From Disciplinary Depth to Interdisciplinary Breadth: The Case of Public Administration

Abstract

This article examines the evolution and academic status of Public Administration (PA) as a field of study. Using bibliometric analysis of 66 PA journals from 2008–2018, the authors trace PA's development through three phases: 1) an early developmental period drawing from multiple disciplines (late nineteenth century to 1950s), 2) a more inward-focused disciplinary period establishing theoretical identity (1950s-1990s), and 3) a mature interdisciplinary phase with increased connections to other fields (2000s onward). The study employs epistemic network analysis (ENA) over time to map PA's position within the broader academic landscape. ENA is a method through which connections between various elements can be identified and codified and allows for comparison of different networks ( Shaffir et al. 2016 ). The authors examine cross-citation patterns, betweenness centrality rankings, and citing environments of PA journals over time. They also conduct a detailed analysis of Public Administration Review 's citation patterns from 1980–2020 as a case study of PA's evolving interdisciplinary connections. The analysis reveals PA has developed a distinct disciplinary footprint while becoming more integrated with adjacent fields like political science, economics, and management. Citation patterns show PA journals are increasingly cited by and citing other disciplines. The authors argue PA has overcome past criticisms about theoretical quality and isolation, emerging as a “bridging discipline” that connects scientific, organizational, and societal knowledge. The paper concludes that PA has evolved from having little epistemic identity to establishing itself as a legitimate social science discipline, while also becoming more interdisciplinary over time. This trajectory reflects PA's dual nature as both a theoretical field and a problem-oriented, practice-focused study.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.