Developing collaboration between research-oriented and practice-oriented experts in public administration: How does expert participation make a difference in public policy making and governance practice?
| Author | Lihua Yang |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720958468 |
| Published date | 01 January 2023 |
| Date | 01 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Developing collaboration
between research-
oriented and practice-
oriented experts in public
administration: How
does expert participation
make a difference in
public policy making and
governance practice?
Lihua Yang
School of Government, Research Institute of State
Governance, & Institute of Public Governance, Peking
University, Beijing, China
Abstract
The contradiction between experts’ research (or theory) and practitioners’ practice
has plagued public administration for over a century. However, this study emphasizes
that experts themselves are not exactly the same. To address the contradiction
between research and practice and to improve the role of experts, we need not
only to improve the collaboration between experts and practitioners but also to
strengthen the collaboration between research-oriented and practice-oriented experts.
Using desertification control experiences in 12 counties in northern China as policy
examples and through case studies and analysis of a survey of more than 4000 individ-
uals, the study finds that the collaboration with high participation of both research-
oriented and practice-oriented experts had the highest governance performance, due
to reducing information and knowledge asymmetry, enhancing trust, and strengthening
Corresponding author:
Lihua Yang,School of Government, Research Institute of State Governance, & Institute of Public Governance,
the Leo KoGuan Building, Peking University, No. 5 Yiheyuan Road, Beijing 100871, China.
Email: yang@pku.edu.cn;journeyylh@163.com
Public Policy and Administration
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0952076720958468
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
2023, Vol. 38(1) 58–82
Yang 59
expert participation in public governance. The study also reveals that there are eight
institutional design principles that are important for the success of experts’ participa-
tion. These principles emphasized knowledge and experts themselves, experts’ rela-
tionship with other social actors, and external support (support from laws and regu-
lations and financial support). The study is enlightening to policy makers and public
administrators in their endeavor to integrate research (theory) and practice, design
public policy, and maximize the use of their knowledge and expertise to advance the
cause of public administration.
Keywords
Collaboration, institutional design principles, practice, practice-oriented experts,
research-oriented experts
Introduction
Since the groundbreaking publication by Wilson (1887), the discipline of public
administration (PA) has often been plagued by one “perennial” problem (Reed,
2009: 685): how can we reduce the gap between experts’ research and practitioners’
practice (Buick et al., 2016; Henry, 1975; Martin, 2016; Newland, 2000; Orr and
Bennett, 2012)? Experts bring in their knowledge and expertise, but they are often
criticized for the disconnection between their research and practice (Radin, 2013;
Sch€
on, 1991). Meanwhile, practitioners often highlight that “in the messy swamp-
lands of practice, problems are not often amenable to solutions using law like
formulae” (Miller and King, 1998: 46).
Therefore, in the process of the development of PA, many studies have sprung
up to solve the disconnection and contradiction between experts’ research (or
theory) and practice. For example, some examined the interaction between
theory and practice, connectedness between academicians and practitioners, and
integration of research and practice, and called for building a reciprocal relation-
ship between theory and practice through dialogue (Christensen et al., 2017;
Comfort, 1994; Englehart, 2001; Evans, 2007; Graffy, 2008; Miller and King,
1998; Newland, 2000); some explored the roles of think tank (e.g., Li, 2015;
Stone, 2007; Wells, 2012; Zhu and Xue, 2007) and the ways to bridge the gap
between knowledge and policy (e.g., Boswell, 2008; Daviter, 2015; Dunlop, 2010,
2014; Dunlop and Radaelli, 2018); some studied knowledge utilization as well as
policy uptake and policy utilization (e.g., Albæk, 1995; Dunlop, 2009, 2014;
Dunlop et al., 2020; Weiss, 1979); others called for a practitioner perspective, a
practical approach, and a practice-oriented theory for PA and claimed that “there
is nothing more practical than a good theory” (Radin, 2010: 289; also see Martin,
2016; Streib et al., 2001; Vangen, 2017; Wagenaar, 2004); and still others directly
focused on practical wisdom, best practices, and evidence-based practices in PA
To continue reading
Request your trial