuiting and Sensing (N/S), Thinking and 

Feeling (T/F), and Judging and Perceiving (J/P). 

From “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,” by I.B. 

Myers and M.H. McCaulley 1985, Manual: A 

Guide to the Development and Use of the 

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, (2nd ed.). Copyright 

1962 by the Consulting Psychologists Press. 

mindedness and pressures toward 

uniformity” (Leonard & Sensiper, 

1998, p. 118). As Volkema and 

Gorman (1998) note, heterogeneous 

group composition according to 

cognitive style can moderate the effect 

of problem formulation on 

performance (p. 117). In other words, 

the heterogeneous group arrives at 

multiple objectives that frame or define 

the problem they are tasked to address, 

which leads to more consistent 

outcomes than a homogeneous group. 

Because the tasks confronting each 

group are identical in a specific MPA 

classroom setting, I elected to assign groups with the goal of seeking cognitivestyle 

diversity. With proper attention to the construction of groups, students 

should appreciate the connection between cognitive style and task demands well 

enough to understand the value of purposeful group assignment. As future 

managers, this topic is highly salient to MPA students. Managers can encourage 

better exploitation of tacit knowledge by paying attention to the environment 

they are creating and by encouraging respect for different thinking styles 

(Leonard & Sensiper, 1998, p. 126). Managers and human resource 

practitioners have a crucial role to play in optimizing individual performance 

within organizations, and a precondition for managerial action is an 

understanding of the basis of style and its practical implications (Sadler-Smith 

& Badger, 1998). 

COGNITIVE STYLES MATCHING: THE GROUP ASSIGNMENT APPROACH 

Cognitive Styles Matching (CSM) is not difficult to use in constructing 

groups, but the technique takes more time and effort than random assignment 

or self-selection. This section briefly describes how to implement the CSM 

procedure. The first step is to ask students to complete a very brief (10-12 

minutes) questionnaire that produces a four-letter Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 

(MBTI). The particular questionnaire used is not important, as long as it is 

reliable. To enhance reliability, it is best if all students use the same 

questionnaire. (The questionnaire I use is proprietary, and cannot be reproduced 

here. Nonetheless, various Jungian or MBTI questionnaires are readily available 

in print and on the Internet.) 

When students have finished the questionnaire, the second step is to record 

their four-letter type (of which there are 16 total) and divide them so as to ensure 

that each letter is represented on each team. (See Figure 1.) In other words, eight 



different letters should be present 

to adequately cover both ends of 

the spectrum for each of the four 

dimensions: Introverts and 

Extraverts (I/E), Intuiting and 

Sensing (N/S), Thinking and 

Feeling (T/F), and Judging and 

Perceiving (J/P). Figure 2 reflects 

the four dimensions that comprise 

the cognitive-style assessment. (See 

Figure 2.) The selection method 

creates inherent conflict, as 

opposite types (e.g. N/S and T/F 

types) tend to approach tasks or 

interact with others very differently. 

Figure 3 presents the outcome of a 

group assignment process for one 

class. (See Figure 3.) Provided for 

consideration are the four-letter configurations resulting from the questionnaire 

for each student, and each student’s specific score on each dimension. 

Building groups can be challenging, and group size affects the instructor’s 

ability to ensure representation of students’ cognitive styles. For example, to 

attain representation in groups of two, each pair of students would need to be 

exact opposites, which virtually never occurs. An ISTJ would need to be 

matched with an ENFP. Larger groups are easier to work with if the goal is to 

ensure that each style is included. In a group of four, for example, only one 

individual need have any particular style. For example, the styles might be ISTJ, 

ESTJ, ENTJ and ENFP. In this configuration there are three Es and only one I, 

three Ts and only one F, and three Js with only one P. In this case, the total 

amount of direct interpersonal conflict is diminished because there are only two 

individuals with exact opposite styles, while all other combinations of 

individuals share some characteristics. Even so, balance is preferred. In large 

classes with large groups, it still can be difficult to achieve balance. For example, 

in one class of 30 students I found 11 Is and 19 Es; 21 S’s and 9 Ns; and 22 Js 

and 8 Ps. Of those 30 students, 3 had the type ISFJ, and 4 were ISTJ. Another 

was IS_J, equally balanced between T and F. So, about 27 percent of class 

members were IS_Js. When I find significant duplication in a single style, I 

usually begin by assigning each person with that style to a different group, and 

then build the group membership around them by adding the person with the 

most opposite style in the next slot. For each group’s third member, I examine 

the combination to see if any attribute is missing, and then add a person with 


Figure 2. 

The four cognitive style dimensions 

Introversion/Extraversion Scale 

Introversion (I) Extraversion (E) 

Sensing/Intuiting Scale 

Sensing (S) Intuiting (N) 

Thinking/Feeling Scale 

Thinking (T) Feeling (F) 

Judging/Perceiving Scale 

Judging (J) Perceiving (P) 

Note. From “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,” by I.B. Myers 

and M.H. McCaulley 1985, Manual: A Guide to the 

Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator, (2nd ed.). Copyright 1962 by the Consulting 

Psychologists Press.


Figure 3. 

Assignment of students into groups 

according to cognitive style 

MBTI E I S N T F P J Group # 

E S F P/J 7 2 4 3 0 7 4 4 1 

I N T/F J 0 7 2 3 2 2 3 4 2 

E S T J 5 4 5 1 6 2 4 5 3 

I S/N F J 0 8 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 

E N F J 6 1 1 6 3 6 3 4 4 

E/I S T J 4 4 6 0 7 3 2 6 1 

E N F P 6 1 1 6 4 6 7 0 2 

E S/N T J 5 3 4 4 8 3 3 5 2 

E N F P 7 0 1 6 1 7 6 1 5 

E S T J 6 1 8 0 5 2 2 6 5 

I S F J 4 5 7 0 1 6 1 7 2 

E N T P 5 

E S T J 6 1 8 1 8 0 4 5 5 

E/I N F P/J 4 4 1 4 3 4 4 4 1 

E/I N F P 6 6 0 6 2 9 7 5 3 

E S F P 4 

I N F J 0 8 0 6 3 6 2 5 3 

E/I S T J 4 4 6 0 6 2 1 7 1 

E S T J 6 1 6 1 8 1 3 5 2 

E/I S T J 4 4 4 3 10 0 2 5 3 

I S F J 4 5 3 2 1 6 1 7 5 

I S/N F P 1 6 4 4 2 5 7 1 1 

I N T P 2 5 1 6 5 4 6 2 3 

I S T J 3 6 7 1 6 2 3 5 4 

E N F P 6 1 2 5 3 6 4 3 4 

Note. The two students missing scores were not present during the 

in-class exercise and completed the assessment independently at a 

later time. These students reported only their dominant cognitive 

styles, without the scores that comprised them, and were assigned 

to groups on that basis. 



that attribute. Sometimes it still is necessary to add missing attributes with the 

fourth group member, but usually by that point the focus shifts to balancing the 

styles as well as possible. That is, make sure that I and E are well-balanced, and 

that S and N are well balanced, and so on, given the initial distribution of 

cognitive styles present in the class. 

The inclusion of conflicting preferences has the potential to generate moreconsistent 

work output, as group members balance the big picture with details 

or balance analysis with emotion. As noted above, this potential can be stifled 

by the conflict that is created by communication differences among the styles. 

Learning to overcome these differences to generate an agreeable product is a 

valuable learning objective in its own right. 

To achieve this learning objective, the assignment method requires additional 

explanation. Upon completing the questionnaires and group assignments in 

class, the third step is to explain what the cognitive styles mean. I devote about 

one hour to provide examples and clues about how the styles prefer to interact, 

and how they process and communicate information. During the first meeting 

of a semester — after reviewing the syllabus — is an ideal time to conduct these 

activities, because initial meetings are less useful for discussing course material. 

When group work commences during the semester, I pick a proximate time to 

remind students about the important stylistic differences, and I offer brief 

reminders prior to group tasks. 

This method provides an opportunity for students to understand themselves 

and why they prefer some tasks over others, and to understand the perspectives 

of those they work with in managing problems. When an extraverted student 

realizes that a very introverted team member isn’t participating, the process can 

be structured to allow equal participation. In this case, for example, students 

could be writing thoughts before sharing them one at a time around the table. 

So, although conflict is present and is a key part of the process, students are 

provided with an explanation of the expected conflicts that may arise, and how 

to address them. This explanation serves as a tool to help students overcome 

conflict and manage their interactions more effectively. Armed with this 

knowledge, students become much more attentive to the people they interact 

with, and also consider the possibility that they simply view the world through a 

different lens. A public manager who is better able to manage employee 

interactions in the workplace generally, and on teams in particular, will be an 

asset to an organization. 

Once scores are assessed, students are assigned to groups, and styles are 

explained, the fourth and final consideration when using CSM is the nature of 

the group work. One assignment of limited scope provides an introduction, but 

offers little interaction and thus little opportunity for the cognitive-styles 

understanding to be reinforced. I have found greater success with this technique 

when it is applied to a semester-long project, with multiple components that 



require the groups to meet and function in order to produce outputs a multiple 

number of times. When possible, the interaction is reinforced by asking the same 

groups to work together on in-class exercises. The best use of the technique also 

is demonstrated when the assignments exercise multiple cognitive-style 

dimensions. For example, both oral and written products are useful, as are 

questions that call for both analytical thinking and value-based judgments. 

The process is not so much about getting students to work together more 

cooperatively. It is inherent in the nature of the CSM process that students 

within a group will have varied styles that necessarily conflict with one another. 

Rather, the purpose is intended to generate increased understanding of how 

people differ, why they differ, and, with that understanding, how to work more 

effectively and generate better work products given those differences. Such 

understanding will better equip students to function in teams at the workplace, 

for they become aware of latent differences in cognitive styles, and find ways to 

capitalize on them. 

EVALUATION 

The literature examining group-selection techniques is sparse. This paper adds 

to that literature by reporting findings from an evaluation of the CSM 

technique and its effectiveness. This post-only evaluation includes two parts: (a) 

examining group project scores and class average final grades, and (b) a survey 

of students who have been subjected to the CSM group-assignment technique 

in three MPA classes. 

Post-Only Evaluation: A survey was developed during fall 2006 to assess 

student beliefs about group assignment in MPA courses, their satisfaction with 

particular assignment techniques, and their perceptions about equity and 

outcomes associated with various techniques. The instrument was administered 

during the semester’s final week of classes, in order to capture as much of the 

group process in each class as possible. A convenience sample of three classes 

provided the initial study group. Students enrolled in two concentration courses 

(Program Evaluation and Economic Development) were subjected to the CSM 

selection technique by the author in fall 2006, and students in a core public 

policy class were added in spring 2007. The four personality-type dimensions 

and their characteristics were explained to these treatment groups, and students 

were assigned to groups in such a way that both ends of each dimension were 

represented in each group, as described. 

Evaluation Questions: The survey included questions to collect a variety of 

information about respondents, and their attitudes and perceptions about 

group-selection processes. The substance included (a) demographics, (b) beliefs 

regarding selection-process equity, (c) preferences for selection methods, (d) 

group experiences, (e) beliefs about general group effects on course outcomes, 

(f) beliefs about specific course outcomes resulting from group assignment, (g) 



content knowledge from the selection process, (h) recommendations for future 

use of the method, and (i) previous exposure to cognitive-style assessment. 

The CSM method was developed and utilized to provide students with 

substantive experience in working with individuals who they were not likely to 

select on their own, and whose preferred manner of interaction and information 

processing differed substantially from their own. This evaluation seeks to 

determine the following: (a) how well the method performs with regard to its 

impact on student performance in group projects, and in class overall; (b) how 

well it prepares students to work on and manage teams; (c) how students 

compare it to alternative group-selection techniques; and (d) whether it adds an 

element to the students’ training that otherwise would not be provided. 

FINDINGS 

To assess the performance of the assignment method, I draw upon two 

sources of information: student assignments and course grades, and student 

surveys. Table 1 presents a side-by-side comparison of student scores on group 

assignments, and their final scores in two courses that were taught by the same 

instructor, but that alternately used the CSM method. An introductory policy 

course and a specialization course in evaluation methods are the two subjects 

compared. In each pair-wise comparison, whether it is of the assignment or the 

final grade, the scores for each class using and not using CSM are similar, with 

some higher and some lower. However, in each case where CSM was used, the 

standard deviation of the score was smaller than when it was not used, which 

indicates more consistent outcomes. For example, in the evaluation course, the 

standard deviation for student scores on assignment two — when CSM was not 

used — was 6.11, compared to 2.67 when CSM was used. The evaluation 

course involved more frequent group interaction on multiple tasks, and 

provided greater opportunity for the lessons of CSM to be reinforced, than did 

the policy course. (Note: the economic development course also provided more 

Table 1. 

Comparison of Assignment and Course Grades With and Without CSM. 

Note. CSM = Cognitive Styles Matching 


Introductory Policy Class Specialization Evaluation Class 

2006 2007 

2007 2006 

Assign.1 Assign.2 Assign.1 Assign. 2 

Selection Method Self-Select CSM Self-Select Self-Select CSM CSM 

Group Score Mean 89.98 89.18 87.75 93.0 91.86 91.86 

Std. Deviation 5.28 5.08 6.11 5.81 2.67 2.97 

Final Course Grade Mean 88.21 87.87 90.46 91.15 

Std. Deviation 10.88 7.94 6.56 3.12 

N = 40 N = 22 N = 7 N = 7 N = 7 N = 7


Table 2. 

Student Perceptions of the Group Selection’s Effect on Grades 

Course N 

Can Group 

Assignment 

Affect Course 

Grades? 

Did Group 

Assignment 

Affect This 

Course Grade? 

CSM 

Improved 

Group 

Grade 

CSM 

Improved 

Course 

Grade 

Program Evaluation (Mean) 7 100% 28.6% 42.9% 42.9% 

Positive 42.9% 

No Effect 42.9% 

Negative 14.3% 

Economic Development (Mean) 10 90% 30.0% 50.0% 40.0% 




Public Policy Process (Mean) 22 90.9% 9.5% 31.8% 22.7% 




Note. All % = % of Students Who Responded Yes 

frequent group interaction, although it is omitted in this table because the CSM 

technique was used each time the course was offered, thus providing no 

comparison data for consideration.) (See Table 1.) 

There does not appear to be a substantial impact on grades, except that 

grades are more consistent across the groups when CSM is employed. 

Following the literature noted earlier, this probably suggests more consistent 

problem-definition and objective-framing as a result of the group assignments. 

Turning to survey responses, students receiving the CSM treatment were asked 

to provide their perceptions of the method’s impact on their assignment and 

course grades. These survey results are reported in Table 2. All in all, 

responding students believe that group assignments can impact their grade in a 

course. In the three classes surveyed, more than 90 percent of students 

indicated that their group assignment could impact their course grade. Further, 

when asked how their group assignment in that particular course affected their 

grade, most indicated that their group assignment had a positive effect (from 

43 to 50 percent) or no effect (from 24 to 43 percent), while fewer reported a 

negative effect on their course grade based on their group assignment (from 14 

to 33 percent). Students then were asked about the CSM method in particular, 

and its effects on group grades. Between 32 and 50 percent of respondents 

indicated that the CSM improved their group assignment grades, while 23 to 



Table 3. 

Student Perceptions About the Value of CSM and Cognitive Styles 

for Public Service Training 

Note. *1 = No Effect; 5 = Very Strong 

**1 = Not at All Valuable; 5 = Very Valuable 

All % = % of Students Who Responded Yes 

43 percent thought it did not affect their course grade. On average, most 

students found that their group assignments resulting from the CSM process 

had positive to neutral effects on grades. (See Table 2.) 

A second outcome of interest is the content-knowledge students gained, 

regarding cognitive styles and working with others, as a result of the CSM 

assignment and group process. Table 3 presents students’ perceived value of the 

CSM method for their public-service training, and the value of their 

introduction to cognitive styles in terms of ability to work with others. 

Students receiving the CSM treatment were asked to indicate how much the 

individuals that comprised a group’s membership affected work quality. On a 

scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the strongest effect, students in each treatment 

group reported that they believed group membership affected work quality. (See 

Table 3.) Ranging from 4.5 (public policy) to 4.8 (economic development), 

students readily acknowledged that their group membership affected the quality 

of their work. Students next were asked about the value that cognitive styles 

information provided to their public-service training. Response options ranged 

from not valuable to very valuable, on a scale of 1 to 5, again with 5 being very 

valuable. Students in each class responded that the value of the information to 

their public-service training was above average. Scores ranged from 3.1 (public 

policy) to 4.0 (economic development). Students were asked to indicate (yes/no) 

whether the CSM process generally improved their ability to work with others 


Program 

Evaluation 

Economic 

Development 

Public Policy 

Process 

People in Groups Affect Work Quality* 4.7 4.8 4.5 

Value of CSM Information 

to Your Public Service Training** 

CS Matching Improved My Ability to Work 

with Others on Class Projects 

CS Intro Improved My Ability to Relate 

to Others in Group-Oriented Work Settings 

CS Intro Enabled Me to Work 

With My Group in This Class 

CS Intro Will Enable Me 

to Manage Team Efforts as a Public Manager 

3.7 4 3.1 

57.10% 80% 54.50% 

71.40% 77.30% 

71.40% 72.70% 

90.90% 

N = 7 N = 10 N = 22


on class projects. Again, most students responded yes, with about 55 percent 

giving that response for public policy, 57 percent for program evaluation and 80 

percent for economic development. 

The economic development course was surveyed first, and more questions were 

added to the instrument before it was distributed to subsequent classes, in order to 

enhance the quality of information regarding this outcome. Students in program 

evaluation and public policy courses were asked if the introductory material 

improved their ability to relate to others in group-oriented work settings, and 

whether the introductory material enabled them to work with their group in that 

class, specifically. Both groups responded yes to both questions, with favorable 

responses ranging from 72 to 77 percent. Students in public policy were asked an 

additional question: “Will the introductory material enable you to manage team 

efforts as a public manager?” Ninety-one percent of students in this class responded 

positively to the question. In each instance, students acknowledged the 

importance of group membership and indicated that the method and 

accompanying material were valuable to their work in class. They also 

acknowledged the value of the method to their role as future public managers. 

I next asked a series of questions that assessed student satisfaction with the 

CSM technique by itself, and relative to other selection methods for group 

work. These results are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Do students perceive the 

CSM method to be fair? Again, students rated the method above-average on a 

scale of 1 to 5. Students in public policy courses rated the method at 3.8, 

while those in program evaluation rated it at 4.0, and students in economic 

development rated CSM at 4.1. When asked if the method should be used in 

future courses, students were less agreeable, though still above average. Scores 

on this question varied from 3.4 to 3.6 on a scale ranging from No (1) to 

Definitely (5) in the three treatment classes. To obtain more detailed 

information about student recommendations, five more-specific alternatives 

were posed, and respondents were asked to indicate which approaches they 

advocated (responses were not limited to only one alternative; students could 

select multiple responses as they deemed appropriate). The five alternatives 

posited were (a) to discontinue use of the method, (b) to continue the 

approach with less information and explanation, (c) to continue with more 

information and explanation, (d) to continue with a subsequent review of 

material later in the course, or (e) to continue the method with no change. 

The results in Table 4 show that only 14.3 to 30 percent of students 

recommended discontinuing the method altogether. Very few (from 0 to 14.3 

percent) recommended continuing with less information. Most students 

recommended adding additional explanation and information (20 to 43 

percent) or doing so at a later point in the course (10 to 41 percent). A fair 

number of students also recommended continuing the approach with no 

change (14.3 to 40 percent). (See Table 4.) 



Table 4. 

General Student Perceptions About CSM and Its Use 

The argument that this method is valuable, or that students would recommend 

its use, is weak — unless one knows to what extent students have been exposed to, 

or are familiar with, cognitive styles. Students in each treatment group were asked 

to disclose whether they had been exposed to cognitive styles prior to this course. 

Available responses included the following: (a) never exposed, (b) exposed through 

personal research, (c) exposed in undergraduate courses, and (d) exposed in 

graduate courses. Students could select as many choices as were applicable. 

Assuming a qualitative dimension to exposure from different sources, I grouped 

responses into two categories: (a) those who were never exposed or only learned 

about cognitive styles on their own, and (b) those who learned about it in a 

college class as an undergraduate or graduate student. Here, the responses 

suggested that most students did not have substantial knowledge about cognitive 

styles prior to taking one of the treatment classes. A range of 55 to 71 percent of 

students in each class had never heard of cognitive style or had merely looked into 

it on their own. Only 29 to 45 percent had been exposed in an educational 

setting. If the technique is useful to understanding how to work with others and 

how to manage team efforts, and most students otherwise have no formal 


Program 

Evaluation 

Economic 

Development 

Public Policy 

Process 

Is CSM an Equitable Assignment Technique?* 4 4.1 3.8 

Should the CSM Technique Be Used 

in Future Courses?** 

3.4 3.6 3.4 

Discontinue 14.3% 30.0% 18.2% 

Continue With Less Information & Explanation 14.3% 0% 0% 

Continue With More Information & Explanation 42.9% 20.0% 22.7% 

Continue With a Later Review of Material 28.6% 10.0% 40.9% 

Continue With No Change 14.3% 40.0% 27.3% 

Previous Exposure to Cognitive Styles 

Never Exposed/Exposed Only Through Personal 

Research 

Exposed During Undergraduate or Graduate 

Educaton 

Note. *1 = Not; 5 = Very 

**1 = No; 5 = Definitely 

All % = % of Students Who Responded Yes 

71.4% 60.0% 54.5% 

28.6% 40.0% 45.5% 

N = 7 N = 10 N = 22


introduction to the material, it stands to reason that its incorporation into one or 

more classes in the MPA curriculum would be of value. 

To add further insight into students’ sentiments toward CSM and its 

continued use, an open-ended question enabled them to provide specific 

justifications for their recommendations regarding future use of the CSM groupselection 

method they experienced. They were asked, “Why did you make that 

recommendation regarding the selection method used in this course?” In the next 

section, the responses are reported verbatim. To make the comments more 

salient, they have been organized according to the positive, negative, or neutral 

character that they convey. These comments, especially on the positive side, 

demonstrated the understanding that students developed during the course. The 

negative comments tended to draw out the tensions experienced, but in doing so, 

some of the comments conveyed the content provided through the method, and 

readily acknowledged that different personalities did conflict. Most of the 

negative comments seemed to focus on a general dislike for group projects. 

Treatment Group Responses 

Positive: 

• Could see different personality styles that complemented other group 

members. 

• The level of comprehension was different between my group members 

and me, which produced better results. 

• Gives a better idea about teamwork when someone with a very different 

nature is your partner. 

• Unique and equitable. 

• Everyone in the group was not alike, so you can get alternative views. 

• People have different levels of cognitive strengths, and in our group they 

complimented [sic] each other. 

• I believe that personality dynamics are important to group work, and 

this method accounts for these dynamics and their possible negative 

impacts. 

• Everyone in our group had different styles to contribute, but we were all 

the same with how focused we were. Except one member. 

• The group fit well together; everyone did their part. There were no 

conflicts. 

• In a setting where there is little knowledge of classmates and working 

styles, it works great. 

• Seems more logical than pure randomization. 

• This was the easiest, most efficient group I have worked with. Might be 

CSM or might not … 

• Because a person has to learn to work with different people from diverse 

backgrounds with various perspectives... 



• It seemed to allow students to keep focused on the task at hand. When 

it got broad, others could bring it back into focus. 

• Not many instructors or students know how to utilize this method. 

• I know some groups found it helpful. In my group, everyone (except the 

slacker and plagiarizer) contributed equal and quality work. 

• Never had a group project run so smoothly. 

Negative: 

• Too Hard [sic] due to scheduling and limited time of grad students. 

• It could match “like” personalities, but work still must be done, so 

regardless of personalities, the team must produce. 

• I feel group projects create more work and should not be used. If you 

must use them, just use random assignment. 

• I would prefer not to participate in group projects. 

• For whatever reason, this ended up being the worst in group demands I 

have had — and I liked the members of my group on a personal level a 

lot. So I can only say that self-selection has worked better for me 

• Easier to work with individuals who I am more comfortable working 

with and those who have similar styles. 

• I know my classmates and I would not have chosen a slacker. 

• Just seems like over-thought. There are other factors to take into 

account (i.e. scheduling). 

• It was challenging to work with different personality types. 

• I personally had a negative experience; however, this does not mean that 

every time CSM is used, my experience would be negative. 

• I don’t like any type of group work and I think it is unnecessary at the 

graduate level. 

• Equity. 

Neutral: 

• It depends upon the alternative. It is better than random or systematic 

selection, but about equal with self-selection. 

• Group projects are tough regardless of how they are selected. 

Before accepting the method outright, it is useful to compare it to alternative 

approaches. Treatment group students were asked to compare the equity of the 

CSM method to alternative selection techniques. (See Table 5.) Students were 

asked whether CSM was more (+1) or less (-1) equitable than five alternativeselection 

approaches, or whether each pair was neutral with regard to equity 

(0). A positive response indicates agreement that CSM is more equitable than 

the alternative; a negative response indicates that the alternative is more 

equitable than CSM. For each class and each alternative-selection technique, 



Table 5. 

CSM’s Equitability Relative to Alternative Selection Techniques 

CSM Is More/Less Equitable Than:* 

Program 

Evaluation 

Economic 

Development 

Public Policy 

Process 

Self Selection 0.71 0.30 0.09 

Random Assignment 0.14 0.30 0.05 

Seating Proximity 0.86 0.50 0.09 

Past Academic Performance 0.71 0.50 0.41 

Systematic Assignment 0.67 0.20 0.23 

Note. *-1 = Less Equitable; 1 = More Equitable 

N = 7 N = 10 N = 22 

the average score is positive, indicating that students who have experienced the 

CSM technique find it to be more equitable than the alternatives presented, 

including self-selection. Scores are lowest for the public policy courses, ranging 

from 0.05 to 0.41, while scores in the two specialization courses are higher, 

from 0.14 to 0.86. This difference could be the result of maturation, as 

students in public policy were in their first year of the program, while other 

students generally were in their second year of the program. 

Another concern that should be addressed before wholeheartedly endorsing 

the method is the presence of conflict. We can recall that the CSM method 

generates inherent conflict between individuals in the way they collect, analyze, 

interpret, and communicate information. The explanatory material was 

intended to help students recognize and overcome these differences; this was the 

central goal of the method. Students were asked to identify several common 

conflicts that arose in group project settings, including interpersonal conflict 

with another group member, scheduling conflicts, under-performing members, 

over-performing members, no conflicts, or other conflicts not listed. In the last 

case, students were asked to describe the conflict in an open-ended response. 

Students also were asked whether all group members participated equally. Table 

6 presents the results for each treatment class. (See Table 6.) 

Interpersonal conflict was relatively low, ranging from 0 in program 

evaluation to only 36 percent in public policy. This was a very favorable 

outcome, given the expectation of conflict generated by the CSM process itself. 

Scheduling conflict was the single greatest problem confronting the treatment 

groups, experienced by 50 to 71 percent of the students in each class. The freerider 

problem always rears its head in group assignments, and 29 to 59 percent 

of each class experienced a free-rider in their group. To address this concern, I 

integrated an anonymous group-evaluation process into all group projects that 



Table 6. 

Student Reports Regarding Conflicts Experienced 

enabled group members to rate their colleagues’ performances. These average 

participation scores then were subjected to a formula, along with the project 

grades, to determine each individual’s score. In my experience, students 

generally seemed to be very conscientious in their assessments of others’ work. 

Somewhat surprising was the observation that group members put forth too 

much effort. The appearance of leadership or over-exertion may be a 

manifestation of an individual’s cognitive style, or it could be the result of 

differences in individual academic goals. A range of 14 to 30 percent of students 

experienced an over-achieving group member. Only about 30 percent of 

students experienced no form of conflict across the groups in all three classes. 

And, 50 to 60 percent of students indicated that all group members contributed 

equally. One never knows where conflicts may arise, and while no students 

reported “other” conflicts in the economic development courses, 14 percent in 

program evaluation listed “other” conflicts, as did 23 percent in public policy. 

The conflicts identified were not directly related to CSM, but they provided 

insight into the tacit dimensions of the experience that affected group 

performance. The additional conflicts identified were, verbatim, as follows: 

• Working style affected the output. 

• Couldn’t agree on the final work. 

• Group member turned in section late. 

• Group member did not come to any meetings. The same group 

member who did not contribute. 

• Lack of communication. 

• Language barrier. Opposing ideological values. 

• One group member gave no effort at all. 


Program 

Evaluation 

Economic 

Development 

Public Policy 

Process 

Interpersonal Conflict With Group Members 0.0% 10.0% 36.4% 

Scheduling Conflict With Group Members 71.4% 50.0% 54.5% 

Others Put Forth Too Little Effort 28.6% 30.0% 59.1% 

Others Put Forth Too Much Effort 28.6% 30.0% 13.6% 

No Conflicts Noted 28.6% 30.0% 27.2% 

Equal Participation? 57.1% 60.0% 50.0% 

Other: 14.3% 0.0% 22.7% 

Note. All % = % of Students Who Responded Yes 

N = 7 N = 10 N = 22


DISCUSSION 

As Posavac and Carey (2003) note, surveys that seek to assess satisfaction have 

a place in program evaluation, but “such surveys cannot provide a sufficient 

means to assess the degree to which the program was effective. Some people are 

very satisfied with worthless treatment because they feel respected and valued by 

the people offering the service” (p.65). Given this difficulty, I shall attempt to 

consider satisfaction and value distinctly in interpreting the findings of this study. 

While satisfaction with the CSM method seems generally high, and while most 

students recommend its continued or expanded use, these observations are less 

important than the underlying curricular value associated with the method. 

Though not definitive, the results of this evaluation supply reasonable 

enthusiasm to continue use of CSM in an MPA program. Given the absence of 

problems resulting from the group-selection method itself, the continued use of 

CSM depends mostly on the instructor’s willingness to implement it and to gain 

sufficient understanding to effectively communicate personality-type differences. 1 

The reported results should be viewed in light of certain qualifications. First, 

although the survey questions emphasize the selection process itself, students 

completing the questionnaires may not have been able to distinguish their views 

concerning the group-selection process, and its attendant rationale, from their 

composite group experience in the course. Second, as revealed by the openended 

comments, many students show a general distaste for group assignments 

that may be latent in the findings. Future research should attempt to isolate 

student preferences regarding group work (versus independent assignments) 

from the group-selection method and the assignment content. The curricular 

benefit of the CSM process to public service education must be weighed as well. 

Students learn about their own preferences for collecting, processing, and 

communicating information. They learn how to work with others whose 

preferences differ, and they gain insight into the role of organizing and 

managing team efforts either internally, or through external networks. 

To what extent should the CSM process be used in a public service graduate 

program? It certainly is not necessary to use the CSM method in every graduate 

course. Yet, repetition in different groups may improve and reinforce students’ 

understandings and their ability to interact with others. To be most effective, 

the CSM procedure should be used in at least one core course, so as to expose 

all students in the program at least once. Well-attended, general courses have the 

added benefit of creating larger groups that better represent all eight ends of the 

cognitive-styles spectrum. 

REFERENCES 

Armstrong, S.J. (2000). The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in management 

education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 323-339. 



Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1998). Multinetwork management: Collaboration and the hollow state 

in local economic policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), 67-91. 

Hayes, J., & Allinson, C.W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and 

collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847-871. 

Heimovics, R.D., & Herman, R.D. (1989). The salient management skills: A conceptual framework 

for a curriculum for managers in nonprofit organizations. American Review of Public 

Administration, 19(4), 295-312. 

Kahn, W.A. (1995). Group process checkpoints for team learning in the classroom. Journal of Policy 

Analysis and Management, 14(2), 310-326. 

Kettl, D.F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. 

Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.6), 10-19. 

Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California 

Management Review, 40(3), 112-132. 

McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know 

it. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.6), 33-43. 

O’Conner, S. (1992). Patterns of psychological type among health care executives. Hospital and Health 

Services Administration, 37, 431-447. 

Posavac, E.J., & Carey, R.G. (2003). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (6th ed.). Upper 

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 

Reineke, S. (2001). Teachable moments: Teaching teamwork through research. Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, 7(3), 153-160. 

Sadler-Smith, E., & Badger, B. (1998). Cognitive style, learning and innovation. Technology Analysis & 

Strategic Management, 10(2), 247-266. 

Schumaker, A.M. (2005). In search of a model for effective group projects: From the MPA student 

perspective. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(1), 21-34. 

Simon, H.A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of 

Management Executives, 1(1), 57-64. 

Volkema, R.J., & Gorman, R.H. (1998). The influence of cognitive-based group composition on 

decision-making process and outcome. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1), 105-121. 

FOOTNOTES 

1 There are numerous training programs that provide certification in the official Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator and its use; they range from around $1,000 to $2,000. I do not use the official 

instrument in my course; I use a shorter version to save time. I had the added benefit of learning 

the technique in one of my graduate courses and have used it extensively since. Those who have 

not had this benefit may find an official weekend training course to be the best approach to 

quickly adopting the method. 

AUTHOR NOTE 

I wish to express gratitude to Dr. Edward T. Jennings of the University of 

Kentucky for comments on the research design, and to Jim Slack and Akhlaque 

Haque, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, for allowing me to use 

their classes as comparison groups to inform the study. This study was approved 

under UAB IRB protocol #X061120005. Preliminary findings were presented at 



the 2007 NASPAA conference in Seattle, WA. Correspondence concerning this 

article should be sent to Jeremy L. Hall, Ph.D. at 800 West Campbell Rd. 

WT17, Richardson, TX 75083-0688 or Jeremy.Hall@utdallas.edu. 

Jeremy L. Hall, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at the University 

of Texas at Dallas. His research focuses on issues at the nexus of public policy, 

economic development, and public management — including public sector 

performance and capacity. His research has earned awards from NASPAA and 

the Southeastern Conference of Public Administration. 



The Return of Public Relations 

to the Public Administration Curriculum? 

Mordecai Lee 

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 

ABSTRACT 

There are increasing indications that public relations is slowly returning to the 

public administration curriculum. This was a common topic in early public 

administration literature, but by the second half of the 20th century it had 

largely disappeared from widely used textbooks. Now, with the increased power 

of the news media and other rapidly growing and changing alternative 

communications venues that define this information age, public relations is 

again relevant for future public managers. This article summarizes research 

results about these trends, based on a survey of the literature. It presents the 

historical and contemporary normative case for including public relations in the 

MPA curriculum, and synthesizes these results to provide suggestions for 

pedagogic approaches. 

INTRODUCTION 

We live in a media-drenched era. The news media (and subsequent offshoots 

such as the blogosphere) dominate the metaphorical town square and drown out 

other voices and venues for public discussion. Once the news media has framed 

an issue (i.e., given it a spin that the press pack accepts as conventional 

wisdom), it is very hard to change any public debate. If the media portrays 

something as a crisis, then it is. And any public servant who openly disagrees 

with the latest media narrative gets pigeonholed as a rigid bureaucrat who is out 

of touch with reality. Conversely, if the media decides a topic is unimportant, 

then it can be very hard for a government manager to get that issue on an 

agenda of public attention (Kalantari, 2001). 

This article contends that, based on research results, public relations appears 

to be returning to the curriculum of public administration. The context for 

this shift is the greatly increasing role, power, and influence of the news 

media, plus alternate mass communication methods, on 21st-century 

democratic governance. Therefore, due to a variety of causes that include new 

technologies and societal changes, the next generation of public servants will 

need training, not only in the traditional short list of management skills and 



democratic theory, but also in media relations, public relations, and other 

forms of external communications. 

The underlying premise of public administration is that management in the 

public sphere is qualitatively different from a similar role in the private sector, 

because of the inherent differences between the two sectors. One of the 

characteristics that differentiates the public and private sectors is the role and 

power of the news media and, more generally, the importance of external 

communication as an element of management. For business managers, 

cooperating with the news media and engaging in external communications is a 

choice. For public administrators it is a requirement. Freedom of the press and 

freedom of information laws compel civil servants to be accountable to the news 

media and the public-at-large. Unlike their business and nonprofit cousins, they 

must be transparent (Fairbanks, Plowman, & Rawlins, 2007; Liu & Horsley, 

2007, pp.378-381; Roberts, 2006; Graber, 2003, pp.6-13). 

STRAWS IN THE WIND: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INDICATE INCREASED 

ATTENTION TO PUBLIC RELATIONS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 

The rise and fall of public relations in public administration textbooks was 

documented by Lee (1998). By 1992, Waldo (1992) observed that interest in 

external (as well as internal) communications in public administration was “a 

significant but neglected topic” (p.xi). However, a decade after Lee’s state-of-thefield 

review, this inquiry indicates that external communications is beginning to 

reappear in public affairs pedagogy. There are three indicators of this apparent 

trend in academic literature: (a) recent publications in JPAE, (b) other recent 

research-based literature, and (c) availability of new pedagogic materials. 

One indicator for reconsidering the importance of public relations in public 

administration education is that several JPAE contributions have included the 

topic of public relations when discussing public administration pedagogy, even if 

it lacks that nomenclature. According to Peters (2009, p.15), when presented 

with potential curricular changes, MPA students in a capstone course wanted 

public relations training the most. Raphael and Nesbary (2005) focused on 

strategic communications, a broader topic that includes external communications 

within its rubric. Kirlin (2005) viewed communication as one of three civic skills 

that public managers needed. Klingner and Washington (2000) identified “the 

need to find ways to influence public policy decisions” (p.41) as part of a global 

approach to public administration training. Aristigueta (1997) emphasized the 

importance of interpersonal communication skills, which encompasses, of course, 

external communications. Other pedagogic topics discussed in JPAE that overlap 

with external communications include Kim and Layne’s (2001) discussion of egovernment, 

Dawes (2004) regarding information technology, Reddy (2000) on 

crisis management, and Fontaine (1998) suggesting the value of a mass-mediarelated 

course project as an effective hands-on instructional tool. 



A second indicator of renewed attention to the subject of public relations is an 

increase in research published as academic literature. However, much of it 

emanates from communications- and public-relations-based academic 

researchers, rather than those specifically in public administration or its related 

disciplines. Liu and Horsley (2007) are in the midst of a longer-term project to 

develop a theoretical and operational model of the external communications of 

government, and already have published the theoretical model they are 

examining and testing. Diana Knott Martinelli (formerly Diana Knott), with 

David Martinelli (D. Knott & D. Martinelli, 2005; D.K. Martinelli, 2006) 

researched public information activities of government agencies, especially in the 

area of transportation. Fairbanks, Plowman, and Rawlins (2007) developed a 

model for transparency in government communication, and Motschall and Cao 

(2002) analyzed the public information role of police departments. Focusing on 

public relations in the subfield of public health, Wise (2002-03, 2001) has 

examined links between public relations and organizational effectiveness, and 

proposed a larger research agenda for examining public relations in public health. 

Several European-based academic sources, also in communications 

departments, have been interested in external government communications 

during the first decade of the 21st century. Øyvind Ihlen at the University of 

Oslo (Norway), a member of the Editorial Review Committee of Public 

Relations Review, has been an adviser to the national government on public 

relations policies, and recently has assisted in developing a new policy on 

governmental external communications (Ø. Ihlen, personal communications, 

November 14, 2007 – December 13, 2007). Dave Gelders (2005, 2006) at the 

Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium) and several of his colleagues (Gelders, 

Bouckaert, & van Ruler, 2007) have published extensively on government 

communications, especially about conveying governmental intentions during 

the public policy development process. Also, two Israeli faculty members issued 

a guidebook for cities and countries on crisis management media strategies 

(Avraham & Ketter, 2008). 

However, there also has been a recent increase in published scholarship 

regarding government public relations by faculty in public administration and 

related fields, although it is more modest than that from communications 

faculty. A study of senior public administrators at the state government level 

noted that “About half the administrators’ time is devoted to internal matters; 

about half is spent on external relations” (Bowling & Wright, 1998, p.435). 

Kaufman’s career-summarizing overview of the role of public administration in 

modern society included observations about the importance of the news media 

to modern public administration: 

Many of them [modern day reporters] assume they have a special 

responsibility for illuminating everything in government and politics, 



and that everything in these fields is therefore fair game. … What they 

publish can profoundly affect the fortunes of those they write about. 

Everybody is aware of their power, administrative agencies no less than 

the others. Agencies therefore work hard to keep on good terms with 

the members of the fourth estate (Kaufman, 2001, p.29). 

Swoboda (1995) published the results of his research on media coverage of 

local government budgeting. LaPorte and Metlay (1996, p.344) discussed the 

importance of external relations in a government agency’s effort at 

accomplishing trustworthiness. Several chapters in the Garnett and Kouzmin 

(1997) handbook on the larger topic of administrative communication 

specifically discussed public relations. While not based in academia, Library of 

Congress researcher Kevin Kosar (2005) has tracked Congressional efforts to 

control the external communications activities of Federal agencies. Weiss 

(2002), who started her academic career in business administration, also wrote 

about public information as a tool of modern governance. 

Several academic researchers from public administration have published work 

on subjects closely related to external communications, such as freedom of 

information and government transparency. Probably the most prominent is 

Roberts (2006), who won several awards for his book, Blacked Out: Government 

Secrecy in the Information Age, which offers an international perspective. He also 

published articles on media coverage of government, the relationship between 

New Public Management and information, and the increasing limitations on 

access to information (Roberts, 1997, 2000, 2005). Focusing more specifically 

on the U.S., Piotrowski (2007; Piotrowski & Van Ryzin, 2005; Piotrowski & 

Rosenbloom, 2002) researched the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

and transparency in American governments. Finally, Holden (1996) observed 

that “The potential interconnection between public opinion and the success of 

public administration is one of the most profound realities to which political 

science may yet direct new attention” (p.35). The non-refereed monthly 

publication PA Times, put out by the American Society for Public 

Administration (ASPA), featured two articles in mid-2008 on government 

public relations (Cohen, 2008; Survey on Government Communicators, 2008). 

Given ASPA’s membership base of both academics and practitioners, these 

recent articles are another indicator of the reemergence of this subject on the 

public administration agenda. 

The third sign that public relations apparently is returning to the public 

administration curriculum is found in pedagogic literature. Waugh and Manns 

(1991; Manns & Waugh, 1989) made the case in the late 1980s and early 1990s 

for the importance of including communications (both external and internal) in 

MPA curricula. Similarly, Garnett (1992, p.xv; 1997, pp.764-765) argued twice 

in the 1990s to incorporate communications into the MPA curriculum. 



Shifting from a general, pedagogic focus on communication to the narrower 

topic of external communications, one of the 1998 joint committee 

recommendations by NASPAA and the American Political Science Association 

(APSA) Section on Public Administration was that “Those involved in shaping 

public administration curricula should work to ensure that managers more fully 

understand how to get their message out to the media” (Thompson, 1998, p.4). 

Alongside pedagogic literature, there also has been an increase in the 

availability of pedagogic materials that relate to using public relations in public 

administration. Most of them come from practitioners or “pracademics.” 

Overviews with a “how-to” bent offer some relatively recent examples, such as 

publications by the Federal Communicators Network (2001), the International 

City/County Management Association (2003), and the California Association of 

Public Information Officers (Krey, 2000). The International City/County 

Management Association (2002) recently issued a publication that focuses more 

narrowly on crisis communications. While not specifically targeted to 

government, Brown’s (2002) “how-to” on public appearances is an example of 

current applied literature that also is relevant to public administrators in 

training. Finally, two recent textbooks on (or including) government public 

relations were issued by commercial publishers, which is a significant marketbased 

signal of increased interest in the subject (Fitch, 2004; Lee, 2008a). 

REALITY CHECK: EXAMPLES OF RECENT INNOVATIVE PRACTICES IN 

GOVERNMENT PUBLIC RELATIONS 

Pedagogy in government public relations needs to be grounded in the “real 

world” of practice. Therefore, in contrast to the preceding academically based 

review, this section briefly highlights a few tangible examples of innovative 

practices that demonstrate how public relations can contribute to the “doing” 

side of public administration. 

Generally, there are two categories of government public relations (PR): 

pragmatic and democratic. The first one — pragmatic — enlists the practical 

uses of external communications to help accomplish the substantive mission of 

an agency. A columnist in the New York Times concisely stated the premise of 

this orientation: “No matter how lofty the aims of a government program, it 

usually won’t make a difference if people can’t understand it” (Leonhardt, 2007, 

p.C9). Some examples of pragmatically using PR to help promote the core 

mission of an agency include the following: 

• While not required, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (2008) mailed to 

all taxpayers an informational sheet about economic stimulus payments 

being issued in mid-2008. This helped taxpayers understand the 

program, the amount of the check they would receive, and when they 

would receive it. 

• Rather than relying solely on post-hoc, criminal-justice-type 



enforcement, the Virginia Department of Health used a preventative 

strategy to promote a law prohibiting sex with minors. It used 

billboards, coasters, cocktail napkins and postcard-sized messages as part 

of a widespread public information campaign to remind potential 

offenders about the law and its consequences (Jenkins, 2004). 

• The National Highway Safety Administration spent $7.5 million on an 

advertising campaign targeted at teenagers, with the goal of convincing 

them not only to wear seat belts, but also to learn the benefits of using 

seat belts (Thomas, 2008). 

• To implement the new Medicare drug-benefit program, the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (2005) ran paid 

advertisements in the nation’s major newspapers to alert seniors about 

an upcoming TV program that explained the new benefit plan. 

• The legal responsibility of the U.S. Labor Department’s Employee 

Benefits Security Administration is that it “protects the integrity of 

pensions, health plans, and other employee benefits for more than 150 

million people.” Hence, it did not deal directly with citizens, only with 

plan managers and corporations. Yet, in the spirit of that legal mission, 

it posted an online retirement planning calculator that any citizen could 

use. The device won critical acclaim from the Wall Street Journal, which 

judged it as “one of the best” of all the tools available to people as they 

plan for retirement (Ruffenach, 2008, p.2). 

The second category of government PR activities relates to public 

administration’s general role of promoting democracy. Some examples of using 

external communications to further the democratic role of public administration 

include the following: 

• In 2007, a professional association of Canadian accountants released 

results of a best practices survey of democratic reporting throughout the 

Canadian public sector — especially public reporting incorporating 

performance results data (Canadian Comprehensive Auditing 

Foundation, 2007). 

• In 2008, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (2008) and the 

Treasury Department, as a way to inform the public on the long-term 

consequences of current budget trends, issued an eight-page summary of 

fiscal trends in the Federal government. 

• While rebuilding a bridge that collapsed in Minnesota, the state’s 

Department of Transportation realized that the work site would be of 

high interest to citizens. Therefore, it arranged with the construction 

contractor to conduct “Sidewalk Superintendent” tours every Saturday 

during the rebuilding process. This way, citizens could become better 

informed about seeing their tax dollars at work (Davey, 2008). 

These examples demonstrate the vitality of the practice of government public 



relations and its centrality to both the pragmatic and democratic missions of 

public administration. They are intended as concrete indicators regarding the 

utility of public relations in the PA curriculum. 

THE NORMATIVE CASE FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS IN TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT 

AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LITERATURE 

In preceding sections, this inquiry has identified contemporary writings and 

examples indicating the apparent re-recognition of the value that public 

relations brings to public administration. However, given that PR used to be 

viewed as an important topic (Lee, 1998), it may be helpful to summarize 

earlier normative literature, even though it gradually faded from widespread 

contemporary attention. Barnard (1938/1982), one of the earliest management 

theorists, argued that if “one examines all the acts of any person for even one 

day it will be at once evident in nearly all cases that many of these acts are 

outside any system of coöperation [sic] … In addition it appears necessary to 

regard as a part of an organization certain efforts of many persons not 

commonly considered ‘members’”(pp.70-71, emphasis original). 

In a recent edition of a seminal study of decision-making in all large 

organizations, Simon (1997) noted: 

Observation indicates that, as the higher levels are approached in 

administrative organizations, the administrator’s “internal” task (his 

relations with the organization subordinate to him) decreases in 

importance relative to his “external” task (his relations with persons 

outside the organization). An ever larger part of his work may be 

subsumed under the heads of “public relations” and “promotion.” The 

habits of mind characteristic of the administrative roles at the lower and 

higher levels of an organization undoubtedly show differences 

corresponding to these differences in function (p.294). 

Addressing the same question from the public relations perspective, Grunig 

(1992) estimated that corporate CEOs spend 25 to 75 percent of their time on 

external relations (p.236). According to two other public relations researchers, 

“Some executives say they now spend as much as 50 percent of their time 

attending to issues management, either in the form of government relations, 

dealing with regulatory matters, or social responsibility programs” (Gaunt & 

Ollenburger, 1995, p.202). Shifting specifically to public administration literature, 

the normative value of public relations often was noted in mid-20th-century 

writings. In 1941, Mosher emphasized that “In a democracy the importance of 

public relations can hardly be overstressed. … On the whole, public authorities 

have signally failed to keep their ‘masters,’ the public, acquainted with their 

enterprises and the problems for which they are responsible” (1941, pp.3-4). In 

outlining the responsibilities of a senior administrator, Stone (1945) argued that 



“external affairs” was one of the key roles of an agency head. For him, the measure 

of an executive’s success was providing the agency with “a favorable climate within 

which to function,” which was accomplished largely through “outside 

responsibilities” (p.58, emphasis added). Gulick (1948) concluded that one of the 

15 lessons learned from World War II was that “The support of public opinion is 

essential for good administration,” and therefore successful government 

management must include “a continuous process of taking the public into one’s 

confidence” (pp. 110-111). In 1949, Fesler (2008/1949) theorized that Federal 

regional directors had three important roles, one of which was “to be the principal 

contact man [sic] or public relations man [sic]” (p.82) for the region. 

During that time, the discipline launched a major effort to use case studies as 

a focal point for public administration pedagogy. In the 1950s, one of the 

widely used casebooks was issued by the Inter-University Case Program (ICP) 

and edited by its staff director, Harold Stein. He divided the broad subject of 

public administration into seven topics, one of which he titled “Relations with 

the Public” (Stein, 1952, pp.739-853). That section contained four cases (of 26 

in the book) and the cross-index listed several others that were relevant to the 

subject (p.860). A year later, ICP published another case on public relations, 

titled “The Regional Information Officer” (Kriesberg, 1953). 

Also in the 1950s, Lawton (1954) concluded that “As a public figure, the 

administrator is inevitably up to his ears in public relations” (p.118). Later in 

the decade, Redford (1975/1958) argued that, for a government agency to 

implement a program, citizen “support is a vital necessity for program 

effectiveness. Agencies must be allowed facilities for obtaining it if they are to 

accomplish anything for the public” (p.88). In a different piece, he broadened 

his generalization to encompass a wider array of public information activities, 

with a multiplicity of purposes: “In a democratic society each agency must bear 

a responsibility for informing people of the benefits and liabilities of its program 

and, except as required for national security or the privacy of its staff, for 

making its processes known to society” (Redford, 1969, p.139). 

Throughout his career, Dimock made the normative case that public relations 

was important to senior public administrators. In 1934, in one of his first 

publications, he began an article (in a non-refereed journal) with this statement: 

“The most neglected aspect of public administration is salesmanship – what is 

usually called, in the broader sense, public relations” (Dimock, 1934, p.660). 

Thirty years later, he still was trying to persuade public administration of the 

value in following his PR advice: 

1. Think of public relations simply as administrative policy, not as a 

separate activity. 

2. Watch public relations more closely than you do any other function, 

personnel matters included (Dimock, 1965, p.48, emphasis added). 

The same year as Dimock’s 1965 comments, a report to the British 



government by the United Kingdom’s Royal Institute of Public Administration 

echoed his normative argument about the importance of external 

communication at the highest levels of public administration. The report called 

for increasing the training in public relations for senior civil servants, even 

though they “do not come into contact in a very direct way with the ordinary 

citizen, but whose activities affect almost everything the ordinary citizen does” 

(Ogilvy-Webb, 1965, pp.181-182). 

However, the literature also cautioned public administrators to be wary in 

their public relations practices, so as not to trigger legislative and executive 

hostility. Elected officials object to the term “propaganda” as opposed to 

“information” (the definition of which is in the eye of the beholder), and to 

overt attempts by a government agency to obtain and mobilize public support. 

Popularity with the citizenry can enhance an agency’s autonomy, thereby 

reducing the leverage politicians can wield over it (Carpenter, 2001, pp.344- 

355; Lee, 1997; Rourke, 1984, p.50; 1961, pp.183-207; Simon, Smithburg, & 

Thompson, 1991/1950, pp.402-422). Given that public relations can benefit 

the institutional interests of an agency, it must be practiced with some caution. 

NOMENCLATURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 

There is no commonly accepted nomenclature for this subject matter, with 

some of it having come and gone in popularity over the decades. Some 

commonly used terms include (in alphabetical order) 

• Communication, Communications, Public Communication, 

Organizational Communication, Administrative Communication, 

External Communication; 

• Information, Public Information; 

• Public Affairs; 

• Publicity; and 

• Public Relations, External Relations. 

Each of these terms has advantages and disadvantages. For example, 

“communication” (and its variations) often is a modern-day term for three other 

fields: journalism, speech therapy and rhetoric (as in the old-fashioned academic 

title of Speech Departments). “Information” has been largely appropriated by 

the subject of information technology (IT) or information studies (formerly 

librarianship). In the Federal government, “public affairs” is a polite synonym 

for public relations, with most Cabinet departments having an assistant 

secretary for public affairs (Lee, 2008a). However, the term can be confused 

with its usage in public administration, such as in the title of this publication, 

the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE), and its sponsor, the National 

Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). Also, 

“public affairs” is widely used in the private sector as a title for corporate 

lobbying and PR programs (Harris & Fleisher, 2005). 



“Publicity” is usually viewed as an old-fashioned and too-narrow term, while 

“public relations” tends to be anathema to Congress — ever vigilant to stomp 

out self-serving propaganda from the bureaucracy. Similarly, in contemporary 

popular usage, the initials PR tend to convey an unsavory, barely truthful, and 

manipulative meaning. Therefore, if only by process of elimination, “external 

relations” or “external communications” become terms that have a relatively selfexplanatory 

and neutral meaning. Nonetheless, this author’s preference is 

“public relations.” That approach is reflected in the nomenclature of most of the 

courses currently offered (see next section and Appendix A). When viewed 

literally, the term is very compatible with the term public administration. So, 

“public relations in public administration” does more than just focus on the 

maintenance of relations with audiences outside the bureaucracy. The duplicate 

use of the word “public” can be seen not as repetitive, but rather as highlighting 

the public-ness of public administration itself. If one argues that government 

management is a qualitatively different activity than business administration, 

then the focus on the public context of both public administration and public 

relations helps distinguish the government manager’s responsibilities from 

comparable counterparts in the business or nonprofit sectors (Lee, 2002). In 

this context, the communications and information activities of public relations 

in public administration would, by necessity, be different from the practice of 

public relations in the management of organizations in the other two sectors. 

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON THE SCOPE OF THE SUBJECT AND SAMPLES OF 

OFFERINGS 

Earlier literature often focused on techniques of public relations in 

government, but with little context regarding why a government manager might 

turn to public relations to accomplish agency missions. More recent literature 

focuses on the purposes or objectives of public relations in public administration. 

In the 1990s, Baker sought to define public relations in government according 

to the basic goals and functions of 

• Political communication (i.e. to influence elected decision-makers), 

• Information services, 

• Developing and protecting positive institutional images, and 

• Generating public feedback (Baker, 1995, pp.456-457). 

At the turn of the millennium, a practitioner defined the field based on what 

a professional actually did, and focused on the functions or responsibilities of a 

public information officer, which include the following: 

• Monitoring media coverage, 

• Briefing and advising political officials, 

• Managing media relations, 

• Informing the public directly, 

• Sharing information across the administration, 



• Formulating communication strategies and campaigns, and 

• Researching and assessing public opinion (Édes, 2000, pp.458-461). 

Finally, this author suggested synthesizing the literature into a typology, based 

on the purposes of external relations in government management, such as 

1. Media relations; 

2. Public reporting; 

3. Responsiveness to the public; 

4. (Outreach:) Increasing the utilization of services and products; 

5. (Outreach:) Public education and public service campaigns; 

6. (Outreach:) Seeking voluntary public compliance with laws and 

regulations; 

7. (Outreach:) Using the public as the eyes and ears of an agency; and 

8. Increasing public support (Lee, 2008b, pp.7-11). 

These items represent efforts to define the scope of the topic by enumerating 

what is included, but a different approach can be to focus on what is excluded. 

From this perspective, public relations comprises all of a government agency’s 

external communications except for legislative relations, client and vendor 

relations, contract relations, detailed financial statements, marketing, and 

public participation in the process of adopting new agency policies. Research 

results based on Internet searches and other sources identified several U.S. 

institutions of higher education that recently have offered courses on public 

relations in public administration. At the time this research was conducted, the 

newest course based in a public administration program was a special topics 

seminar in 2008-09 on “Public Information and Communication,” in the 

School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. Other public 

administration program offerings included (a) a three-credit course on “Public 

Relations for Public Managers” in the Department of Public Administration at 

Florida International University (Miami), and (b) a course on “Public 

Relations,” in the MPA program at Clark University (Worcester, MA). 

Several other universities offered public relations courses, but they were based 

in communications programs rather than in public administration. The newest 

offering was a 2009 special topics seminar on “Public Information Strategies,” 

in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of 

North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Boston University’s Department of Mass 

Communication, Advertising and Public Relations provided a course on 

“Government Public Affairs,” and the Marketing Communication Department 

of Columbia College Chicago lists a course titled “Political & Government 

Public Relations.” Appendix A provides Web links to some of the abovementioned 

courses, as well as a few others, at American colleges and universities. 

Outside the U.S., public administration programs that recently offered courses 

on public relations included the School of Public Administration at Renmin 

University of China (course title: “Government Public Relations”), the Public 



Administration Department of Yarmouk University in Jordan (course title: 

“Public Relations in Public Administration”), and the Department of 

Administrative Management at Chinese Culture University in Taiwan (course 

title: “Government Public Relations”). 

In an effort to synthesize the course examples, pedagogic literature and 

research results cited above, Appendix B presents a suggested course outline. 

SUMMARY 

The argument that public relations is an important part of the practice of 

government management originally had been made in leading textbooks and by 

public administration writers of the mid-20th century, but attention to the 

subject faded as the century progressed. However, in the past decade, the field of 

public administration appears to be rediscovering the importance of external 

communications. Some signals of this trend include references to the topic in 

JPAE, more published research in academic journals for public administration 

and communications, and an increasing amount of pedagogic materials such as 

publications and current course offerings. In part, these trends are reflections of 

the rise in importance and centrality of the news media and other 

communication methods vis-à-vis the public sector in the 21st century. 

This article has sought to synthesize these shifting trends into a contemporary 

case for purposes of more widely re-establishing the attention given to public 

relations in public administration pedagogy. It has included suggestions about (a) 

nomenclature, (b) the scope of the subject, (c) examples of contemporary course 

descriptions from U.S. post-secondary public administration and communications 

programs, and (d) a sample syllabus for a three-credit graduate course. 

REFERENCES 

Aristigueta, M.P. (1997). Strategy and theory for intrapersonal development in public administration 

education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 3, 163-176. 

Avraham, E., & Ketter, E. (2008). Media strategies for marketing places in crisis: Improving the image of 

cities, countries and tourist destinations. Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann. 

Baker, B. (1997). Public relations in government. In C.L. Caywood (Ed.), The handbook of strategic 

public relations & integrated communications (pp.453-479). New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Barnard, C.I. (1982). The functions of the executive, 30th anniversary ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press. (Originally published in 1938). 

Bowling, C.J., & Wright, D.S. (1998). Change and continuity in state administration: Administrative 

leadership across four decades. Public Administration Review, 58, 429-444. 

Brown, L. (2002). Your public best: The complete guide to making successful public appearances in the 

meeting room, on the platform, and on TV (2nd ed.). New York: Newmarket. 

Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. (2007). What can we learn from effective public 

performance reporting? Good practices for central agencies, legislators, auditors, and report producers. 

Ottawa, ON: CCAF-FCVI. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from 

http://www.performancereporting.ca/documents/PPR-Good_Practices.pdf 



Carpenter, D.P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy 

innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Cohen, E. (2008, May). How the public sector can compete in the media world: Tips from an insider. 

PA Times, 31(5), 9-10. 

Davey, M. (2008, June 8). Construction as spectator sport: New bridge rises in Minnesota. New York 

Times, A22. 

Dawes, S.S. (2004). Training the IT-savvy public manager: Priorities and strategies for public 

management education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10, 5-17. 

Dimock, M.E. (1934). Selling public enterprise to the public. National Municipal Review, 23, 660- 

666. 

Dimock, M.E. (1965). Building program support. In R.B. Highsaw & D.L. Bowen (Eds.), 

Communication in public administration (pp. 39-48). Tuscaloosa: Bureau of Public Administration, 

University of Alabama. 

Édes, B.W. (2000). The role of government information officers. Journal of Government Information, 

27, 455-469. 

Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K.D., & Rawlins, B.L. (2007). Transparency in government communication. 

Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 23-37. 

Federal Communicators Network. (2001). Communicators guide: For Federal, state, regional, and local 

communicators, rev. ed. Gainesville, FL: IFAS/Extension. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from 

http://www.publicforuminstitute.org/activities/2002/fcn/commguid.pdf 

Fesler, J.W. (2008). Area and administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. (Originally 

published 1949). 

Fitch, B. (2004). Media relations handbook for agencies, associations, nonprofits and Congress. Arlington, 

VA: TheCapitol.Net. 

Fontaine, S.L. (1998). Using the mass media as an instructional tool in a public affairs course. Journal 

of Public Affairs Education, 4, 287-294. 

Garnett, J.L. (1992). Communicating for results in government: A strategic approach for public managers. 

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Garnett, J.L. (1997). Epilog: Directions and agendas for administrative communication. In J. L. 

Garnett & A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication (pp.747-770). New 

York: Marcel Dekker. 

Garnett, J.L., & Kouzmin, A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of administrative communication. New York: 

Marcel Dekker. 

Gaunt, P., & Ollenburger, J. (1995). Issues management revisited: A tool that deserves another look. 

Public Relations Review, 21, 199-210. 

Gelders, D. (2005). Public information provision about policy intentions: The Dutch and Belgian 

experience. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 75-95. 

Gelders, D. (2006). Improving public policy communication in Belgium. Public Manager, 35(3), 32- 

35. 

Gelders, D., Bouckaert G., & van Ruler, B. (2007). Communication management in the public 

sector: Consequences for public communication about policy intentions. Government Information 

Quarterly, 24, 326-337. 

Graber, D. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations. 

Washington, DC: CQ Press. 

Grunig, J.E. (1992). What is excellence in management? In J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public 

relations and communication management (pp.219-249). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 



Gulick, L. (1948). Administrative reflections from World War II. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama 

Press. 

Harris, P., & Fleisher, C.S. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of public affairs. London: Sage. 

Holden, M., Jr. (1996). Continuity and disruption: Essays in public administration. Pittsburgh, PA: 

University of Pittsburgh Press. 

International City/County Management Association. (2002). Crisis communication for local government 

managers. Washington, DC: ICMA. 

International City/County Management Association. (2003). Communications in local government: A 

business planning model. Washington, DC: ICMA. 

Jenkins, C.L. (2004, June 15). Stern warning on sex with minors: Pregnancies spur Va. campaign 

aimed at men. Washington Post, A01. 

Kalantari, B. (2001). Media and the bureaucracy in the United States. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), 

Handbook of comparative and development public administration (2nd ed., pp.877-883). New York: 

Marcel Dekker. 

Kaufman, H. (2001). Major players: Bureaucracies in American government. Public Administration 

Review, 61, 18-42. 

Kim, S., & Layne, K. (2001). Making the connection: E-government and public administration 

education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7, 229-240. 

Kirlin, M. (2005). Understanding the relationship between civic skills and civic participation: 

Educating future managers. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11, 305-314. 

Klingner, D.E., & Washington, C.W. (2000). Through the looking glass: The benefits of an 

international and comparative perspective on teaching public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, 6, 35-44. 

Knott, D., & Martinelli, D. (2005). Communication strategies for state transportation research 

programs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1924, 52-58. 

Kosar, K.R. (2005). The executive branch and propaganda: The limits of legal restrictions. Presidential 

Studies Quarterly, 35, 784-797. 

Krey, D. (2000). Delivering the message: A resource guide for public information officials (2nd ed.). 

Sacramento, CA: California Association of Public Information Officials. 

Kriesberg, M. (1953). The regional information officer, ICP Case Series No. 19. Tuscaloosa: University 

of Alabama Press. 

La Porte, T.R., & Metlay, D.S. (1996). Hazards and institutional trustworthiness: Facing a deficit of 

trust. Public Administration Review, 56, 341-347. 

Lawton, F.J. (1954). The role of the administrator in the Federal government. Public Administration 

Review, 14, 112-118. 

Lee, M. (1997). President Nixon sees a “cover up:” Public relations in Federal agencies. Public 

Relations Review, 23, 301-325. 

Lee, M. (1998). Public relations in public administration: A disappearing act in public administration 

education. Public Relations Review, 24, 509-520. 

Lee, M. (2002). Intersectoral differences in public affairs: The duty of public reporting in public 

administration. Journal of Public Affairs, 2, 33-43. 

Lee, M. (2008a). Public affairs enters the U.S. president’s subcabinet: Creating the first assistant 

secretary for public affairs (1944-1953) and subsequent developments. Journal of Public Affairs, 8, 

185-194. 

Lee, M. (Ed.). (2008b). Government public relations: A reader. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 



Leonhardt, D. (2007, May 16). Sometimes, what’s needed is a nudge. New York Times, C1, C9. 

Liu, B.F., & Horsley, J.S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public 

relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 377-393. 

Manns, E.K., & Waugh, W.L. (1989). Communication in public administration: The need for skillbased 

education. Policy Studies Review, 8, 891-897. 

Martinelli, D.K. (2006). Strategic public information: Engaging audiences in government agencies’ 

work. Public Relations Quarterly, 51, 37-41. 

Mosher, W.E. (Chairman). (1941). Public relations of public personnel agencies; A report submitted to the 

Civil Service Assembly by the Committee on Public Relations of Public Personnel Agencies. Chicago: 

Civil Service Assembly of the United States and Canada. 

Motschall, M., & Cao, L. (2002). An analysis of the public relations role of the police public 

information officer. Police Quarterly, 5, 152-180. 

Ogilvy-Webb, M. (1965). The government explains: A study of the information services; A report of the 

Royal Institute of Public Administration. London: George Allen & Unwin. 

Peters, R.A. (2009). Using focus groups and stakeholder surveys to revise the MPA curriculum. 

Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15, 1-16. 

Piotrowski, S.J. (2007). Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform. Albany: State 

University of New York Press. 

Piotrowski, S.J., & Rosenbloom, D.H. (2002). Non-mission-based values in results-oriented public 

management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review, 62, 643-657. 

Piotrowski, S.J., & Van Ryzin, G.G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local 

government. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 306-323. 

Raphael, D.M., & Nesbary, D. (2005). Getting the message across: Rationale for a strategic 

communications course in the public administration curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs 

Education, 11, 133-146. 

Reddy, S.D. (2000). Introducing an emergency management curriculum into public affairs. Journal of 

Public Affairs Education, 6, 183-192. 

Redford, E.S. (1969). Democracy in the administrative state. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Redford, E.S. (1975). Ideal and practice in public administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama 

Press. (Originally published 1958). 

Roberts, A. (1997). Style or substance? Media perceptions of Clinton’s economic and timber summits. 

Public Administration Quarterly, 21, 227-250. 

Roberts, A. (2006). Blacked out: Government secrecy in the information age. New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Roberts, A.S. (2000). Less government, more secrecy: Reinvention and the weakening of freedom of 

information law. Public Administration Review, 60, 308-320. 

Roberts, A.S. (2005). Spin control and freedom of information: Lessons for the United Kingdom from 

Canada. Public Administration, 83, 1-23. 

Rourke, F.E. (1961). Secrecy and publicity: Dilemmas of democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

University Press. 

Rourke, F.E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy (3rd ed.) Boston: Little, Brown. 

Ruffenach, G. (2008, June 8). Uncle Sam’s top-notch retirement calculator. Wall Street Journal, 2. 

Simon, H.A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative 

organizations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. 



Simon, H.A., Smithburg, D.W., & Thompson, V.A. (1991). Public administration. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Transaction. (Originally published 1950). 

Stein, H. (Ed.). (1952). Public administration and policy development: A case book. New York: Harcourt, 

Brace. 

Stone, D.C. (1945). Notes on the governmental executive: His role and his methods. In L.D. White et 

al., New horizons in public administration: A symposium (pp.44-78). Tuscaloosa: University of 

Alabama Press. 

Survey on govt. communicators breaks down stereotypes: Report shows enlightening statistics on 

profession. (2008, June). PA Times, 31(6), 1, 12. 

Swoboda, D.P. (1995). Accuracy and accountability in reporting local government budget activities: 

Evidence from the newsroom and from newsmakers. Public Budgeting & Finance, 15, 74-90. 

Thomas, K. (2008, May 20). Teens in fatal crashes often didn’t “click it.” Seattle Times, A5. 

Thompson, F.J. (Chair). (1998). Report of the APSA-NASPAA Committee on the Advancement of Public 

Administration, prepared for delivery at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Political 

Science Association and the 1998 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Schools of Public 

Affairs and Administration. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from http://www.hnet.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/intro.pdf 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005, November 19). Watch it. Tape it. Talk about 

it with family and friends (advertisement). New York Times, A9. 

U.S. Internal Revenue Service. (2008). Economic stimulus payment notice (mass mailing to individual 

taxpayers). Author’s files. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget & U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2008). The Federal 

government’s financial health: A citizen’s guide to the 2007 financial report of the United States 

government. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/financial/reports/ 

citizens_guide.pdf 

Waldo, D. (1992). Foreword. In J.L. Garnett, Communicating for results in government: A strategic 

approach for public managers (pp.xi-xiii). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Waugh, W.L., Jr., & Manns, E.K. (1991). Communication skills and outcome assessment in public 

administration education. In P.J. Bergerson (Ed.), Teaching public policy: Theory, research, and 

practice (pp.133-143). New York: Greenwood. 

Weiss, J.A. (2002). Public information. In L.M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the 

new governance (pp.217-254). New York: Oxford University Press. 

Wise, K. (2001). Opportunities for public relations research in public health. Public Relations Review, 

27, 475-487. 

Wise, K. (2002-03). Linking public relations processes and organizational effectiveness at a state health 

department. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 25, 497-525. 

Mordecai Lee is a professor of governmental affairs at the University of 

Wisconsin - Milwaukee. His teaching responsibilities include courses for the 

Master of Public Administration program. He authored The First Presidential 

Communications Agency: FDR’s Office of Government Reports (2005) and edited 

Government Public Relations: A Reader (2008). 



APPENDIX A 

Selected Courses on Government Public Relations 

at U.S. Institutions of Higher Education 

(Items listed vertically in the following order: Course title and number; Dept. or 

School in College or University; Web info) 

Public Information and Communication (PAF 591 – Special Topics Seminar) 

School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University 

Retrieved June 25, 2009, from 

http://spa.asu.edu/pdffiles/syllabi/summer2008/Kaan_Syllabus_Sum08.pdf 

Public Relations for Public Managers (PAF 4260) 

Dept. of Public Administration, Florida International University 


http://029d57c.netsolvps.com/catalogsample/index.php 

Public Relations (MPA 3090) 

Master of Public Administration Program, Clark University 


http://copace.clarku.edu/courses/MPA_catalog.pdf (p. 17) 

Governmental Public Affairs (COM CM 734) 

Dept. of Mass Communication, Advertising and Public Relations; Boston 

University 


http://www.bu.edu/bulletins/com/item15.html#anchor8 

Political & Government Public Relations (54-2705) 

Marketing Communication Dept., Columbia College Chicago 


http://www2.colum.edu/course_descriptions/54-2705.html 



APPENDIX B 

Suggested Course Outline 

In some public administration programs, courses meet once a week to cater to the 

needs of adult and working students. This course outline is based on that structure, 

with each numbered topic reflecting the subject for that once-a-week class session. 

However, the outline easily can be adapted for other course schedules. For courses 

that meet more than once a week, headings 2 through 14 describe the topic for all 

class sessions during that week of the semester. 

Part I. Introduction 

1. Prefatory session 

Review of syllabus and writing projects, housekeeping. 

2. The Rise of the Media 

The centrality of communications and the news media in politics, 

government, and public administration in the 21st century. 

3. Overview of Government External Relations 

The pragmatic and democratic purposes of public relations. How can 

various external communications programs (whether pragmatic or 

democratic in purpose) help an administrator accomplish the mission of 

the agency? 

4. Constitutional, Legal and Political Contexts 

The public context of government management. Implications of 

freedom of the press, transparency, and freedom of information. 

Political oversight of the agency’s operations. Politicians at times 

criticize agency public relations as self-serving propaganda rather than 

as helpful information. 

Part II. Purposes of Government Public Relations 

5. Media Relations 

The duty of public administration to cooperate with the news media, 

given the media’s Constitutional role as an instrument of democracy. 

6. Public Reporting 

The role of the public administrator in contributing to an informed 

public opinion, including accountability to the citizenry for the agency’s 

work and performance. 

7. Responsiveness to the Public 

Seeing the work of the agency through the eyes of other stakeholders, 

in order to increase awareness of how to improve the agency’s 

interactions with external constituencies. 



8. Increasing the Utilization of Services and Products 

Targeted communications programs can help potential clients know 

about the services that an agency offers, and if they qualify. 

9. Public Education and Public Service Campaigns 

Wholesale is cheaper than retail. Convincing the public-at-large on the 

desirability of certain behaviors (e.g., stay in school, prevent forest 

fires, etc.) can reduce the costs of one-on-one services. 

10. Seeking Voluntary Public Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but a pragmatic public administrator 

understands that disseminating helpful information to appropriate 

audiences on laws and regulations can increase voluntary compliance 

and reduce regulatory and enforcement costs. 

11. Using the Public as the Eyes and Ears of an Agency 

Typified by 911 systems, citizens can co-produce agency services. This is 

not limited to emergency services. Other agencies can similarly benefit 

from mechanisms for the public to submit relevant information, such as 

by reporting pothole sites, or using an elder-abuse hotline. 

Part III. Stepping Cautiously into the Political Minefield 

12. Increasing Public Support 

Good public relations can have the effect of increasing an agency’s 

popularity. This, in turn, increases the agency’s autonomy from political 

oversight. However, overt efforts to generate public support can trigger 

criticism from politicians (always welcome by the news media) that the 

agency is engaging in propaganda and wasting tax dollars. 

13. Legislative Relations 

This is a specialized form of external communications, given that the 

legislative branch controls the purse strings. Agencies must try their 

best to cater to legislators’ interests and concerns, while taking care 

not to become susceptible to improper political meddling. 

Part IV. Summary and Conclusions 

14. Summary 

How can a government agency benefit from public relations? What 

approaches can a public administrator adopt to engage in successful 

external relations? What approaches should be adopted? Why? What 

approaches should not be adopted? Why? 

15. Semester review 


Putting Yourself in Their Shoes: 

The Analysis of Real-World Disputes Through Group Field Projects 


The Analysis of Real-World Disputes 

Through Group Field Projects 

Roger E. Hartley 

University of Arizona 

ABSTRACT 

This article explains the development and use of group field projects to analyze 

real-world public policy disputes in a course on conflict management. In the 

process of learning about the evolution of disputes, their management, and 

techniques for resolving them, students are assigned to groups and required to 

analyze a local public dispute involving multiple parties. Using Carpenter and 

Kennedy’s (2001) book, Managing Public Disputes, and other course material, 

students provide a detailed analysis of the conflict’s history, identify stakeholders, 

and learn about the positions and interests of the disputants. After extensive 

analysis, students recommend a conflict management program for the dispute. 

During the semester, this project provides a capstone of sorts to the MPA 

program. Students get a firsthand look at the complexity of policy disputes, how 

individuals and groups approach public problems, and why some policy solutions 

lead to successes and failures. 

INTRODUCTION 

Courses on conflict management, alternative dispute resolution, and 

negotiation techniques are being taught around the world in programs that 

focus on peace studies, and in other traditional academic disciplines such as 

communications and psychology. More-applied courses on managing conflict 

are commonly taught in professional degree programs such as law, business, and 

public administration. Most courses employ a variety of traditional pedagogical 

techniques that use a combination of textbook reading, lectures, experts as guest 

speakers, and discussion of what we know from theory and research (Lewicki, 

1986, 1997). However, research shows that learning is often enhanced when 

students work together to solve problems and teach each other (Bok, 2007). 

Courses on conflict resolution often provide student interaction by combining 

traditional pedagogy with the simulated practice of conflict resolution 

techniques. Most instructors then integrate experiential learning techniques such 




as case studies, role-play exercises (e.g., mock negotiations or mediations), and 

computer-assisted simulations that allow students to practice conflict 

management and resolution techniques (Lewicki, 1986, 2002; Saunders & 

Lewicki, 1995). 

I found many of these techniques to be very beneficial for my teaching over 

the years. However, as I developed my course on conflict management in the 

public sector, it was difficult to find appropriate pedagogical materials that 

applied conflict management techniques in either a public or nonprofit setting. 

Most textbooks and simulations focus primarily on law or business disputes and, 

if policy-related, are geared to the perspective of future attorneys or business 

leaders. I had to look a little harder for public-management-related case studies, 

and often cobbled together appropriate cases from online conflict resolution 

Web sites such as Harvard Business School, the University of Washington’s 

Electronic Hallway, and others. While my classes were generally effective, I 

wanted my students to learn more about how the real-world conflicts they 

might face as managers and policy-makers evolve and change. In short, I wanted 

them to learn by “putting themselves into the shoes of others.” 

This article is drawn from my experiences over the past seven years, at the 

University of Arizona, while teaching an MPA course titled “Conflict 

Management in the Public Sector.” I discuss how I developed group field 

projects to supplement the more traditional pedagogical techniques that are 

commonly used in classes. It is a capstone-like project that exposes future public 

and nonprofit managers to regional, real-world disputes. The paper describes a 

bit about my course, how and why I developed the field projects, plus their 

goals and methodology. I end by discussing an example of a past project and the 

issues and problems that have come up since assigning this and other projects. 

COURSE BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT 

I have been teaching in the fields of dispute resolution and conflict 

management for about 10 years and my approach has evolved over time. My 

background and interest in conflict resolution come from my dissertation work, 

where I studied the implementation and impact of a court-annexed mediation 

on a local trial-court system. Over time, I learned more and more about conflict 

from seminars, training, and service work. I began teaching in the field at 

Roanoke College in 1999, with a senior capstone course on alternative dispute 

resolution that was designed for majors in political science, international 

relations, and criminal justice. This course used traditional methods of lecturing 

and negotiation/mediation simulations, but suffered a bit from the lack of realworld 

application and group work. 

After three years at Roanoke, I moved to my current position at the 

University of Arizona. Here, I was asked to teach an existing MPA course on 

conflict resolution to improve the students’ negotiation skills. Each year the 




course draws 15-20, mostly MPA students. It is broader in focus than the 

traditional courses on negotiation and alternative dispute resolution that are 

found in law and business schools. The course goal is to expose students to the 

nature of conflict, as well as to the skills and techniques of effective conflict 

management that are used in public and private organizations (e.g., mediation, 

arbitration, and “hybrids”). 

When I first prepared my course, I found reading material that focused 

broadly on dispute resolution and that also focused on business and law. I 

searched long and hard for material that might be applicable to the public and 

nonprofit sectors. Unfortunately, there was very little written for students of 

public administration and policy. After some searching, I was lucky to find 

Carpenter and Kennedy’s (2001) book, Managing Public Disputes, which focuses 

on disputes with multiple parties (e.g., governments, community groups, 

nonprofits, and private companies). The book also offers a detailed process for 

analyzing existing disputes and building programs to manage them. 

Two-thirds of the course focuses on theory and conflict resolution 

techniques. It begins with conflict theory, the evolution of disputes, and the 

differences between private and public disputes. It then covers practical 

techniques for resolving conflicts, which include litigation, negotiation, 

mediation, arbitration, and hybrids. Readings for the first two-thirds of the 

course includes the early chapters of Carpenter and Kennedy (2001), a very 

good law school text with a broad focus on dispute resolution (Goldberg, 

Sander, Rogers, & Cole, 2003), and the classic book, Getting to Yes (Fisher, 

Ury, & Patton, 1991). The latter third of the course focuses on Carpenter and 

Kennedy’s (2001) process for analyzing public disputes, their method of 

designing and implementing a conflict management program, and the 

application of their process to the field study. 

Because a semester is not very long, some things that might be taught in non- 

MPA courses on negotiation have to be left out when including a project like 

the field study described here. Surprisingly, I have been able to cover much of 

what I used to with lectures and readings. However, I reduced the amount of 

conflict theory that I formerly presented early in the class, and left out what 

once was a rather lengthy discussion of litigation and its process. Choosing what 

to leave out can be a tough call. Again, because only so much can be taught in a 

semester, I decided that, when teaching future public and nonprofit managers, 

the practice would be of more use to them than the theory. 

DEVELOPMENT OF FIELD PROJECTS 

After teaching this course at University of Arizona for a few years, I started 

thinking more about the applicability of my course to the public and 

nonprofit sectors. Carpenter and Kennedy’s (2001) method for analyzing 

public disputes got me thinking about how my students might be able to 




explore real-world conflict settings and learn by seeing how public disputes 

begin and evolve. It also could be a nice way to apply many of the concepts 

learned in the course. Getting to Yes teaches that, for political and economic 

reasons, the positions and interests of disputing parties vary, and often go 

unstated (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991). Exploring the interests behind the 

positions of those in disputes can sometimes provide areas of common 

ground. Carpenter and Kennedy (2001) note how public disputes sometimes 

have long histories and that they can spiral out of control if not addressed 

early in the process. Media reports on local conflicts are typically only the tip 

of the iceberg when it comes to the complexity of public disputes. Parties that 

seem to oppose each other may have similar interests, and parties that seem to 

agree may have conflicting interests. Each of these realities is commonly found 

in the disputes of governments and nonprofit agencies. 

At the beginning of each semester, I assign groups of four to six students — 

depending upon the class size — and provide a handout describing the 

assignment. (See Appendix.) They are asked to identify, analyze, and build a 

conflict resolution process for an ongoing, local public dispute. Public disputes 

are defined by Carpenter and Kennedy (2001) as “controversies that affect 

members of the public beyond the primary negotiators” (p. 4). They may be 

between “communities and their decision makers, between factions in 

government, between organizations, and between organizations and the public” 

(p. 3). According to the book, public disputes have some of the following 

characteristics (pp. 4-11): 

• Complicated networks of interests (i.e., where new parties may emerge, 

where parties have varying levels of expertise, different forms of power, a 

lack of continuing relationships, different decision-making procedures, 

and unequal accountability). 

• Procedures for resolution are not standardized (i.e., no formal guidelines 

exist for resolution, [though] there is an influence of government rules 

and regulations). 

• A broad range of issues (i.e., new issues may emerge, technical information 

may be important, and parties may have strongly held values). 

Public disputes can involve a plan to widen a city street into a major highway, 

a downtown redevelopment project, a zoning dispute between neighborhoods 

and developers, or a proposal to declare land as a protected wilderness area. 

The student groups identify conflicts that are of interest to them, and that 

are close enough to the university so that they might easily gain access to 

stakeholders. Students formally propose the subject of their projects early in 

the semester, in a one- to two-page document. I then see if it fits the criteria of 

a good field project and provide feedback. The project must be doable during a 

semester, and cannot create any potential harm to students or those studied. 




PROJECT GOALS AND METHODS 

Project Goals 

After approval of the project, students spend the semester working together to 

analyze the dispute and tailor it to a conflict management program design. This is 

done using Part II of Carpenter and Kennedy’s (2001) book, which provides 

details of how to analyze the conflict (chap. 4), how to design a strategy and set 

up a conflict management program (chap. 5), how to adopt procedures, educate 

parties, and develop options (chap. 6), and how to reach and carry out agreements 

(chap. 7). Because it would be a very tall order for students actually to help 

involved parties carry out the dispute management process, I only ask that they 

apply the contents of chapters 4 and 5 to their particular dispute, which requires 

an extensive analysis of the conflict and a program designed to manage it. 

Project Methods 

The predominant methods for the field project are, in part, based on chapters 

4 and 5 of Carpenter and Kennedy (2001). Chapter 4 covers methods on how 

to analyze a public dispute. Students are asked to make a preliminary review of 

the conflict, to gather information about the dispute and its history, to record 

the information, and to assess it by using some tools provided in the chapter. 

Students begin their research with secondary sources that include 

newspapers; public and government documents and reports; and essays, 

editorials or public positions taken by the disputing parties. From these 

sources, students learn the history of the conflict and the involved technical, 

political, social, and economic issues. 

Other key sources of information are interviews with parties in the dispute and 

with others who may have additional information (e.g., journalists covering the 

dispute, public officials who have no direct interest in the dispute, and technical 

experts). Students contact outside parties by mail to explain the project, and to 

ask for their help in learning about the dispute. The letter includes information 

about the class, a description of the project, and requests an appointment for an 

interview. It also explains the nature of the interview questions, the length of the 

interview, how the information will be used, and the terms of confidentiality. 

Students ask questions designed to reveal the following: (a) the history of the 

conflict, (b) the stakeholders’ role in the conflict, (c) what issues are important to 

them, (d) what they want and why they want it, and (e) other interested parties. 

Carpenter and Kennedy (2001) raise many of these questions, and also describe 

interview techniques (pp. 74-85). 

Another source of data is direct observation. Some students identify events 

like public meetings, public hearings, or gatherings such as protests that they 

can attend and observe. If such a gathering is not “public” — by legal definition 

— then permission to attend is requested. 

Because students are learning about active public disputes, I emphasize that 




the disputing parties are often emotionally involved. As a result, I ask that 

students do everything they can to remain neutral and to act as objective 

analysts. I discuss this point before they choose their projects, and ask them to 

be careful about disputes they might be involved in. When students have a 

personal stake in the dispute, I ask that they try a different topic, switch project 

groups, or take on another role within the group (e.g., analyzing secondary 

sources). I have learned from experience that their involvement could impact 

the analysis process or put them in a difficult ethical position of endangering 

their working relationship with others. 

After gathering the information, students employ Carpenter and Kennedy’s 

(2001) instruments to analyze the data (pp. 85-91). These include tables to help 

them organize the information by the following categories: (a) the disputants, 

(b) their issues, (c) their interests, (d) the importance of issues, (e) the sources of 

power and influence, (f) the positions/options for resolution, and (g) their 

interest in working with others. Students are then ready to write about the 

history, the involved parties, and their interests and positions. 

Once this section of the paper is complete, students use the information to 

design a process to resolve or manage the dispute. For this, they use class 

material and the later chapters of Carpenter and Kennedy (2001). In chapter 5, 

Carpenter and Kennedy (2001) provide advice on how to (a) define the 

problem, (b) identify external constraints, (c) establish a conflict management 

goal, (d) select a meeting structure, (e) identify process steps, (f) determine who 

should participate, (g) define other roles, and (h) consider other process issues. 

Most students take what they learned in the course, couple it with the process in 

chapter 5, and tailor it to their disputes. 

LEARNING OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS 

Assessment 

The first deliverable item of the project is the proposal, which asks students 

to work together to identify and communicate the nature of a public dispute. 

This forces them to apply their knowledge of what defines a public dispute, and 

to work together to identify them in the community. 

Once the proposal is approved, we continue learning about conflict resolution 

techniques in class. Throughout the semester, I set aside some class time for 

students to discuss their projects with the class, to ask questions of each other, 

and to discuss the analysis process. They learn about each project, and are able 

to apply what they are learning while “outside” of class to what is being learned 

inside the classroom. 

Project discussion helps students to identify and deal with potential 

problems that might come up during analysis. For instance, what if a 

party refuses to talk to group members? What if a party fears 

repercussions involving the information revealed in an interview? What 




should a group do if the involved parties ask to see the final product? 

These and other questions were raised in my course, and each led to 

valuable teaching moments. For example, in some cases students 

encounter important stakeholders in the dispute who do not want to talk 

about it. Sometimes this is for privacy reasons, sometimes it is because a 

disputant is involved in litigation, and in other cases it is for strategic 

purposes (e.g., so that the project doesn’t alert the other side to strategic 

actions and interests). If a promise of confidentiality does not convince 

people to participate, then I ask that the students do their best to 

construct the disputant’s positions and interests from secondary sources, 

and note this in the project. Other issues and problems that I encounter 

are explained in the last section of this paper. 

Later in the semester, I require students to turn in a written report (typically 

30 to 50 pages), and we end the class with group presentations. One week in 

advance of the presentation, the groups provide each student in the class with 

an executive summary of their reports, so that the students can read them in 

advance and prepare questions. The presentations last 15 to 20 minutes, with an 

additional 15 to 20 minutes reserved for questions. 

These projects also serve as excellent hands-on assignments, because group 

members often end up in their own disputes (e.g., over workloads, meeting 

times, and other personal issues). I have found through experience that these 

internal conflicts provide good learning opportunities while studying the 

material in our course. Because of free rider and other problems, I require 

students to fill out an evaluation sheet that is turned in at the end of class. The 

information is confidential so that they feel free candidly to report their 

experiences (both good and bad) with other group members. I ask them to rate 

each person on a series of scales that address workload, cooperation, and 

timeliness. I also ask them to provide details on each part of the assignment that 

they contributed, and to report on group members who were exemplary (of 

good or bad traits), and to discuss challenges faced by the group. 

The peer evaluations are used in the project’s final grade. I first read the 

written assignment and assign a baseline “group grade,” which can be adjusted 

up or down for individuals based on the evaluations. Students named by others 

as major contributors might receive a final project grade that is higher than the 

others. Those who get very low ratings as major detractors might receive a lower 

grade than the group grade. 

Learning Outcomes and Benefits 

I have assigned this project over the past five years and each time it has been a 

success. Every project experience is different. Some groups face challenges, but 

each learns more about conflict. The project allows them to apply what they have 

learned in the first two-thirds of the course to a real conflict in the outside world. 




Many important concepts about conflict are exemplified by the projects each 

semester. For students of public administration and policy, the projects teach (a) 

how power affects disputes, (b) how people win and lose, (c) how well-intended 

policies are adopted and yield unintended consequences, and (d) how resources 

can be better spent to solve problems and manage future conflicts. They see how 

disputes evolve and how a lack of communication can exacerbate conflict. They 

also learn about the impact of the lack of inclusion in decision making. Many of 

the projects provide examples of how a well-intended politician didn’t consider 

all of the potential stakeholders, only to find that a group later emerges to derail 

the policy during its implementation. Another important concept demonstrated 

by projects is the impact of history on current conflicts. People are often 

fighting about things that happened many years ago, and the current issue 

under debate may only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of addressing the 

conflict. In the end, the process of building a conflict management program 

enables students to think critically about how to form procedures when 

stakeholders have a role in creating the process as well as the decision. 

EXAMPLE OF A RECENT PROJECT 

Since assigning the field projects, students have analyzed more than 20 local 

disputes. Past projects include a major downtown redevelopment plan, a water 

dispute between local governments, the widening of a major road, the 

placement of a crematorium near a subdivision, and a plan for setting aside a 

forest area as a protected wilderness. I elaborate on one project and its 

challenges below. 

The Public Art Looks Like Sewage! 

One of the most interesting projects was a public art dispute involving local 

neighborhood associations, city staff members, artists, and a city councilwoman. 

Students discovered the dispute when a local newspaper reported that 

citizens were angry about a public art project installed in their neighborhood. 

The art was a landscape project on a thoroughfare dividing three organized 

neighborhoods. 

The design symbolized the flow of water from the desert to the city by using 

beautiful plants, rocks, and other landscaping. It also included pipes coming up 

from the ground, and going back down into it, with representations of water 

spilling out. The artist used brown-colored water, because water is not blue 

when it runs through city streets. 

According to the neighbors, the art started going up with very little prior 

notice, and then the notice that was provided said only that there would be 

construction in the neighborhood. As the art went up, some neighbors got 

angry and started calling the project ugly, because the pipes looked like they 

were carrying “raw sewage” and not water. Complaints fueled attention to the 




dispute and a response by the city and the artists. The city defended its 

decision to install the art as a project that had been vetted and approved. The 

artists were defensive about changing details that already had been approved, 

and were against any alterations that might infringe upon the creativity of their 

endeavor. Eventually, the project was stopped so the city could decide what to 

do about the controversy. 

Like most disputes, it was reported in the newspaper as a fight between the 

neighbors and the city. The dispute, however, was fueled after a local city 

councilwoman called a public meeting in the neighborhood to hear the 

concerns of the neighbors. 

My students set out to work on the project. They identified and interviewed 

key stakeholders, learned about the process of selecting and installing public art, 

and attended public meetings. In the end they discovered, among many things, 

that the public art project went through a lengthy process for approval, but that 

this process had occurred about 10 years prior to its installation. About five 

years before this, Phase I of the project was completed on a section of the road 

to the south, and it was Phase II that was creating controversy. By the time 

funds became available for Phase II, 10 years had passed. This meant many of 

the angry neighbors were not area residents when the project was approved by 

the city, nor when Phase I was built. There had been no process to inform 

newer residents about the project, so when Phase II started they were completely 

surprised, they believed it was being forced upon them, and they were angry 

about not having a say in the matter. 

As my students discovered more background on the dispute, they encountered 

a dispute of their own along the way. They learned that the city councilwoman 

who called the meeting had previously backed a number of other local initiatives 

that had angered these neighborhoods — including a failed attempt at roadwidening 

and a grade-separated interchange on a major road next to the area. 

When my students attended a public meeting, they discovered that the 

councilwoman was there to champion the cause of the angry neighbors. With the 

best of intentions, my students stood up and identified themselves, stated that 

they were there to analyze the dispute, and that they hoped to help. I learned 

about this after receiving an angry phone message from the councilwoman, who 

called me unprofessional for sending my students to a public meeting. According 

to the councilwoman, they were not part of the neighborhood. 

So now there was a conflict about the study of the conflict. This led to one of 

the best teaching moments and learning opportunities I have experienced in 

years. The students and I contacted the councilwoman and attempted to find 

out why she was angry. Although it was a public meeting open to anyone, we 

apologized to her and attempted to learn more about the dispute. She later 

provided a full interview to my students and offered her perceptions about her 

role in the dispute. 




After analyzing the conflict, we learned that the councilwoman had essentially 

called the meeting to earn back the support of her constituents, after previous 

decisions that had created distrust. She was up for re-election in the coming year 

and felt that the public art had emerged without any notice or apparent buy-in 

by the neighbors. In addition, when my students showed up at the meeting, they 

unknowingly sat on the side of the room where the public artists had been sitting 

and airing their concerns. So when my students spoke up with their intention of 

studying the conflict and helping, they were perceived to be on the same side as 

the artists, and not the neighbors. This prompted the angry phone call and also 

taught us a lesson about the appearance of bias, about the importance of notice 

and communication, and about how the public positions of parties can differ 

greatly from their private interests. We also learned that, when researching a 

dispute, it can affect the parties and the environment where the dispute occurs. 

The mere act of students showing up to study the dispute also could give some 

parties legitimacy and alter the well-laid plans of some stakeholders. 

The result of the project was eye-opening to say the least. Students were able 

to identify “hidden” stakeholders that the media did not interview, they 

uncovered the roots of the problem, and they learned about the politics 

associated with it. The fact that so many years had elapsed between the 

adoption of the art policy and its actual groundbreaking pointed to the need for 

an implementation plan that would involve stakeholders over time, and 

throughout the construction process. 

The outcome was decided before my students could provide any information 

for the disputants. A compromise was made that ended the conflict. The project 

was stopped and the art was dug up and moved to a park on the south-side of 

town. In its place, the city made amends by providing additional landscaping 

with a bike path, trees, desert shrubs, and flowers. The artists were unhappy that 

the plan as approved was altered and that Phase II of the project did not match 

or coincide with the artistic expression found in Phase I about a mile south of 

it. Citizens near the park initially objected to the “new” art in their 

neighborhood, but things eventually quieted down. 

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS 

In the course of the field projects, my students faced problems and 

challenges, but each was worth the learning experience that it produced. The 

projects use a method that is commonly employed in the design of conflict 

management programs around the country, and most of the limitations and 

problems are encountered in any real dispute resolution process. Still, I pay 

special attention to what we learn each year and consider past problems in the 

assignment of future projects. 

Here, I end with some of the challenges and issues that might come up if a 

reader chooses this assignment. Many of my suggestions are not necessarily the 

same solutions that others might have for the problems. 




Remaining Neutral 

As an analyst of disputes, I have discussed the importance of remaining 

neutral. I see both sides of this issue, but impart neutrality to my students as a 

means ensuring that they get the best possible information by building trust 

when they talk to people. The disputes are ongoing and sometimes come with 

strong feelings. I am concerned that involved parties might not speak to the 

students if they think they are taking sides or are actively involved in the 

dispute. This is difficult for me as a teacher, because sometimes students are 

involved in conflict as activists, have a special knowledge of a topic, and can get 

access to people in the dispute. I want them to choose topics they are interested 

in and are passionate about. When confronting the issue of neutrality, I try to 

remind them of the consequences. How might the lack of neutrality affect their 

objectivity and the veracity of the information? How might it affect them 

personally if they are involved in the dispute that they are studying? I remind 

them that the assignment is a class project. 

Ethical Issues/Doing Harm 

As the public art example demonstrates, there are many ethical issues that can 

arise when implementing the field project. One is confidentiality. When 

learning about disputes from stakeholders, students may stumble on 

information that might be advantageous to other stakeholders if it became 

public. Information might also harm the person who provides it if they are 

dealing with strategic issues — such as those that an employer may not want 

them to discuss. As such, I ask students to be up-front with involved individuals 

in terms of the information they seek and how it will be used. They choose 

whether or not to offer interviewees confidentiality, and whether the 

interviewees will be able to dictate what details can be revealed. 

Another ethical issue or problem is that the environment of a conflict can be 

potentially altered by the act of studying it. One very impressive project on a 

plan to set aside land for wilderness provided an excellent example of this issue. 

In the course of identifying and contacting stakeholders, students encountered a 

local public official and an environmental group that were pushing for more 

wilderness space. The students’ further inquiries were rejected and they were 

politely asked not to do the project at all. After a second call by the students, a 

staffer for the elected official contacted me and requested that my students stop 

using the wilderness area plan as their project. The reason given was that the 

wilderness project was very “fragile” in nature and that the students might 

awaken the interest of the opposition at a key time in the process. The staffer 

said that my students would “stir the pot” by contacting the opposition to 

interview them. In this case, the opposing stakeholders were local ranchers, the 

U.S. Border Patrol, and local property owners who had criticized the plan 

because it might harm access to grazing, access to patrolling the border, and 




impact local property values. As it turned out, the elected official was in the 

process of trying to get the wilderness approved and needed some element of 

stealth to do it. We ended up having a lengthy discussion in class about how 

studying something can alter it. We decided not to push further with the 

interviews of those who wished not to be interviewed, but because it was a 

legitimate public issue, we decided to go forward with the project. 

The interests and positions of these stakeholders were interpreted from 

secondary sources, and from preexisting project details that were posted 

prominently on Web pages. The students went on to interview the opposing 

stakeholders, learned more about the dispute, and turned in an excellent project. 

Students also have the potential of playing different sides off of one another 

to get information. Sometimes the fact that some stakeholders are telling one 

side of the story may lead others — who initially wouldn’t participate— to tell 

the other side. A coercive force occurs when disputing parties fear that their 

opinions will not be represented because they are silent. Again, this should be 

addressed as an ethical issue and discussed in the class. It should also be 

discussed with involved parties when setting the appointment to interview 

them. With regard to ethics, the more communication and more information 

provided to parties in advance of the interviews, the better. 

Avoiding Danger and Violence 

First, let me say that I have never had a project that has resulted in the harm 

of a student and that this is not a major worry. However, there is always the 

opportunity for choosing a conflict that results in danger. When screening 

projects, I consider this potential. For example, one proposed project idea dealt 

with local conflicts over illegal immigration. While there are many, many 

projects that could easily be undertaken to address this subject, this particular 

one dealt with the issue of human smuggling. I was concerned about the 

militancy of some potential parties and stakeholders. I also wondered if some 

parties would be impossible to speak to. For instance, it would be difficult to 

speak with those who hired illegal labor or who aided in human trafficking (e.g., 

“coyotes”). So the project was not doable and it was potentially dangerous. I 

talked with the students about what they had hoped to achieve, I pointed out 

possible problems, and we decided that it would be better for them to choose 

another topic on the subject of immigration. The students ended up choosing a 

legislative issue under consideration on the subject of immigration, where they 

interviewed interest groups, public officials, and others. 

Other Pedagogical Issues 

While there are many other interesting problems and limitations that come 

up in the course of these group projects, they generally are seen as uneventful 

(safe), interesting, and exciting for students. I wanted to mention one additional 




issue that I address each semester — which is born out of excitement. Because 

talented young people are working on projects related to very salient public 

issues, stakeholders and other interested parties get excited about seeing the 

results and enlisting students to help with their problems. This, of course, is 

flattering and exciting to the students, as well as to the faculty member. I try to 

address each of these issues as they come up, and take the time to deliberate 

with my students about what they should and should not contribute. In one 

case, a local journalist who had been following the story wanted to do a story on 

the group and have access to the group project. In another case, parties in the 

dispute wanted a copy of the project so they could learn more about how to 

approach it. Others wanted to know what other parties were thinking. 

In each case, there is the opportunity for the projects to be useful to others 

and to have an impact on the community. However, my advice is to proceed 

with caution. One obvious issue is what to do with information that involved 

parties say can appear in a report, but that also must remain confidential — 

even though it easily could be traced back to them. Another is the potential for 

plans and strategies to unintentionally be turned over to another side of the 

dispute. There also is the potential for a document to include errors. In each 

case, groundwork early in the semester helps students communicate what they 

are hoping to produce, what they can deliver, and what potential harm might 

occur. When interviewing, they should give participants a choice of what to say 

or not say. I ask students to consider whether they wish to call the assignment a 

class project that remains in the students’ and instructor’s possession, or whether 

it should be a document that can be requested and seen by all. 

CONCLUSION 

The development and implementation of these field projects has been among 

the most rewarding experiences of my teaching career. I have learned a lot from 

studying real-world disputes and my students have learned much more about 

how to approach societal problems, how to fashion public policy, and how to 

anticipate the consequences of decisions that they and others might make. 

While I go to great lengths here to point out potential problems and an example 

of a project that led to some added work, I should point out that the vast 

majority of projects begin and end smoothly, with no real glitches or issues. 

While I have no direct measures of project effectiveness, our course evaluations 

ask students to rate the effectiveness of outside assignments. Other than short 

reflection papers on in-class simulations, this is the only outside assignment, and 

it represents about 80 percent of the assignments done outside of class. The 

outside assignments rating averaged 4.3 (of 5). Forty-two percent of the 

students rated outside assignments “almost always useful,” and another 42 

percent rated them “usually useful.” The remaining students rated outside 

assignments as “sometimes useful.” 




In this paper, I spent time explaining my methodology in hopes that others 

can help me improve the projects, replicate the projects, or adapt them to other 

courses. The project may be a useful addition to almost any course on public 

administration, public policy, or social work. While the project only addresses a 

portion of Carpenter and Kennedy’s (2001) process, I can imagine the 

establishment of a clinic-based course or capstone where the full semester is 

used to analyze a dispute, design a process, and help disputants implement the 

process. This would require some additional background work, or a 

prerequisite course on conflict management. I imagine that programs in peace 

studies or conflict resolution could easily add this type of course. 

Finally, I have learned much from the experience and foist my worries on the 

readers only in hope that they will not make some of the same mistakes. 

Projects like these require lots of monitoring and in-class discussion, and 

present many teaching opportunities that are sometimes as valuable as the 

substance of the project itself. Each semester of experience leads to better and 

better projects. 

REFERENCES 

Bok, D. (2007). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they 

should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Carpenter, S.L., & Kennedy, W. (2001). Managing public disputes: A practical guide for government, 

business, and citizens’ groups. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. 

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New 

York, NY: Penguin Books. 

Goldberg, S.B., Sander, F., Rogers, N., & Cole, S. (2003). Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation, 

and other processes (4th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. 

Lewicki, R. (1986). Challenges of teaching negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 2(1),15-27. 

Lewicki, R. (1997). Teaching negotiation and dispute resolution in colleges of business: The state of 

practice. Negotiation Journal, 13(3), 253-269. 

Lewicki, R. (2002). New directions and issues in the teaching of conflict resolution. Conflict 

Management in Higher Education Report, 2(2). Retrieved June 27, 2009, from 

http://www.campus-adr.org/CMHER/ReportArticles/Edition2_2/Lewicki2_2.html 

Saunders, D.M., & Lewicki, R. (1995). Teaching negotiation with computer simulations: Pedagogical 

and practical considerations. Negotiation Journal, 11(2), 157-167. 

AUTHOR NOTE 

I wish to thank David Hatcher and James Willis for their helpful comments. 

I also wish to thank my current and former students, who provided the 

inspiration and experiences behind this paper. 

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Roger E. 

Hartley, Associate Professor, School of Government and Public Policy, University of 

Arizona, McClelland Hall, 405MM, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail: 

rhartley@eller.arizona.edu. 




Roger E. Hartley is Associate Professor and Director of the Lionel Rombach 

Institute of Justice at the University of Arizona’s School of Government and 

Public Policy. He teaches courses on conflict management, judicial 

administration and reform, and law and public policy. His research focuses on 

budget politics, intergovernmental relations, judicial selection, and trial court 

reform in the American judicial system. 




APPENDIX 

The Project Description 


Group Project (Groups of 4-6) 

This project is designed to test your knowledge and ability to identify and 

analyze public disputes that may be faced by any public or nonprofit 

manager. Each group will identify an actual public dispute that is ongoing 

in the community. The assignment will be to use the Carpenter & Kennedy 

book (2001, chaps. 4-7) to design a process to manage this particular 

dispute. 

Note that you will be acting as an analyst here, which will require you to 

remain neutral. Try to find a topic that interests the group, but where you 

have no direct stake in the problem. If you know that you are biased 

toward one side or the other, try to be careful about who you interview. 

Ask me to share a story from past projects to highlight this problem and 

issue. 

Your group will be asked to propose your topic for approval, which will 

consist of a one- to two-page synopsis of the dispute. After approval you 

will divide the work of the project and set out to analyze the dispute's 

history, the involved parties, and their interests. This will require interviews 

of dispute parties, and the use of government documents and records, as 

well as journalistic sources. You will follow the steps used in Carpenter & 

Kennedy (2001), but will tailor it to your particular problem. In the end, I 

expect a document that could be handed to the parties in the dispute. This 

report will include all the portions noted on pages 67-69 of the book that 

are feasible. After analyzing the dispute, you will engage the rest of what 

the book teaches, but at this point you only will take the opportunity to 

instruct the relevant parties on how to manage the dispute through the 

rest of the process. In a sense, you will teach them how to manage and to 

resolve their dispute. 

The project requires approval of the topic (see above), a professional 

document detailing the dispute resolution program, and a presentation of 

your project to the class. 

Important dates 

• Project proposal due Jan. 25th. 

• Project Executive Summary (1-2 pages) due April 26th. Must make 

copies for each student in the class. 

• Presentations of your dispute resolution program April 28/May 3 

• Final Report due May 5th (last day of spring classes)



The Assignment 

The assignment for the paper is somewhat open-ended, but has minimum 

requirements. If you look on page 67 of Carpenter and Kennedy (2001), you 

will see primary sections of what they call the process for managing public 

disputes. There are three broad pieces to this process: 

1. Preparing a Plan; 

2. Conducting a Program; and 

3. Carrying Out Agreements. 

A project that meets the minimum requirement of the assignment includes 

those sections under Preparing a Plan on page 67. Of course, I do not mind 

if you move ahead to the latter sections of Conducting a Program and/or 

Carrying Out Agreements. Of course, it takes access and training to be able 

to do these latter parts. So, in this stage, I am comfortable with you using 

these sections to teach those in the dispute how to conduct a program or 

carry it out instead of actually doing it for them. 

Paper Requirements 

1. Executive Summary: Presents a summary of the project in one to 

three pages that provides an overview of each section of the paper, 

including any recommendations or policy ideas that you come up 

with. 

2. Analysis of the Conflict: Details of this section are found in chapter 

4. Subsections in this part might include an overview or background 

of the problem and its history, issues, parties, and their interests. 

This will require some research and some interviewing of parties in 

order to determine this. Note that chapter 4 goes into a lot of detail 

about interviewing and types of questions. 

This is a portion of the paper that should be started as soon as 

possible. Access can be a problem at times, and you need to prepare 

for this and work with it. Be courteous (as I know that you all are) 

and put yourself in their shoes. They are busy and you should always 

consider scheduling interviews in advance. When doing my 

dissertation interviews, I wrote a letter to the persons I wanted to 

speak with first and explained the project that I wanted to interview 

them about, and said that I would call in a week. I then called and 

set up an appointment. 

Knowledge about interview techniques is presented in the chapter, 

but I can point you to more quick information on this if you need it. 

Prepare questions in advance and prepare a few follow-ups. Make 

sure when interviewing to ask each participant similar questions and 




get through the most important areas. One great additional 

technique is “snowballing.” At the end of the interview, ask who 

else you should speak with to learn more about the problem, and 

then schedule an interview with them. 

3. Conflict Management Strategy and Design: This information follows 

from chapter 5 in Carpenter and Kennedy (2001) as well as the 

information gathered in section 2 of the paper. There are eight tasks 

to consider here on page 93. Be sure you read these sections in 

chapter 5. Note that nothing will fit perfectly. This assignment is to 

fit the process to your problem. Note: You will be designing a 

program to help them deal with their conflict. You will not be 

resolving it for them. 

4. Conclusion: All good documents have conclusions. Conclude with a 

brief summary of your major points and your primary 

recommendations. 

The Grade 

The grade for this project will be assigned based on the report — its 

amount of research, attention to detail, and overall polish. It should be 

well-written, proof read, and presented in the format of any business 

document. As I said, think of this as a document that you may want to turn 

over to the parties in the dispute at a later time. 

I will assign a grade to the group based on the project as I see it. My late 

policy is 5 points a day with no questions asked. If your group needs an 

extra day, then take the points and I will have no hard feelings. Just don’t 

let them add up. 

Because this is a group project and some individuals work harder than 

others, I will ask you to rate each other and will adjust the project grade for 

the individual according to effort and work. I also will ask you to be specific 

about which portions of the paper each person worked on. All of this 

evidence (and any other evidence that I collect) will lead some grades to be 

higher and some lower than the overall project score. 

I will grade the oral reports similarly. Be sure that each person participates 

in some way in the creation of the presentation and/or in the delivery of 

the presentation. I would like you all to use Microsoft PowerPoint or some 

other presentation software. 


Review of: Doctoral Education in Public Administration at the Washington Public Affairs 

Center: 28 Years (1973-2001) as an Outpost of the University of Southern California 

Review by Mark Speicher 

Arizona College Of Osteopathic Medicine, 

Midwestern University 

Sherwood, Frank P., 

Ed. (2008). Doctoral 

Education in Public 

Administration at the 

Washington Public 

Affairs Center: 

28 Years (1973-2001) 

as an Outpost of the 

University of 

Southern California. 

Bloomington, IN; 

iUniverse. 

The Washington Public Affairs Center was a doctoral program that existed 

from 1973 to 2001 and was designed for professionals working in public service. 

The program was affiliated with the University of Southern California (USC) and 

located in Washington, DC. Doctoral Education in Public Administration at the 

Washington Public Affairs Center: 28 Years (1973-2001) as an Outpost of the 

University of Southern California chronicles the development of this pioneering 

program that sought to combine adult-centered learning models (based on 

Knowles’ (1980/1970) theory of adult learning) and praxis-based education in the 

ostensible heart of public administration — the nation’s capital. The book then 

describes how eventual concerns about fiscal and faculty resources and the value of 

the Doctor of Public Administration (D.P.A.) degree to a research-intensive 

University like USC ended with the termination of the program. 

About halfway through Doctoral Education in Public Administration at the 

Washington Public Affairs Center, two questions are obvious. First, if USC’s 

Washington Public Affairs Center (WPAC) had students so satisfied with the 

program, why did the school close the program? Second, given claims that the 

program was groundbreaking in its goals and approach, why haven’t some of the 

innovative aspects of this program been implemented by other programs? While 

the book is eventually somewhat successful at answering the first question, it 

makes no serious attempt to answer the second. Some reasons why important 

elements of the program have not been introduced elsewhere are discussed below. 

The book includes overviews by Chester Newland (a former full-time 

professor at the WPAC) and Frank Sherwood (WPAC’s founding Director) on 

the WPAC’s development and accomplishments throughout its history. 

Sherwood focuses his initial overview on two of the program’s most notable 




graduate, Ambassador Edward Perkins, former Director General of the U.S. 

Foreign Service and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The second 

overview by Sherwood discusses the informal manner in which the WPAC was 

founded and its founding principles: (a) that it be supported by tuition, (b) that 

it concentrate on the application of public administration theory into practice, 

and (c) that it focus on adult learners and their needs. This begins the heart of 

the book — essays by 23 of the program’s 192 graduates on the contributions of 

the WPAC to their learning, to their careers, and to their lives. Essays by former 

faculty (Larry Kirkhart, Beryl Radin, and Ronald Stupak) bridge to a discussion 

of the WPAC’s demise amid changes at USC and in the D.P.A. degree. 

Sherwood places the program’s closing within the context of the conflict 

between the research and service missions of research-intensive universities like 

USC, and fits the D.P.A. degree and its decline squarely in the midst of this 

conflict. The reliance of the center on tuition funding is identified as another 

weakness, especially as more doctoral programs at other universities, especially 

public universities, could compete with the USC-WPAC D.P.A. degree at lesser 

cost. He also points to the Maxwell School at Syracuse University and the 

Cooper Center at the University of Virginia as examples of programs that have 

not abandoned training those who will serve in the public sphere in favor of 

those who will serve in the academy. 

The WPAC program was an original one, designed to capitalize on the 

experiences and knowledge of the students, in addition to the faculty’s academic 

backgrounds, and to adopting an adult-learner model for courses and schedules. 

The program began for all students with a 100-page Autobiography Learning 

Plan (ALP), which served as a “mission statement” for the D.P.A. program, and 

provided students and the faculty with information about individual students’ 

potential gains from the program, their potential contributions to the program, 

and their abilities successfully to complete the program. The WPAC’s 

coursework was organized in intensive semesters. These semesters began with 

pre-course reading and included four-day intensive seminars. This schedule 

allowed students to maintain work schedules, as well as spend enough time in 

discussions to fully engage the material and to make the connections between 

literature and theory, and between implications for self, practice, and public 

organizations. This schedule was designed to integrate the WPAC’s central 

tenets of praxis and “andragogy,” or adult-learning theory. 

The WPAC dissertation was generally on a public-management topic with 

which the doctoral candidate was very familiar, often a specific question or 

problem at the candidate’s workplace. The dissertation proposal was reviewed 

in a structured way by both faculty and students in the program. This active 

involvement of peers and feedback from the entire learning community, not 

just the faculty, were two other hallmarks of the program described by both 

faculty and students. 




The 23 graduate-essayists showed a high level of agreement on the 

characteristics of the program that they found contributed the most to their 

personal and professional development. The most-mentioned characteristic of 

the WPAC was the rigor and substance of the program. Graduates cited the 

utility of having a good grounding in theory as important for their practical 

success as administrators and problem-solvers. The program sessions were 

described as challenging, intensive, and pragmatic, and the essayists credited 

faculty who knew how to transmit the understanding of theory and the 

application of theory as particularly important to the students’ learning. 

Many essayists also cited the two-way learning that happened between the 

students and the faculty as particularly important. The learning community that 

developed as a result of these rigorous, intensive sessions provided honest and 

immediate feedback to all students. These learning communities were of almost 

universal value to the graduate-essayists. 

The ALP and the dissertation are cited by many students as accomplishments 

in and of themselves, and as roadmaps for continued personal and professional 

learning and development. Even the ALP did not escape the praxis model of the 

WPAC. The process of writing the ALP was one of goal-setting informed by selfunderstanding, 

and the selection of theories or models to explore as a part of the 

program. The dissertation was the culmination of the seminars, and therefore was 

each individual student’s attempt at applying theory to a particular problem. The 

focus of the dissertation on praxis further emphasized the program’s commitment 

to the rigorous application of theory to actual public-service issues and problems. 

The dissertation defense was not so much an examination of the candidate, but a 

celebration of accomplishment, because the learning community already had 

critiqued the dissertation during its development. The completion of a 

dissertation was the sign of another success of the WPAC: another “praxistitioner” 

returned to the public sector at a level of competence previously 

unavailable to the public, the organization, or the servant. 

But these successes were inadequate to keep the program running. As the 

WPAC’s D.P.A. had to compete with more Public Administration doctoral 

programs (most of them Ph.D. programs capable of training both academics 

and practitioners), its dependence on tuition and its shoestring budget became 

more of a liability, because many of the other programs charged public-college 

tuition. The intensive semester structure allowed faculty from USC in Los 

Angeles and from other institutions around the country to teach in the 

program, but to a large extent prevented the development over time of a school 

of ideas surrounding the WPAC. The return of graduates to Federal or state 

public administration careers meant that they often were lost to any meaningful 

conversations on the praxis they had spent so much time learning. This lack of 

an ongoing community of ideas meant that there was no real constituency, save 

the few full-time faculty in Washington, to defend the center. Additionally, the 




lack of program graduates in the conversation about public administration, 

about praxis, and about effective education in public administration doctoral 

programs meant that it was up to the faculty on loan to the WPAC to return to 

their home programs and implement the program characteristics. This has not 

happened to any real degree, indicating either that the faculty did not find the 

structure as valuable as the graduates, or that there was significant resistance to 

changing program structures in doctoral programs in public administration. 

Throughout the book, Sherwood discusses the importance of the publicservice 

focus of public administration programs, and the importance of a 

doctoral degree for practitioners of public administration. Other faculty mourn 

the loss of the public-service focus of USC and the treatment of its School of 

Public Affairs — and the WPAC in particular. 

The D.P.A. essayists in this work share a great deal in common with 

current and recent D.P.A. and Ph.D. graduates in public administration 

programs around the country. Most doctoral students want a deep 

understanding of the main theories of public administration gained through 

rigorous individual and group learning, to have their beliefs and experiences 

questioned, and to learn, and later work, among a community of learners 

while maintaining individual interests. Students at this high level would 

benefit from having a plan that evaluated their strengths and weaknesses in 

coming to the terminal degree, and a plan for the degree’s completion. 

Further, whether experienced or not, all students would benefit from 

andragogically competent teaching methods and the development of ongoing 

feedback from faculty and students in a constructive way. 

This alignment of values and education goals between Ph.D. and D.P.A. 

students further blurs the distinctions between the degrees, which is noted in 

other discussions in this journal (e.g., Brewer, Facer, O’Toole & Douglas, 

1999), and is noted by Sherwood — along with increased focus on research in 

public universities — as a cause of the decline of the D.P.A. In the end, then, 

this work is valuable less as a celebration of the degrees conferred by the 

WPAC, or the contributions to public service of the graduates, and more as a 

celebration that the WPAC was able to create, for however short a time, a 

learning community that met the personal and academic needs of its students 

in a way that made a real contribution to their success. Perhaps a change in 

focus by the WPAC to research-oriented degrees would have kept the program 

alive, perhaps resources for a small program thousands of miles from its 

sponsoring university never would have been adequate. At any rate, the book 

serves as an inspiration to educators and practitioners that creating an excellent 

learning community in a rigorous public administration program that is 

accessible to adult learners is not only possible, but also valuable to its faculty, 

to its students, and to society as a whole. 




REFERENCES 

Brewer, G.A., Facer, R.L. II, O’Toole, L.J., Jr., & Douglas, J.W. (1999). What’s in a name? Comparing 

D.P.A. and Ph.D. programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(4), 309-317. 

Knowles, M.S. (1980/1970). The modern practice of adult education. Andragogy versus pedagogy. 

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge. 

Sherwood, F.P. (Ed.).(2008). Doctoral education in public administration at the Washington Public Affairs 

Center: 28 years (1973-2001) as an outpost of the University of Southern California. Bloomington, 

IN: iUniverse. 

Mark Speicher, Ph.D., is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Arizona 

College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, in Glendale, AZ. He 

received his Ph.D. in Public Administration from the School of Public Affairs at 

Arizona State University in 2009. 


JOURNAL OF 

COMPARATIVE 

POLICY ANALYSIS: 

RESEARCH & PRACTICE 

CALL FOR PAPERS 

The Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research & Practice aims to stimulate the further 

intellectual development of comparative policy studies and the growth of an international 

community of scholars in the field. It gives priority to comparative studies that: 

1. Contribute to comparative theory development; 

2. Present theory-based empirical research; 

3. Offer comparative evaluations of research methods; 

4. Derive the practice implications of theory-based research; 

5. Use conceptual heuristics to interpret practice; 

6. Draw lessons based on circumstances in which the domains compared have 

certain manipulable policy, program or institutional variables in common. 

Now published five times per year from 2010, the JCPA is the only explicitly comparative 

journal of policy studies. It invites manuscripts that address public policy analysis and 

related public administration and management in this unique manner. 

The JCPA encourages the submission of articles advancing comparative policy studies in 

public policy fields as diverse as immigration, health care, environmental protection, 

education, biotechnology, security or human rights, technology, public finance and 

budgeting, administrative reform, performance measurement, and others. The Journal 

welcomes proposals for Special Symposia Issues, as well as submissions to its sections on 

Comparative Policy Innovation and Policy Statistics. 

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND FOUNDER 

Iris Geva-May, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada 

CO-EDITORS 

B. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh, U.S. 

Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada 

FOUNDING CO-EDITOR 

Lawrence E. Lynn, University of Chicago, U.S., (1997 - 2001) 

PAST CO-EDITOR 

John Ellwood, University of California at Berkeley, U.S., (2001 - 2002) 

BOOK REVIEW EDITOR 

Louise Comfort, University of Pittsburgh, U.S. 

COMPARATIVE POLICY INNOVATION EDITORS 

Anthony Boardman, University of British Columbia 

Aidan Vining, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada 

COMPARATIVE POLICY STATISTICS EDITOR 

Fred Thompson, Willamette University, Oregon, U.S. 

To learn more about the JCPA and the scholarly society, 

the International Comparative Policy Analysis-Forum, see www.jcpa.ca/icpaf 

The JCPA is supported by International Advisory and Editorial Boards 

The JCPA and its activities are supported by 37 institutional members on five continents

Information for Contributors 

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of 

Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching 

and learning in public affairs broadly defined, which includes the fields of policy analysis, public 

administration, public management, public policy, nonprofit administration, and their subfields. 

Advancing teaching and learning includes not only the improvement of specific courses and teaching 

methods, but also the improvement of public affairs program design and management. The goal of 

JPAE is to publish articles that are useful to those participating in the public affairs education 

enterprise, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. In service to this goal, articles should be 

clear, accessible to those in the public affairs fields and subfields, and generalizable. The new 

editorial team is particularly interested in articles that (1) use rigorous methods to analyze the relative 

effectiveness of different teaching methods, and (2) have international and/or comparative 

components, or consider the effect of country setting. Articles submitted for publication in JPAE 

should not already be published or in submission elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at 

conferences are welcome. 

Submissions should conform to American Psychological Association (APA) style and generally meet 

the submission recommendations described in Appendix A of the Publication Manual of the 

American Psychological Association (5 th ed.). 

Specifically, manuscripts should: 

•Be typed in a standard 12-point serif font (such as Times New Roman), double- or 1-1/2-spaced, 

with margins of no less than one inch on all sides, 

•Include one document with no author names but including a title and an abstract of around 150 

words, and 

•Include another document with the title, authors’ names and contact information, and any 

identifying references, including acknowledgments. 

Electronic submissions should be made in PDF or .doc files (please no .docx files) and should follow 

the recommendations for electronic transmission of manuscripts described in Appendix B of the 

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5 th ed.). Accepted articles will not be 

published until authors submit a manuscript that meets APA style, particularly in regard to citations 

and references. 

Submit electronic copies to jcallen7@asu.edu & hcampbel@asu.edu, and one paper copy to: 

Journal of Public Affairs Education 

Mail Code 3720 

411 N. Central Ave., Suite 450 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-0687 

Authors should expect to receive acknowledgment of receipt. If acknowledgement is not received 

within two weeks, please do not hesitate to contact us at jcallen7@asu.edu (the email address of 

editorial assistant Jeffrey Callen). Articles will be given initial review by the editorial team. Articles 

must meet basic criteria including writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and 

interest to JPAE’s readers before they are submitted for external, double-blind review. If accepted for 

publication, manuscripts cannot be published until all authors have provided copyright transfer 

authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about five lines). 

Because of its mission, educators may reproduce any JPAE material for classroom use and 

authors may reproduce their own articles without written permission. Written permission is 

required to reproduce any part of JPAE in all other instances.

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration 

1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517 

202-628-8965 fax 202-626-4978 www.naspaa.org 

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the flagship journal of the National Association of Schools of 

Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). Founded in 1970, NASPAA serves as a national and international 

resource for the promotion of excellence in education for the public service. Its institutional membership 

includes more than 250 university programs in the United States in public administration, policy, and 

management. It accomplishes its purposes through direct services to its member institutions and by 

• Developing and administering appropriate standards for educational programs in public affairs through its 

Executive Council and its Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation; 

• Representing to governments and other institutions the objectives and needs of education for public affairs 

and administration; 

• Encouraging curriculum development and innovation and providing a forum for publication and discussion 

of education scholarship, practices, and issues; 

• Undertaking surveys that provide members and the public with information on key educational issues; 

• Meeting with employers to promote internship and employment opportunities for students and graduates; 

• Undertaking joint educational projects with practitioner professional organizations; and 

• Collaborating with institutes and schools of public administration in other countries 

through conferences, consortia, and joint projects. 

NASPAA provides opportunities for international engagement for NASPAA members, placing a global emphasis 

on educational quality and quality assurance through a series of networked international initiatives, in particular 

the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee), the 

Inter-American Network of Public Administration Education (INPAE), and the Georgian Institute of Public 

Affairs (GIPA). It is also involved locally; for instance, directing the Small Communities Outreach Project for 

Environmental Issues, which networks public affairs schools and local governments around environmental 

regulation policy issues, with support from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

NASPAA’s twofold mission is to ensure excellence in education and training for public service and to promote 

the ideal of public service. Consistent with NASPAA’s mission, JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and 

learning in public affairs, defined to include the fields of policy analysis, public administration, public 

management, and public policy. Published quarterly by NASPAA, the journal features commentaries, 

announcements, symposia, book reviews, and peer-reviewed scholarly articles on pedagogical, curricular, and 

accreditation issues pertaining to public affairs education. 

JPAE was founded in 1995 by a consortium from the University of Kansas and the University of Akron and was 

originally published as the Journal of Public Administration Education. H. George Frederickson was the 

journal’s founding editor. In addition to serving as NASPAA’s journal of record, JPAE is affiliated with the 

Section on Public Administration Education of the American Society for Public Administration.

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - National ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?