hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Pregledni rad
https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.17.2.3

Contemporary Public Administration Research in Croatian Scientific Journals from 2009 to 2016

Ivan Lehpamer ; Graduated Expert Specialist of Public Administration, Zagreb, Croatia

Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (282 KB) str. 238-261 preuzimanja: 297* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Lehpamer, I. (2017). Komparativna istraživanja javne uprave u hrvatskim znanstvenim časopisima od 2009. do 2015.. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, 17 (2), 238-261. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.17.2.3
MLA 8th Edition
Lehpamer, Ivan. "Komparativna istraživanja javne uprave u hrvatskim znanstvenim časopisima od 2009. do 2015.." Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, vol. 17, br. 2, 2017, str. 238-261. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.17.2.3. Citirano 28.02.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition
Lehpamer, Ivan. "Komparativna istraživanja javne uprave u hrvatskim znanstvenim časopisima od 2009. do 2015.." Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava 17, br. 2 (2017): 238-261. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.17.2.3
Harvard
Lehpamer, I. (2017). 'Komparativna istraživanja javne uprave u hrvatskim znanstvenim časopisima od 2009. do 2015.', Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, 17(2), str. 238-261. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.17.2.3
Vancouver
Lehpamer I. Komparativna istraživanja javne uprave u hrvatskim znanstvenim časopisima od 2009. do 2015.. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava [Internet]. 2017 [pristupljeno 28.02.2020.];17(2):238-261. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.17.2.3
IEEE
I. Lehpamer, "Komparativna istraživanja javne uprave u hrvatskim znanstvenim časopisima od 2009. do 2015.", Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, vol.17, br. 2, str. 238-261, 2017. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.17.2.3

Sažetak
This article presents the results of the content analysis of 151 scientific journals in the field of social sciences, published in Croatia from 2009 to 2015. Papers comparing public administration concepts in at least two foreign countries or local and regional units were included. Thirteen comparative articles and 40 case studies were identified and underwent extensive content analysis. The research encompassed the following issues: type of article, purpose of research, subjects of research, and countries studied. Following the content analysis, the data were summarised as follows. The most commonly compared countries are Germany (in eight papers out of thirteen) and France (in six comparative studies). If case studies are included, Slovenia is the most commonly studied country. Local self-government is the subject most frequently addressed in comparative public administration research during the period in question. Quantitative research methods are used in eight out of thirteen comparative studies. If case studies are included, qualitative methods are the dominant methodological choice: almost 70% of the authors employed qualitative research methods used in the social sciences in their comparative public administration research. The study hypothesised that there is a major comparative segment in Croatian scientific journals. The conclusion is that the extent of the comparative perspective and the use of comparative research methods in public administration articles is not sufficient, but is exceptionally comparatively valuable. A wider array of public dministration topics needs to be studied comparatively. An intercultural and intercontinental perspective should be incorporated into public administration studies. Scholars and researchers of public administration should shift their focus from eurocentrism to globalism, and from case studies to comparative research. To achieve a better understanding of how public administration works in different social, economic, and legal settings, our way of thinking, exploring, and writing
needs to become more comparative.

Ključne riječi
comparative public administration; scientific journals; comparative research method; content analysis

Hrčak ID: 183529

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/183529

[hrvatski]

Posjeta: 496 *