Integrative seminar style courses are most often used as an application-oriented capstone in place of a thesis or comprehensive exam requirement in Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree programs. This article describes and discusses the benefits of a unique approach of one National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA)–accredited U.S. MPA program that employs integrative seminar style courses at both the start and end of the program of study. The first seminar integrates theory while the last seminar integrates practice, while both utilize reflection as a synthesizing pedagogy. The other core courses in the program of study use distinct theories to analyze practice while building core competencies. This article explores the importance of theory in a professional degree program, describes and explains both integrative seminars, and discusses the value fostered by the pattern of synthesis-analysis-synthesis facilitated through integrative seminars and reflective pedagogies.
ArgyrisCSchonDA (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
BehnRD (1995) The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review55(4): 313–324.
6.
BoyerEL (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
7.
BoyerEL (1996) The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach1: 11–20.
8.
BrooksAC (2002) Can nonprofit management help answer public management's “big questions”?Public Administration Review62(3): 259–266.
9.
BushouseBKJacobsonWSLambrightKT (2011) Crossing the divide: building bridges between public administration practitioners and scholars. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(suppl 1): i99–i112.
10.
BushouseBKMorrisonS (2001) Applying service learning in Master of Public Affairs programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education7(1): 9–17.
11.
CallahanRF (2001) Challenges of (dis) connectedness in the “big questions” methodologies in public administration. Public Administration Review61(4): 493–499.
12.
CatlawTJ (2008) What's the use in being practical?Administrative Theory & Praxis30(4): 515–529.
13.
CatlawTJ (2011) Syllabus review. Personal communication.
14.
ClearyRE (1992) Revisiting the doctoral dissertation in public administration: an examination of the dissertations of 1990. Public Administration Review52(1): 55–61.
15.
ClearyRE (2000) The public administration doctoral dissertation reexamined: an evaluation of the dissertations of 1998. Public Administration Review60(5): 446–455.
16.
CollierPJWilliamsDR (2005) Reflection in action: the learning–doing relationship. In CressCMCollierPJRetenauerVL (eds), Learning through Serving. Sterling, CA: Stylus, pp. 83–97.
17.
CooperTL (2004) Big questions in administrative ethics: a need for focused, collaborative effort. Public Administration Review64(4): 395–407.
18.
CunninghamB (1997) Experiential learning in public administration education. Journal of Public Affairs Education3(2): 219–227.
19.
DenhardtRBDenhardtJV (2009) Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
20.
DickeLDowdenSTorresJ (2004) Successful service learning: a matter of ideology. Journal of Public Affairs Education10(3): 199–208.
21.
DurantRFDurantJRS (2012) Debating Public Administration: Management Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
22.
EaganJ (2011) Public administration and film, part 1. Administrative Theory & Praxis33(4): 585.
23.
GoodsellCTMurrayN (1995) Public Administration Illuminated and Inspired by the Arts. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
24.
HoustonDJDelevanSM (1990) Public administration research: an assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review50(6): 674–681.
ImperialMTPerryJLKatulaMC (2007) Incorporating service learning into public affairs programs: lessons from the literature. Journal of Public Affairs Education13(2): 243–264.
27.
JacobyB (2003) Fundamentals of service learning partnerships. In JacobyB (ed), Building Partnerships for Service Learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 129.
28.
KillianJ (2004) Pedagogical experimentation: combining traditional, distance, and service learning techniques. Journal of Public Affairs Education10(3): 209–224.
29.
KirlinJJ (1996) The big questions of public administration in a democracy. Public Administration Review56(5): 416–423.
30.
KirlinJJ (2001) Big questions for a significant public administration. Public Administration Review61(2): 140–143.
31.
KramerR (2007) How might action learning be used to develop the emotional intelligence and leadership capacity of public administrators?Journal of Public Affairs Education13(2): 205–242.
32.
LambrightKT (2008) Lessons outside of the classroom: examining the effectiveness of service learning projects at achieving learning objectives. Journal of Public Affairs Education14(2): 205–217.
33.
LambrightKTLuY (2009) What impacts the learning in service learning? An examination of project structure and student characteristics. Journal of Public Affairs Education15(4): 425–444.
34.
LiebersonS (1992) Einstein, Renoir, and Greeley: some thoughts about evidence in sociology. American Sociological Review57(1): 1–15.
35.
LindblomCE (1959) The science of ‘muddling through'. In JayMShafritzACHSJP (ed), Classics in Public Administration. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thompson Learning, pp. 177–187.
36.
McCullochA (2009) The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education34(2): 171–183.
37.
McCurdyHEClearyRE (1984) Why can't we resolve the research issue in public administration?Public Administration Review44(1): 49–55.
38.
McGawDWechslerL (1999) Romancing the capstone: the jewel of public value. Journal of Public Affairs Education5(2): 89–105.
39.
McSwiteOC (2001) Theory competency for MPA-educated practitioners. Public Administration Review61(1): 100–115.
40.
MillerHTKingCS (1998) Practical theory. American Review of Public Administration28(1): 43–60.
41.
MorseRSStephensJB (2012) Teaching collaborative governance: phases, competencies, and case-based learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education18(3): 565–584.
42.
NASPAA (2009) NASPAA Accreditation Standards. Washington, DC: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration.
43.
NecomerKEAllenH (2010) Public service education: adding value in the public interest. Journal of Public Affairs Education16(2): 207–229.
44.
NeumannFXJr. (1996) What makes public administration a science?Or, are its “big questions” really big? Public Administration Review56(5): 409–415.
45.
OstromV (1989) The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
46.
PerryJLKraemerKL (1986) Research methodology in the Public Administration Review, 1975–1984. Public Administration Review46(3): 215–226.
47.
PleinLCMorrisJ (2005) Promoting smart growth through participation and partnership: the community design team in rural West Virginia. In WiewelWKnaapG-J (eds) Partnerships for Smart Growth: University–Community Collaboration for Better Public Places. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 165–180.
48.
PosnerPL (2009) The pracademic: an agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting & Finance29(1): 12–26.
49.
RaadscheldersJCN (2011) Syllabus review. Personal communication.
50.
RaadscheldersJCNLeeK-h (2011) Trends in the study of public administration: empirical and qualitative observations from the Public Administration Review, 2000–2009. Public Administration Review71(1): 19–33.
51.
ReidMMillerW (1997) Bridging theory and administrative practice: the role of a capstone course in a P.A. Program. International Journal of Public Administration20(10): 1769–1789.
52.
RohrJA (2004) On Cooper's “big questions”. Public Administration Review64(4): 408–409.
53.
SchönDA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
54.
StallingsRA (1986) Doctoral programs in public administration: an outsider's perspective. Public Administration Review46(3): 235–240.
55.
StallingsRAFerrisJM (1988) Public administration research: work in PAR, 1940–1984. Public Administration Review48(1): 580–587.
56.
StatonC (2012) Professor review. Personal communication.
57.
StoutM (2009) Enhancing professional socialization through the metaphor of tradition. Journal of Public Affairs Education15(3): 289–316.
58.
StoutM (2011) Portraits of politicians, administrators, and citizens. Administrative Theory & Praxis33(4): 604–609.
59.
StoutM (2013) Logics of Legitimacy: Three Traditions of Public Administration Praxis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
60.
StoutMargaret. 2013. “Delivering an MPA emphasis in local governance and community development through service learning and action research.” Journal of Public Affairs Education no. 19 (2):217–238.
61.
VoddenA (2011) Professor review. Personal communication.
62.
WaldnerLSHunterD (2008) Client-based courses: variations in service learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education14(2): 219–239.
63.
WhitakerGEBernerM (2004) Learning through action: how MPA public service team projects help students learn research and management skills. Journal of Public Affairs Education10(4): 279–294.
64.
WhiteJD (1986) Dissertations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review46(3): 227–234.
65.
WrightBEManigaultLJBlackTR (2004) Quantitative research measurement in public administration: an assessment of journal publications. Administration & Society35(6): 747–764.
