广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版） ›› 2021, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (5): 79-94.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2021.05.006

• 治理现代化 • 上一篇    下一篇

公共管理实验法运用与反思:以公民满意度为例李文彬,陈晓绚

李文彬, 陈晓绚   

  1. 华南理工大学 公共管理学院,广东 广州 510640
  • 收稿日期:2021-05-28 出版日期:2021-09-25 发布日期:2021-10-29
  • 作者简介:李文彬,华南理工大学公共管理学院教授,研究方向:政府绩效管理;陈晓绚,华南理工大学公共管理学院博士研究生。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金一般项目“地方政府客观绩效对公众满意度的影响机理及其优化路径研究”(17BZZ032)

Application and Reflection on the Experimental Method of Public Management:Taking Citizens' Satisfaction as An Example

LI Wen-bin, CHEN Xiao-xuan   

  1. School of Public Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China
  • Received:2021-05-28 Online:2021-09-25 Published:2021-10-29

PDF (PC)

360

摘要： 近年来,随着实验法在公共管理问题研究的运用日渐增多,公共管理学界也开始总结和反思这一方法。但学界主要从面上审视公共管理实验法的使用,尚未就某个研究领域或议题深入分析。公民满意度领域是实验法运用的集散地,对其“深描”可以“管窥”公共管理实验法运用的总体图景。研究发现,公民满意度实验类型包括调查实验、实验室实验、实地实验等,实验方式主要是前测—干预—后测实验和因子实验,实验对象为大学生、网民或现场抽取的市民样本。总的来说,这些实验较好呈现了满意度影响因素的因果关系。但其实验类型以调查实验法居多,实验对象也以学生和网民为主,实验的现实性较差。为提高公民满意度或公共管理学实验研究的价值,应针对公共管理领域的重大问题,尽可能在真实情景中、以真实对象开展实地实验研究,以提升研究结论的政策辐射力和理论外推力。

关键词: 公民满意度, 公共管理实验法, 实地实验, 调查实验, 自然实验, 效度

Abstract: Recent years have found summaries and reflections on experimental method among academic circles with the increasing application of this method in public management studies, though carried out from a general perspective without an in-depth analysis on a certain research field or topic. The field of citizens' satisfaction is the distribution center for the application of the experimental method, and its “deep description” helps “get a glimpse” of the overall picture of the application of the method in public management. Citizens' satisfaction experiments, the study finds, cover survey experiment, laboratory experiment, field experiment, etc.; the methods mainly include experiment running through pre-test, intervention, and post-test experiment, and factor experiment; the objects are college students, Internet users or citizen samples taken on site. In general, these experiments better show the causal relationship between the influencing factors of satisfaction. However, most fall into investigations and the subjects are mainly students and Internet users, and thus comes out a poor reality. With an aim to improve citizens' satisfaction or the value of experimental research in public management, field experimental research, targeting to major problems, should be carried out in real situations with real objects as much as possible so as to enhance the policy radiation of research conclusions and the theoretical external thrust.

Key words: citizens' satisfaction, experimental method of public management, field experiment, survey experiment, natural experiment, validity

中图分类号: 

  • D035-0
[1] McDermott R. The ten commandments of experiments[J]. Political Science,2013,46(3):605-610.
[2] Margetts H Z. Experiments for public management research[J]. Public Management Review,2011,13(2): 189-208.
[3] 臧雷振.政治学研究方法:议题前沿与发展前瞻[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2016.
[4] 马亮.公共管理实验何以可能:一项方法学回顾[J].甘肃行政学院学报,2015(4):13-23.
[5] Anderson D M, EdwardsB C. Laboratory experiments in public management research[J].Public Management Review, 2015,17(10): 1518-1542.
[6] Bozeman B, Scott P. Laboratory experiments in public policy and management[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,1992,2(3):293-313.
[7] Pollitt C. Public administration research since 1980:slipping away from the real world?[J]. International Journal of Public Sector Management,2017,30(6/7):555-565 .
[8] 张书维,李纾. 行为公共管理学探新:内容、方法与趋势[J].公共行政评论,2018(1):7-35.
[9] 李晓倩,吕孝礼,徐浩,等.国外公共管理实验研究的进展与启示[J].公共管理评论,2017(2):16-34.
[10] 代涛涛,陈志霞.行为公共管理研究中的实验方法:类型与应用[J].公共行政评论,2019(6):166-185.
[11] James O. Managing citizens'expectations of public service performance: evidence from observation and experimentation in local government[J]. Public Administration,2011,89(4):1419-1435.
[12] Chao D,Kanno T,Furuta K. Experimental study on tourist satisfaction using participatory simulation in a virtual environment[J]. SpringerPlus, 2013, 2(1): 552.
[13] Van Ryzin G G. An experimental test of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory of Citizen Satisfaction[J]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,2013,32(3): 597-614.
[14] Filtenborg A F,Gaardboe F,Sigsgaard-Rasmussen J. Experimental replication: an experimental test of the Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory of Citizen Satisfaction[J]. Public Management Review,2017, 19(9):1235-1250.
[15] Grimmelikhuijsen S, Porumbescu G A. Reconsidering the Expectancy Disconfirmation Model:three experimental replications[J]. Public Management Review,2017,19(9):1-21.
[16] Petrovsky N, Mok J Y, Leon-Cazares F. Citizen expectations and satisfaction in a young democracy: a test of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Model[J]. Public Administration Review,2016,77(3):395-407.
[17] Baekgaard M, Serritzlew S. Those who understand it will not be persuaded:a performance information paradox[J]. International Public Management Journal,2020,23(1):138-160.
[18] Ueltschy L C,Laroche M,Tamilia R D,Yannopoulos P. Cross-cultural invariance of measures of satisfaction and service quality[J]. Journal of Business Research,2004,57(8):901-912.
[19] Van de Walle S,Van Ryzin G G.The order of questions in a survey on citizen satisfaction with public services:lessons from a split-ballot experiment[J].Public Administration,2011,89(4):1436-1450.
[20] Thau M,Mikkelsen M F,Hjortskov M, Pedersen M J. Question order bias revisited: a split-ballot experiment on satisfaction with public services among experienced and professional users[J]. Public Administration ,2020(1): 1-16.
[21] Hjortskov M. Priming and context effects in citizen satisfaction surveys[J]. Public Administration,2017,95(4): 45-63.
[22] Jilke S, Baekgaard M. The political psychology of citizen satisfaction: does functional responsibility matter?[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2019, 30(1): 130-143.
[23] James O, Van Ryzin G G. Motivated reasoning about public performance: an experimental study of how citizens judge the Affordable Care Act[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2016,27(1):504-532.
[24] Porumbescu G A,Piotrowski S J,Mabillard V. Performance information, racial bias, and citizen evaluations of government: evidence from two studies[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2020 . doi:10.1093/jopart/muaa049.
[25] Slothuus R, De Vreese C H. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects[J]. The Journal of Politics,2010, 72(3):630-645.
[26] Baekgaard M. Performance information and citizen service attitudes:do cost information and service use affect the relationship?[J]. International Public Management Journal,2015, 18(2): 228-245.
[27] James O. Performance measures and democracy:information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2011,21(3):399-418.
[28] James O, Moseley A. Does performance information about public services affect citizens' perceptions, satisfaction, and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information[J]. Public Administration,2014,92(2):493-511.
[29] Olsen A L. Citizen (dis)satisfaction: an experimental equivalence framing study[J]. Public Administration Review,2015,75(3):469-478.
[30] Van den Bekerom P,Van der Voet J,Christensen J. Are citizens more negative about failing service delivery by public than private organizations? Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2021,31(1):128-149.
[31] Charbonneau E, Van Ryzin G G. Benchmarks and citizen judgments of local government performance[J]. Public Management Review,2015,17(2):288-304.
[32] Piotrowski S,Grimmelikhuijsen S, Deat F. Numbers over narratives? How government message strategies affect citizens' attitudes[J]. Public Performance & Management Review,2017,42(3):1-24.
[33] Olsen A L. Human interest or hard numbers? Experiments on citizens' selection, exposure, and recall of performance information[J].Public Administration Review,2017,77(3):408-420.
[34] Prokop C, Tepe M. Talk or type? The effect of digital interfaces on citizens' satisfaction with standardized public services[J]. Public Administration, 2021. doi:10.1111/padm.12739.
[35] Brakewood C,Barbeau S, Watkins K. An Experiment evaluating the impacts of real-time transit information on bus riders in Tampa,Florida[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,2014,69(11):409-422.
[36] Tummers L,Weske U,Bouwman R, et al. The impact of red tape on citizen satisfaction: an experimental study[J]. International Public Management Journal,2016,19(3):320-341.
[37] Kaufmann W, Tummers L. The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction[J]. Public Management Review,2017, 19(9): 1311-1327.
[38] Kaufmann W,Ingrams A,Jacobs D. Being consistent matters: experimental evidence on the effect of rule consistency on citizen red tape[J]. American Review of Public Administration, 2021, 51(1):28-39.
[39] Grimmelikhuijsen S. Linking transparency,knowledge and citizen trust in government:an experiment[J]. International Review of Administrative Sciences,2012,78(1):50-73.
[40] Porumbescu G A,Grimmelikhuijsen S. Linking decision-making procedures to decision acceptance and citizen voice:evidence from two studies[J]. The American Review of Public Administration,2018,48(8):902-914.
[41] Teodoro M P,An S H. Citizen-based brand equity:a model and experimental evaluation[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2018,28(3): 321-338.
[42] Mazerolle L,Bennett S,Antrobus E, Eggins,E. Procedural justice, eoutine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: main findings from the Queensland community engagement trial (qcet)[J]. Journal of Experimental Criminology,2012, 8(4):343-367.
[43] Tjahjono H K. The configuration among social capital, distributive and procedural justice and its consequences to individual satisfaction[J]. International Journal of Information and Management Sciences,2011,22(1):87-103.
[44] Venkatesh V,Chan F K Y, Thong J Y L . Designing e-government services: key service attributes and citizens' preference structures[J]. Journal of Operations Management,2012,30(1/2):116-133.
[45] Fledderus J. Does user co-production of public service delivery increase satisfaction and trust? Evidence from a Vignette experiment[J]. International Journal of Public Administration,2015,38(9):642-653.
[46] Christensen J. Biased,not blind: an experimental test of self-serving biases in service users' evaluations of performance information[J]. Public Administration Review,2018,96(3):468-480.
[47] Chiao C,Ksobiech K, Wei C Y. National health insurance and life satisfaction in late life: longitudinal findings from a natural experiment in Taiwan[J]. Journal of Public Health,2014,36(2):308-316.
[48] Lee I P,Jilke S,James O. Do more options always benefit the users of public services? An experimental study of school choice,performance and satisfaction[J]. Public Administration Review,2020. DOI: 10.1111/puar.13271.
[49] Kaufmann W, Tummers L. The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction[J]. Public Management Review,2017, 19(9): 1311-1327.
[50] James O, Moseley A. Does performance information about public services affect citizens' perceptions, satisfaction, and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information[J]. Public Administration,2014,92(2):493-511.
[51] Jakobsen M. Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2013,23(1): 27-54.
[52] Hansen S W. The democratic costs of size: how increasing size affects citizen satisfaction with local government[J]. Political Studies,2015,63(2): 373-389.
[53] 李文钊. 因果推理中的潜在结果模型:起源、逻辑与意蕴[J]. 公共行政评论,2018(1):124-149.
[54] 岳经纶,张虎平. 实验方法在公共管理研究中的应用:基于PAR和JPART两种期刊(2010—2017)的文献分析[J]. 中国公共政策评论,2018(2):39-59.
[55] Lavine H G. On-line vs. memory-based process models of political evaluation[M]//Monroe K R. Political Psychology.Erlbaum Press,2002.
[56] 任莉颖. 用问卷做实验 [M]. 重庆:重庆大学出版社,2018.
[57] Gaines B J,Kuklinski J H, Quirk P J. The logic of the survey experiment reexamined[J]. Political Analysis,2007,15(1):1-20.
[58] Druckman J N,Green D P,Kuklinski J H, Lupia A. The growth and development of experimental research in political science[J]. The American Political Science Review,2006,100(4):627-635.
[59] Barabas J, Jerit J . Are survey experiments externally valid[J]. American Political Science Review,2010,104(2):226-242.
[60] 风笑天.方法论背景中的问卷调查法[J]. 社会学研究,1994(3):13-18.
[61] 李晔,刘华山.问卷调查过程中的常见问题与解决办法[J].教育研究与实验,2006(2):61-64.
[62] 王思琦,郭金云. 公共服务满意度测量的问题顺序效应:来自一项嵌入性调查实验的证据[J]. 公共管理评论,2020(1):92-115.
[63] Ashkanasy N M,Humphrey R H,Huy Q. Integrating emotions and affect in theories of management[J]. The Academy of Management Review,2017, 42(2): 175-189.
[64] Hattke F,Hensel D, Kalucza J. Emotional responses to bureaucratic red tape[J]. Public Administration Review,2020,80(1): 53-63.
[65] Lucas J W. Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity[J]. Sociological Theory,2003,21(3): 236-253.
[66] Hood C. Public management research on the road from consilience to experimentation?[J]. Public Management Review,2011, 13(2): 321-326.
[67] Lu X,Wang W,Xu H. Who can serve as the proxy for public employees in public administration experiments? A cross-sample comparison[J]. Public Management Review,2020.DOI:10.1080/14719037.2020.1864014.
[68] 景怀斌. 强化公共管理实验研究的几个问题[J]. 公共行政评论,2015(3):119-125.
[69] Demaj L.What can performance information do to legislators? A budget-cecision experiment with Legislators[J]. Public Administration Review,2017,77(3): 366-379.
[70] 李亚.利益博弈政策实验方法:理论与应用[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
[71] 李晓倩.公共管理研究中实验方法的应用:质疑与辨析[J]. 公共管理评论,2019(1):117-138.
[72] 陈少威,王文芹,施养正.公共管理研究中的实验设计——自然实验与田野实验[J].国外理论动态,2016(5):76-84.
[73] 王思琦.公共管理与政策研究中的实地实验:因果推断与影响评估的视角[J].公共行政评论,2018(1):87-107.
[74] 罗俊,叶航,郑昊力,等. 左右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图信息加工能力的共同作用——基于经颅直流电刺激技术[J]. 心理学报, 2017,49(2):228-240.
[75] Coleman R. Designing Experiment for the Social Science[M].Sage,2019.
[76] 周业安.改革开放以来实验经济学的本土化历程[J]. 南方经济,2019(1):1-40.
[77] 吴建南,刘瑶.公众如何感知公立医院和私立医院的绩效差异?——基于一项调查实验的比较研究[J]. 公共行政评论,2020(6):99-113+210-211.
[78] 李晓倩,马亮. 公共管理实验研究中的实验报告:现状与评价——以国际期刊论文为例[J]. 公共管理与政策评论,2021(1):55-65.
[1] 臧雷振, 滕白莹, 熊峰. 全球视野中的社会科学实验方法:应用比较与发展前瞻[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(5): 12-31.
[2] 王思琦, 王永杰. 公共服务满意度中的“期望失验”:一项调查实验[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(5): 45-61.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 谭培文, 吴全兰. 宗教信仰与社会主义相适应问题研究——以广西全面建成小康社会为例[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(2): 24 -30 .
[2] 邵天松. 黑水城出土宋代汉文社会文献公文术语研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(4): 1 -10 .
[3] 冉源懋, 张瑜. 英国高等教育质量保障署发展历程及其新举措[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(1): 117 -124 .
[4] 武永江,邓斌. 习近平“生命共同体”观的发展演变、诉求及培育[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(4): 28 -35 .
[5] 刘仁春, 徐连明. 社会结构紧张之下的网络怨恨及其纾解[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(5): 16 -25 .
[6] 余欣欣,张月,郑雪. 乐观对大学生健康状况的影响及作用机制[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(6): 83 -90 .
[7] 谢登斌, 段苏颖, 谢婷. 民族地区义务教育教师合理流动运行机制及实践规制的建构——新型城镇化背景下的思考[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2020, 56(1): 87 -94 .
[8] 韩志明, 雷叶飞. 技术治理的“变”与“常”——以南京市栖霞区“掌上云社区”为例[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2020, 56(2): 23 -33 .
[9] 袁方成, 李思航. 技术治理的风险及其演化逻辑——以农村精准扶贫为分析对象[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2020, 56(2): 45 -61 .
[10] 沈明杰. 借势:在华外国商会的择地游说行为[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2020, 56(4): 29 -40 .
版权所有 © 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）编辑部
地址：广西桂林市三里店育才路15号　邮编：541004
电话：0773-5857325　E-mail: xbgj@mailbox.gxnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发