JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - naspaa

Public Values as a Core Element of NASPAA
dimensions that include size, resources, mission, and organizational location
within our universities. Another dimension of NASPAA’s diverse membership is
the types of programs offered. It might be reasonably accurate to say that public
administration programs dominated NASPAA’s early years. But the organization
has evolved considerably since then. In addition to public administration
programs, degree programs in public policy, public affairs, and several other
categories are now well-represented in NASPAA’s membership.
The diversity of program types reflects growth and maturation in our field,
and creates numerous opportunities. But it also creates serious challenges. One
of these challenges concerns the identity of our field, and how we can
characterize it in a way that is understandable and meaningful to ourselves, and
to relevant external audiences.
One approach is simply to list the types of programs that are currently “inside
the tent,” and label the field as “public administration, public affairs, public
policy, etc.” But that runs several risks. For starters, it is a mouthful. There also
is the “Oscar-acceptance-speech” problem — the possibility of inadvertently
omitting an important and valued member of the field. A bigger downside is
that this definition doesn’t provide very much guidance on whether a potential
new member program — one that is not included in the current list of degree
titles — should be allowed into the “club” or “tent.”
Some of us have tried to address the question of defining our field by
articulating what is common to all NASPAA members, and what distinguishes
us from professional degree programs that we intuitively believe do not belong
in the tent. It comes as no surprise that this is a difficult task. Preparation for
public service has been tried on for size, but many audiences interpret “public
service” as the direct provision of services to members of the public. Understood
in this way, professionals such as police officers, firefighters, and teachers engage
in public service, along with graduates of our member institutions.
Another direction in identifying the distinguishing characteristics of our field
emphasizes a particular aspect of the adjective “public.” “Public” can be defined
in terms of the legal status of an institution. However, as a profession and as an
organization, we generally have recognized that partnerships between
government, nonprofit organizations, and businesses are all necessary and
desirable in many circumstances, and that many of our graduates will have
careers that span these sectors. Hence, to emphasize public institutions solely in
the legal sense of that term is a step backward.
A somewhat different aspect of “public” — and the one I wish to emphasize
here — concerns the values that are brought to bear upon the analysis and
management of organizations, programs, and policies. Specifically, I would
like to suggest that what is — or should be — a unique characteristic of our
programs, regardless of their specific labels, is that we and our graduates bring
public values to bear upon the analysis and management of organizations,
programs, and policies.
Journal of Public Affairs Education 263