Women in Public Administration: An Integrative Review

Abstract

This article presents an integrative review of public administration research on the role of women in public agencies and public administration scholarship. The article reviews articles from Public Administration Review, Review of Public Personnel Administration, and Public Personnel Management that appeared on the topic between 1980 and 2018. It explores dominant research paradigms and absences such as attention to intersectionality and day-to-day work life and suggests avenues for future research.

Full text

!
https://doi.org/10.37808/paq.44.4.2
!
WOMEN IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: AN
INTEGRATIVE REVIEW
HINDY LAUER SCHACHTER
New Jersey Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
This article presents an integrative review of public administration
research on the role of women in public agencies and public
administration scholarship. The article reviews articles from Public
Administration Review, Review of Public Personnel Administration, and
Public Personnel Management that appeared on the topic between 1980
and 2018. It explores dominant research paradigms and absences such as
attention to intersectionality and day-to-day work life and suggests
avenues for future research.
Keywords: Gender diversity; women in public administration;
second generation bias
This article is an integrative review of public
administration research on the role of women in public agencies
and the public administration field. As gender issues have played
a significant role in public administration theory and practice for
some time (Bullard and Wright 1993, Stivers 2002), it is useful to
summarize the research paths traversed to date as a preliminary
step to suggesting avenues for future study. Such a summary
might not only increase academic understanding but also can help
managers learn what to expect when diverse people work together.
Information from research studies may offer strategies to help
agency managers to better structure the workplace to maximize
the benefits of gender diversity (Wise and Tschirhart 2000) even
though for much of the period under review a writer in the field
has noted that “scholars have been slow in developing knowledge
that can be used by the public sector manager” (Pitts 2006, 246).
As Rosenbloom (1989) has explained, one factor
complicating the study of government agencies is that scholars can

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
516
understand public administration from at least three approaches
each with its own values and focus. A managerial lens stresses the
efficiency value, a political lens focuses on political
responsiveness and accountability, and a legal approach
concentrates on judicialization or the turn for agency practices to
resemble courtroom procedure. A full understanding of public
agencies requires being able to synthesize these intellectual paths
rather than simply privileging one approach.
In similar fashion, one factor complicating the study of
women in public administration is that gender focused research
can have at least two different orientations. Research with a formal
personnel management lens focuses on legal mandates such as the
1964 Civil Rights Act and debates about comparable worth. It
examines the places women hold in organization charts including
percentage hired and their titles. The methodology is apt to include
analyzing information from government personnel files or surveys
developed by agencies such as the federal Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) or by academics for specific research
projects.
On the other hand, research with a second generation bias
lens stresses the lived experience of women in organizations
including their roles in informal networks dominated by “old
boys” and structures that far from being gender neutral actually
equate leadership with behaviors traditionally labeled masculine
(Acker 1990). Such research takes a bottom-up approach and
listens to how agency employees understand the day-to-day
realities of their work life and social interactions (Walsh 2012).
Methodologies have a constructivist epistemological approach;
in-depth interviews, observation and focus groups allow the
employees leeway to control the topical agenda and speak about
the topics which they consider important. Group initiated issue
framing stresses the importance of contingency in understanding
gender diversity rather than assuming one size fits all relationships
will emerge from the research. Thus research with a second
generation bias lens has two nontraditional dimensions, the
substantive emphasis on informal networks and cultures and the
constructivist methodological orientation. The second generation
bias lens adds another set of methodological tools to tackle a
persistent source of social inequity.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
517
Analyses of Master of Business Administration (Jones
and Kelan 2010) and Master of Public Administration (Schachter
2017) syllabi have concluded that both types of programs present
gender issues primarily from the personnel management lens. To
the extent this focus on one intellectual path also accurately
delineates the boundary of current public administration research,
practitioners may have difficulty using research findings to
improve diversity management. They may lack important insights
into why problems exist in a given organizational climate where
managers profess no intention to discriminate and formal policies
mandate gender equity. The integrative review you are reading
advances the literature by highlighting the absence of second
generation bias studies. By so doing it broadens the scope of the
gender diversity research agenda and its potential usefulness for
practitioners.
To learn about the actual contours of research on women
in public administration I identified Public Administration Review
(PAR), Review of Public Personnel Administration (ROPPA), and
Public Personnel Management (PPM) articles on the subject in
the contemporary research period from 1980 to 2018 omitting
book reviews, editorials, commentaries, perspectives, notes,
introductions, and letters to the editor. For this research,
“identified” means perusing titles of all articles in the three
journals followed by reading the articles themselves if the titles
indicated they were likely to focus on gender diversity as a
primary subject. Gooden (2015) indicated an advantage of using
titles rather than keywords in such studies when she noted that
keywords might not capture all articles on the social equity
subject. I did not count articles on social equity or discrimination
that focused only on race and ethnicity even if research could
relate some of their conclusions to gender nor did I examine
articles about women working outside of public agencies and
public administration as a scholarly field. I included case studies
of female managers or politicians only if the narrative explicitly
focused on gender issues. While I was able to read complete
contents for PAR and ROPPA from one source, the online source
I used for PPM—Sage Full Text Collection—was missing a few
issues in the 1980s and 1990s (perhaps because Sage only
acquired PPM in 2012). Fortunately I found hard copies of those

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
518
issues in my university stacks so my analysis surveys the journal’s
contents from 1980 to 2018. While some reviews of public
administration literature delve further back in history than this
article does, that is because their purpose differs from the one
delineated here. Gooden’s (2015) review of research on social
equity started with 1940 articles because she wanted to investigate
PAR’s output on the subject. I started in 1980 to examine
contemporary trends; 1980 also marks the inauguration of ROPPA
the newest journal of the three examined.
Although the public administration field has multiple
journals, using PAR to map an administrative subject’s contours
is common. Examples of this research strategy have included
Perry and Kraemer’s (1986) and Box’s (1992) studies of research
tracks, Watson and Mountjoy’s (1991) survey of local
government studies, and Nigro and Richardson’s (1990) foray into
administrative ethics. Gooden’s (2015) analysis of PAR’s social
equity footprint from 1940-2013 explained its viability as an
attractive research approach because PAR had a prominent
position in the field and was considered a recorder of PA insights
and developments. Scholars have assumed that since these pieces
appeared in a prestigious generalist journal they represented the
strengths and weaknesses of the field at the time of their
publication (Perry and Kraemer 1986).
However, while many review articles rely on PAR data
alone, some articles in the public personnel subfield have sought
to broaden the analysis by turning to journals in that specific area.
Bearfield (2013) analyzed PAR and ROPPA content relating to
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Houston and Delevan (1990)
examined the contours of public personnel literature through
ROPPA and PPM which they considered the two most important
subfield journals. The present article continues the oft used
strategy of examining literature through PAR articles and then
compares the general contours of PAR content with ROPPA and
PPM articles. Doing a longitudinal review of all three journals
should give a robust picture of the types of research published on
women in public administration.
The analysis has three sections. The first section describes
major contours of gender diversity research in PAR for each
decade with emphasis on whether the research had a second

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
519
generation bias component with employees helping to frame
issues from their actual experience and whether studies
investigated relations between employee representativeness and
performance. Results from the 82 PAR articles are then compared
with patterns in 68 ROPPA articles and 111 articles in PPM. The
larger number of PPM articles comes partly from the fact that in
this practitioner oriented journal some contributions are relatively
short think pieces or journalistic overviews rather than reports of
research projects. The second section offers analysis and
implications for a broader future research agenda. The third
provides conclusions.
GENDER DIVERSITY AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH
The following section examines research contours in each
decade including patterns that changed over time and those
interests that stayed in place throughout the entire period.
Representative articles for each decade are cited.
The 1980s
In the 1980s, a major part of the gender research
enterprise in PAR focused on learning where women were
employed in federal, state and local agencies often as part of
studies that also analyzed racial and ethnic participation.
Examples of such research at the state and local level included
Cayer and Sigelman (1980), Bocher (1982), Dometrius and
Sigelman (1984), Rehfuss (1986), and Slack (1987); federal
examples included Lewis (1986 and 1988) and Clynch and Gaudin
(1982), which was the only piece to concentrate on blue collar
jobs—in Naval shipyards. Each study found that women tended to
have fewer top-level positions than men and/or tended to receive
lower salaries.
A smaller research stream attempted to ascertain who
perceived discrimination at work and to suggest strategies to
ameliorate problems. Hopkins (1980) sent a mail questionnaire to
state employees to learn worker perceptions on racial, gender, and
age discrimination. She found, for example that women in higher
status positions were more likely to perceive discrimination than

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
520
those at lower levels. Vertz (1985) used a survey to learn about
obstacles to women’s careers in one Internal Revenue Service
office. Bremer and Howe (1988) developed a questionnaire to
learn how managers tried to improve women’s careers in seven
agencies. However, none of these articles related discrimination
to performance.
A third group of articles examined legal cases and
doctrines governing agency responsibilities for gender equity.
Schachter (1983) analyzed retroactive seniority and its importance
at a time of agency downsizing; the other studies focused on
comparable worth including the difficulty of evaluating individual
jobs (Campbell and Lewis 1986, Tompkins 1987, and Lee 1989).
All three of these research strands also appeared in
ROPPA. Again, a major research strand involved ascertaining the
place of women in federal (e.g., Lewis 1987), state (e.g., Neuse
1980) and local (Huckle 1985) agencies. A second stream used
surveys to probe attitudes of managers towards affirmative action
(Davis and West 1984). A third examined legal cases and
doctrines including the use of last hired-first fired in newly diverse
organizations (Roberts 1981) and comparable worth (Doherty and
Harriman 1981).
While the 1980s PPM line up contained some analyses on
the kinds of jobs women held in various agencies (Krzystofiak and
Newman 1980), the contributions were more likely to offer
practical advice to managers including what would be ideal
training for women in state and local positions (Radin 1980), how
to use realistic job previews to accelerate affirmative action
(Templer and Tolliver 1983), or how to implement affirmative
action programs (Bellone and Darling 1980). But as in PAR and
ROPPA, this journal also featured legal analyses on comparable
worth (Steel and Lovrich 1987) with PPM including how to pieces
on fostering a legal job evaluation (Eyde 1983). PPM also offered
articles regarding anti-nepotism rules (Reed 1988). An interesting
departure in PPM was a small group of articles that discussed the
role of public sector women in blue collar jobs such as sanitation
worker (Brown 1981, Pecorella 1988).

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
521
The 1990s
Determining minority and female hiring and promotion
patterns continued as the dominant strand for PAR articles in the
next decade (Kellough 1990, Kelly and Guy et al 1991, Bullard
and Wright 1993, Guy 1993, and Lewis 1994). Some authors
suggested more sophisticated methods of analyzing agency data
such as pooled cross section/time series (Cornwell and Kellough
(1994). Other researchers linked gender patterns in different
organizations to Theodore Lowi’s regulatory, distributive, and
redistributive agency template and found more upper level female
administrators in redistributive settings (Newman 1994; Miller,
Kerr, and Reid 1999). Two articles examined the changing role
of women in producing public administration scholarship (Rubin
1990; Slack, Meyers, Nelson, and Sirk 1996). Researchers tended
to find improvements in agency hiring and promotion and in
scholarship production over time but still uncovered systemic
disparities between men and women in high level positions and in
pay.
In this decade, PAR researchers began to pay some
attention to the lived experience of women under second
generation bias. Naff (1994) facilitated focus groups for senior
level federal employees where she elicited nuanced information
on how women perceived their work life. The stories she heard
informed a questionnaire she subsequently sent to 13,000 federal
employees. Answers highlighted the perceptions of some
managers that women employees were less committed to their
work, less willing to relocate, and more likely to need child care.
Lewis (1997) found that among federal employees women
received higher appraisals than men in similar jobs suggesting that
they had to be better at their work than their male peers to get the
position. The most radical departure from past work in PAR,
however was Hale’s (1999) series of focus groups—some for
academics and some for middle to upper level state
administrators--in which men and women discussed day-to-day
work place issues such as power, sexuality and trust. The research
used stories to understand gender dynamics in contemporary
agencies and the bulk of the article consisted of quotes from these
stories. Hale assumed that themes could emerge from
conversations about personal experiences and eventually

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
522
participants would discern amelioration strategies from the
themes. Thus stories about women being ignored when they made
suggestions at meetings could lead to a search for ways to
structure meetings so that all participants were heard.
Sexual harassment also became a topic of interest.
Halfway through the decade Lee and Greenlaw (1995) offered the
first legal analysis of the concept. Ros and England (1987) used
information from state personnel directors to explain how state
governments developed policy initiatives to manage the problem.
ROPPA also continued to feature articles that explored
similarities and differences in jobs men and women held in public
agencies and the pay they received in state (Willoughby 1991) and
federal (Scott and Rexford 1997) organizations. Writers tended to
find improvements over time but still saw disparities. Articles
appeared with legal analysis of issues such as sexual harassment
(Lee and Greenlaw 1996). However, the journal also published
several articles on the lived experience of women in public
administration. In a think piece, Hale (1996) argued that the first
dilemma in studying gender and public personnel was a lack of
shared reality between men and women. Rusaw (1996)
interviewed fourteen female public managers about critical
incidents in their federal careers to learn what their experiences
meant to them. In one sense, the most innovative ROPPA article
of the decade was Witt and Smith’s (1995) study of female
African American academics and the unique stresses they faced;
this article was one of the first to explore concepts tied to
intersectionality.
PPM’s article lineup dovetailed with many of the topics
PAR and ROPPA covered. One research stream related to which
jobs women held in public agencies, particularly the persistence
of glass ceilings and walls even after some improvement in range
and hierarchical location of the jobs to which women could aspire
(Mani 1997). Other articles offered legal analyses of comparable
worth (Moore and Abraham 1992) and sexual harassment
(Strickland 1995) along with practical advice on handling job
evaluations (Tompkins, Brown, and McEwen 1990) or dealing
with sexual harassment issues (Spann 1990). In addition, the
journal also featured several articles that analyzed whether men
and women exhibited similar behavior in organizations. Using

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
523
survey evidence, for example, Lewis (1992) reported that male
and female federal managers using similar strategies to work with
problem employees. Using the fourteen interviews that were also
the foundation of her ROPPA article, Rusaw (1994) discussed
why female federal managers did not think training alone would
help them much to get promoted; their interview evidence showed
male/female differences in day to day workplace reality such as
the greater likelihood that men would ignore women’s comments
at meetings.
The New Century, 2000-2010
In the first decade of the twenty first century, some PAR
articles continued the traditional approach of delineating which
agencies employed women and what discrepancies existed
between male and female career patterns including pay
differentials for the same or similar work (Kerr, Miller, and Reid
2002; Meier and Wilkins 2002; Bowling, Kelleher, Jones, and
Wright 2006; Alkadry and Tower 2006; Sneed 2007; Riccucci
2009). Of these analyses, Dolan’s (2004) study of federal
executive service patterns was the only article to find that women
and men had almost identical responsibilities. The others reported
progress in moving towards equality but found remaining
disparities both in state and federal organizations. Rubin (2000)
continued her analysis of female participation in public
administration scholarship with her results best summed in her
own phrase of a decade of progress but still a way to go.
Legal analyses of sexual harassment also continued. Lee
and Greenlaw (2000) analyzed four Supreme Court cases on
employer liability. Newman, Jackson, and Baker (2003) used U.
S. Merit System Protection Board survey data to show that women
were more likely to be sexual harassment victims in the federal
government. In a follow up article, Jackson and Newman (2004)
showed that women were more likely to be harassed as the male
coworker ratio increased; men were more likely to be victims as
the female coworker ratio increased.
Another research stream responded to Wise and
Tschirhart’s (2000) call to link diversity and work outcomes. One
tack was to test whether passive representation affected how the
agency represented women’s issues. No single relationship

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
524
emerged across the board between passive and active
representation; researchers found that outcomes varied by
function. At the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
(EEOC), Meier, Pennington, and Eller (2005) reported that offices
with more female administrators did not take more sexual
harassment cases than other offices. However, in Meier and
Nicholson-Crotty’s (2006) study of police departments, the
percentage of female police officers correlated with arrests for
sexual assault. Another study linked passive representation to
performance through the concept of emotional labor, a term Arlie
Hochschild (1983) had posited for the relational aspect of work.
(See Guy and Newman 2004.) Meier, Mastracci, and Wilson
(2006) used this concept to explain why Texas school districts
with more female teachers had better pupil attendance; they
argued that female teachers were more likely to put in the
emotional work that sustained relationships.
Other researchers used survey evidence to probe whether
female administrators were likely to behave differently than their
male counterparts in certain situations. DeHart-Davis, Marlowe,
and Pandey (2006) concluded that among state human services
managers women tended to be more compassionate and more
attracted to policy making. Portillo and DeHart-Davis (2009)
suggested that female managers had higher rule abidance.
Other articles responded to Wise and Tschirhart’s (2000)
call for more field research that could help understand diversity in
a contextual frame. Soni’s (2000) survey of administrators in one
regional Environmental Protection Agency office found that
women and minority group members showed greater support for
diversity initiatives than other employees. Connell’s (2006)
interviews at ten Australian worksites disclosed a gendered
culture. Two case studies showed how gender influenced the
career trajectories of outstanding women: Guy’s (2000) historical
study of Public Administration Review’s Laverne Burchfield and
Schachter’s (2008) on Lillian Borrone, the first woman to head a
major port.
ROPPA’s articles in this decade had a strong component
offering legal analyses related to sexual harassment (e.g., Mani
2004, Wise 2002). In addition, of particular interest are three
articles that surveyed gender issues outside the American

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
525
system—in Russia (Antonova 2002), Korea (Jung, Moon and
Hahm 2007), and Holland (Groenveld 2008), a part of the growing
internationalization of public administration research. Also of
interest were two articles that suggested the absence of a single
female experience in public agency employment but rather
various experiences affected by an individual’s race and age.
Reese and Lindenberg (2005) used survey evidence to show that
women in different age groups had different understandings of
sexual harassment. Hsieh and Winslow (2006) compared federal
underrepresentation for white, Asian, Black, Hispanic and Native
American women although they did not discuss how lived
experience on the job might vary for women in each group.
PPM articles continued to research which jobs over- and
underrepresented women in federal (Baker, Wendt, and Slonaker
2002) and state (Kim 2004) agencies. Other articles offered legal
analyses in areas such as constructive discharge (Crumpacker and
Crumpacker 2007) and breastfeeding (Peterson and Boller 2003).
At least one article examined the link between passive and active
representation, reporting that greater female representation in
higher level positions led to more funds going to women’s
educational equity issues (Kim 2003). The journal also featured
its first experimental study relating to gender. Municipal court
clerks received different stories of sexual harassment and had to
state what would constitute an appropriate punishment for the
offender in each with the aim being to see if subjects gave
different punishments to men and women (Gilbert 2005).
From 2010-2018
Between 2010 and 2018 the single most prolific research
stream in PAR encompassed attempts to link gender diversity and
performance or perceived performance. Again findings varied.
Fernandez, Malatesta, and Smith (2013) reported that federal-
level female agency representativeness did not lead to more
contracts for female owned businesses (although agencies with
more minority administrators did allocate more contracts to
minority owned organizations). Using data from Danish cities,
Opstrup and Villadsen (2015) found that top management team
gender diversity increased financial performance. Marvel’s
(2015) research showed that in American public schools female

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
526
teachers worked more overtime hours when they shared the
gender of their principal (although this result did not hold for male
teachers). Rabovsky and Lee (2018) found that universities with
more female full and associate professors had a smaller gender
pay gap for assistant professors. Guul (2018) used Danish data to
show that when job counsellor gender matched the gender of the
person counselled, job seekers put more effort into their search.
Choi and Rainey (2010) used survey data to show that in U. S.
federal agencies a balance of male and female employees led to
higher perceived performance when the agencies used diversity
management strategies. Andrews and Ashworth (2015) used
United Kingdom survey data to show that gender
representativeness led administrators to perceive an inclusive
climate for the agency.
As experiments became more entrenched as a public
administration research method, two experiments provided
additional evidence regarding when a
representativeness/performance nexus is likely and when
representativeness may not significantly alter agency behavior. In
an online experiment, Riccucci, Van Ryzin, and Li (2016) found
evidence that women reported being more likely to recycle when
they believed that female officials oversaw the recycling effort.
This finding has particular interest because recycling is not
generally considered a women’s issue. However, Grohs, Adam,
and Knill (2016) found no evidence that a bureaucrat’s gender
affected how respondents answered experimentally induced
requests from Turkish immigrants in Germany.
Three historical portrayals continued the case studies
from the previous decade. Authors examined the careers of Mary
Anderson who headed the federal Women’s Bureau in the post-
World War I era (McGuire 2012), Helen Holt, a high level West
Virginia administrator and politician (Kunz and DeFrank-Cole
2015), and Frances Harriet Williams, an African American
administrator in President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration
(Gooden 2017).
ROPPA articles in this decade continued to examine
placement patterns in agencies and offer legal analyses without
emphasis on second generation bias issues. When researchers
examined employment patterns by gender, they often found

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
527
crumbling ceilings and walls. Choi (2010) reported gender
balance in federal white collar jobs. Oh and Kim (2015) reported
decreased pay disparities for federal science and engineering
majors between 1983 and 2009. However, Johnson and Crum-
Cano (2011) posited a residual glass wall for female urban
planners seeking transportation positions. Guy and Fenley (2014)
summed up with the phrase “inch by inch” to denote steady
improvement since 1964 without achieving parity. Towards the
end of the decade Breslin, Pandey, and Riccucci (2017) noted a
lack of intersectional research in leadership studies, a call for
enlarging the attention on analyzing the experiences of people
who identify with multiple marginalized social categories.
While PPM continued to analyze federal employment
trends (Choi 2011), perhaps the most interesting aspect of PPM’s
contents in this decade was the appearance of nine articles
reporting research outside the United States. One of those articles
included an experiment run using Chinese university students to
see if different male/female patterns in negotiation style emerged
(Chen and Chen 2012). Another linked passive representation to
performance by showing that increased female representation in
Korean agencies led to improved levels of organizational integrity
(Choi, Hong, and Lee 2018).
ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
The literature review revealed that researchers have trod
various paths to understand issues surrounding the role of women
in public administration. They have amassed knowledge about the
kinds of positions women held and have recorded progress made
from the 1970s onward and remaining disparities. Some articles
have offered legal analysis on issues ranging from sexual
harassment to comparable worth and retroactive seniority.
Particularly in the case of sexual harassment the analyses showed
the judicialization of problems previously handled by individual
managers or in some situations not handled at all but simply swept
under the rug. A few articles have tried to relate cultural
assumptions about gender and the place of women in public
agencies.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
528
Two research areas have steadily increased their profile.
One omission until recently was attention to gender diversity
outside the United States. Only one such article appeared in PAR
from 1980 to 2000 (Shaul 1982). Seven articles appeared in the
2000s in keeping with PAR’s turn to a more international profile
for its editorial board, authors, and subject matter (Outshoorn
2002, Rubin and Bartle 2005, Connell 2006, Andrews and
Ashworth 2015, Opstrup and Villsden 2015, Grohs, Adam and
Knill 2016, and Guul 2018). That four of these articles appeared
between 2015 and 2018 suggests that the increase is likely to
continue allowing for comparative research and studies that use
the political system itself as a research variable. As ROPPA and
PPM also both magnified their attention to international pieces
over the period, the evidence suggests a field becoming more
comfortable with comparative research.
Articles trying to relate gender diversity to various kinds
of performance have also increased over time. Public
administration literature has often presented gender diversity as a
social equity imperative (Riccucci 2009). This link to equity may
spur some managers to promote diversity and representativeness
based on their public service motivation (Thompson and
Christensen 2018). However, without a sense that gender diversity
affects traditional substantive agency outcomes as well, some
managers may not enthusiastically promote equality because they
do not understand the range of benefits it brings. Increasingly,
research shows that gender diversity can affect some substantive
outcomes. One summary of such research across racial and
gender categories is Riccucci and Van Ryzin’s (2017) review of
current knowledge about the ways passive representation can
affect active representation in some situations. Highlighting the
unfinished nature of this research stream they call for additional
research including replication studies.
Analysis of the literature, however, also quickly discloses
lacunae in the research agenda. One involves the almost total lack
of any research on intersectionality or the idea that in a given
society gender is shaped by synergies with class, race, disability,
and other social locations (Hankivsky 2014). In a brief response
as part of a PAR senior/junior scholar exchange on social equity,
Bearfield (2009) had pushed for research that addressed the

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
529
intersection of race and gender as opposed to studies that dealt
with these two variables as separate categories. To show the need
for such research he noted that white women increased their
participation in the federal Senior Executive Service 16.3 percent
between 1985 and 2007; African American women increased their
total by less than three percent so not all women shared career
trajectories. Yet during the period examined in this article few
authors responded to Bearfield’s call. Indeed, eight years after his
piece appeared, Breslin, Pandey, and Riccucci (2017) writing in
ROPPA again noted the paucity of intersectional research.
Presumably if many scholars had responded to Bearfield’s
trajectory no need would have existed for the Breslin, Pandey, and
Riccucci (2017) article in its current form.
The lack of focus on the intersection of gender and class
may be one reason almost all the articles examined administrative,
professional and executive positions although another reason may
be that these are the jobs most academic researchers are familiar
with from their own class backgrounds. Unfortunately, gender
disparities in blue collar jobs are often even more pervasive than
in much white collar work (Altstadt 2010). Public administration
scholars need to understand the causes and consequences of these
disparities to add a public sector perspective to the case literature
on this topic now emerging from construction management
scholarship (Worrall et al 2010). Although blue collar jobs may
be scarce at the federal level, their inclusion will be important for
a more complete picture of state and local progress.
A key question is how the field can activate more interest
in intersectional research given that the Bearfield call did not seem
to have opened a floodgate of pieces using that approach. One idea
that may be useful is to tie intersectionality to the strengths of
experimentation, a relatively new methodology that is beginning
to make some headway in gender studies. A recent Academy of
Management Review article made this connection when the
authors discussed how stereotypes from various ascriptive
categories influenced expectations for and visibility of company
employees. The authors then suggested that experimental
manipulations might give further understanding of how subjects
changed how they interacted with fictional employees as the
category mix for a given persona changed while all other scenario

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
530
variables remained constant (Hall et al 2019). Conceiving and
implementing such experiments in the public sector might be one
way to bring intersectionality into the PA research agenda.
While a concern to relate diversity and performance has
been on the rise, the same optimistic forecast cannot be offered for
second generation bias research with its constructivist
epistemology that allows the research subjects latitude to suggest
which topics will be addressed in a given study. Hale’s (1999)
path breaking article cannot be described as an orphan. One of its
progenitors may be Naff (1994) who used a focus group to help
create questions for her survey. Another of its progenitors in terms
of using multiple focus group research could be King, Feltey, and
Susel’s (1998, p. 318) study of citizen participation where the
authors explained that they wanted “to allow issues we may not
have considered to emerge from the research.” But in participation
research, the King, Feltey, and Susel (1998) approach inspired
other researchers to use multiple focus groups to elucidate how
citizen involvement could aid agency performance (Schachter and
Liu 2005). Hale’s work seems to have few if any methodological
descendants among researchers studying public administration
gender diversity. This deficit may mean that researchers only
investigated a narrow range of hypotheses based on their own
interests rather than also including insights generated by free form
discussion in the field. The research agenda may suffer from
removing the values held by ordinary citizens, a development
Schneider and Ingram (1997) foresaw would happen when
scientists defined the issues and supplied the assumptions for
policy research. As early as 1997, Riccucci noted that agencies’
diversity initiatives centered on legally-mandated programs such
as sexual harassment policies rather than also incorporating other
areas that might be important to women’s needs such as mentoring
initiatives; now we see how research trajectories fostered this
emphasis on the legal approach rather than one based on lived
experiences. Additional emphasis on deriving hypotheses from
focus groups on lived experience might lead to better information
in areas such as mentoring. As Belle and Cantorelli (2017, 336)
noted in another context “it seems always desirable to triangulate
findings using different methodologies.”

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
531
When Gooden (2015) studied PAR’s contribution to
social equity research from 1940-2013, she concluded that the
bulk of the analyses focused on personnel issues and public policy
with little work done on the black box of agency practice.
Although the present study examined the 2014-2018 period which
came after Gooden’s article and focused on gender issues in
ROPPA and PPM as well as PAR, it found the same imbalance
between researching personnel/policy issues and day-to-day
agency life (as well as finding almost no research on
intersectionality or participant-directed research methods—two
areas Gooden did not discuss).
In assessing the study’s findings readers should note the
limitation that the entire analysis relied solely on journal articles.
It may be that the most adventurous forays into second generation
bias research have appeared primarily in scholarly books. Future
studies might examine the tenor of this part of the public
administration literature on gender as well as the extent to which
new research directions in any part of the field are more likely to
appear in journals or books.
CONCLUSIONS
Gender diversity research is an area with theoretical and
practical benefits. While researchers have striven to better
understand the role of diversity in the administrative arena, many
writers have also presented their findings as a spur to help mitigate
inequities. Throughout the 1980 to 2018 period writers reported
progress as one glass ceiling or wall after another crumbled but
concomitantly writers have also noted how many other disparities
still remained. The integrative review presented in this article
suggests that to the extent researchers want to offer information
which decision makers can use to direct change, research agenda
shifts in gender diversity might benefit from scholars having a
broader view of topics and methods necessary to understand
persistent dysfunctional practices. A broader view may be
particularly helpful in explaining why amid improvements of
many kinds stubborn pockets of disparity remain. Attention to
intersectionality and day-to-day agency work life should play a
bigger role in the next decade’s research agenda.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
532
REFERENCES
Acker, Joan. (1990). “HIERARCHIES, JOBS, BODIES:: A
Theory of Gendered Organizations,” Gender & Society
4(2): 139-158.
Alkadry, Mohamed and L. Tower. 2006. “Unequal Pay: The Role
of Gender,” Public Administration Review 66(6): 888-
898.
Altstadt, David. 2010. Building Opportunity: How States Can
Leverage Capital and Infrastructure Investments to Put
Working Families on a Path to Good Jobs. Washington
DC: Working Poor Families Project.
Andrews, Rhys and Rachel Ashworth. 2015. “Representation and
Inclusion in Public Organizations: Evidence from the U.
K. Civil Service,” Public Administration Review 75(2):
279-288.
Antonova, Victoria. 2002. “Women in Public Service in the
Russian Federation: Equal Capability and Unequal
Opportunity,” Review of Public Personnel Administration
22(3): 216-232.
Baker, Bud, Ann Wendt, and William Slonaker. 2002. “An
Analysis of Gender Equity in the Federal Labor Relations
Career Field,” Public Personnel Management 31(4): 559-
567.
Bearfield, Dominic. 2009. “Equity at the Intersection: Public
Administration and the Study of Gender,” Public
Administration Review 69(3): 383-386.
Bearfield, Dominic. 2013. “It’s Been a Long Time Comin’: An
Examination of Public Personnel Research in PAR and
ROPPA in Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 34(1): 59-74.
Belle, Nicola and Paola Cantorelli. 2017. “What Causes Unethical
Behavior? A Meta-Analysis to Set an Agenda for Public
Administration Research,” Public Administration Review
77(3): 327-339.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
533
Bellone, Carl and Douglas Darling. 1980. “Implementing
Affirmative Action Programs: Problems and Strategies,”
Public Personnel Management 9(3): 184-191.
Bocher, Rita. 1982. “Does Tradition Affect Affirmative Action
Results?” Public Administration Review 42(5): 475-478.
Bowling, Cynthia et al. 2006. “Cracked Ceilings, Firmer Floors,
and Weakening Walls: Trends and Patterns in Gender
Representation among Executives Leading American
State Agencies, 1970-2000,” Public Administration
Review 66(6): 823-836.
Box, Richard. 1992. “An Examination of the Debate over
Research in Public Administration,” Public
Administration Review 52(1): 62-69.
Bremer, Kamala and Deborah Howe. 1988. “Strategies Used to
Advance Women’s Careers in the Public Service:
Examples from Oregon,” Public Administration Review
48(6): 957-961.
Breslin, Rachel, Sheela Pandey, and Norma Riccucci. 2017.
“Intersectionality in Public Leadership Research: A
Review and Future Research Agenda,” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 37(2): 160-182
Brown, Marsha. 1981. “Getting and Keeping Women in
Nontraditional Careers,” Public Personnel Management
10(4): 408-411.
Bullard, Angela and Deil Wright. 1993. “Circumventing the Glass
Ceiling: Women Executives in American State
Governments,” Public Administration Review 53(3): 189-
202.
Campbell, James and Gregory Lewis. 1986. “Public Support for
Comparable Worth in Georgia,” Public Administration
Review 46(5): 432-437.
Cayer, Joseph and Lee Sigelman. 1980. “Minorities and Women
in State and Local Government, 1973-1975,” Public
Administration Review 40(5):443-450.
Chen, Huajao and Qing Chen. 2012. “The Mechanism of Gender
Difference and Representation Role in Negotiation,”
Public Personnel Management 41(5): 91-103.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
534
Choi, Heasun, Sounman Hong, and Jung Wook Lee. 2018. “Does
Increasing Gender Representativeness and Diversity
Improve Organizational Integrity?” Public Personnel
Management 47(1): 73-92
Choi, Sungjoo. 2010. “Diversity in the U. S. Federal Government:
Antecedents and Correlates of Diversity in Federal
Agencies,” Review of Public Personnel Administration
30(3): 301-321.
Choi, Sungjoo. 2011. “Diversity and Representation in the U. S.
Federal Government: Analysis of the Trends of Federal
Employment,” Public Personnel Management 40(1): 20-
46.
Choi, Sungjoo and Hal Rainey. 2010. “Managing Diversity in U.
S. Federal Agencies: Effects of Diversity and Diversity
Management on Employee Perceptions of Organizational
Performance,” Public Administration Review 70 (1): 109-
121.
Clynch, Edward and Carol Gaudin. 1982. “Sex in the Shipyards:
An Assessment of Affirmative Action Policy,” Public
Administration Review 42(2): 114-121.
Connell, Raewyn. 2006. “Glass Ceilings or Gendered Institutions:
Mapping the Gender Regimes of Public Sector
Worksites,” Public Administration Review 66(6): 837-
849.
Cornwell, Christopher and J. Edward Kellough. 1994. “Women
and Minorities in Federal Government Agencies:
Examining New Evidence from Panel Data,” Public
Administration Review 54(3): 265-270.
Crumpacker, Martha and Jill Crumpacker. 2007. “The U. S.
Supreme Court Clarifies Constructive Discharge under
Title VII: Responsibilities and Opportunities for Human
Resources Practitioners,” Public Personnel Management
36(1): 1-19.
Davis, Charles and Jonathan West. 1984. “Implementing Public
Programs: Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative
Action, and Administrative Policy Options,” Review of
Public Personnel Administration 4(3): 16-30.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
535
DeHart-Davis, Leisha, Justin Marlowe, and Sanjay Pandey. 2006.
“Gender Dimensions of Public Sector Motivation,”
Public Administration Review 66(6): 873-887.
Doherty, Mary and Ann Harriman. 1981. “Comparable Worth the
Equal Employment Issue of the 1980s,” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 1(3): 11-31.
Dolan, Julie. 2004. “Gender Equity: Illusion or Reality for
Women in the Federal Executive Service?” Public
Administration Review 64(3): 299-308.
Dometrius, Nelson and Lee Sigelman. 1984. “Assessing Progress
Toward Affirmative Action Goals in States and Local
Government: A New Benchmark,” Public Administration
Review 44(3): 241-246.
Eyde, Lorraine. 1983. “Evaluating Job Evaluation: Emerging
Research Issues for Comparable Worth Analysis,” Public
Personnel Management 12(4): 425-444.
Fernandez, Sergio, Deanna Malatesta, and Craig Smith. 2013.
“Race, Gender, and Government Contracting: Different
Explanations or New Prospects for Theory?” Public
Administration Review 73(1): 109-120.
Gilbert, Jacqueline. 2005. “Sexual Harassment and Demographic
Diversity: Implications for Organizational Punishment,”
Public Personnel Management 34(2): 161-174.
Gooden, Susan. 2015. “PAR’s Social Equity Footprint,” Public
Administration Review 75(3): 372-381.
Gooden, Susan. 2017. “Frances Harriet Williams: Unsung Social
Equity Pioneer,” Public Administration Review 77(5):
777-783.
Groenveld, Sandra. 2008. “Dual Careers and Diplomacy: The
Willingness of Dual-Career Couples to Accept an
International Assignment Within the Dutch Foreign
Service,” Review of Public Personnel Administration
28(1): 20-43.
Grohs, Stephan, Christian Adam, and Christoph Knill. 2016. “Are
Some Citizens More Equal than Others? Evidence from a
Field Experiment, “ Public Administration Review 76(1):
155-164.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
536
Guul, Thorbjorn. 2018. “The Individual-Level Effect of Gender
Matching in Representative Bureaucracy,” Public
Administration Review 78(3): 398-408.
Guy, Mary Ellen. 1993. “Three Steps Forward, Two Steps
Backward: The Status of Women’s Integration into Public
Management,” Public Administration Review, 53(4): 285-
292.
Guy, Mary Ellen. 2000. “The Amazing Miss Burchfield,” Public
Administration Review 60(1): 6-19.
Guy, Mary Ellen and Vanessa Fenley. 2014. “Inch by Inch:
Gender Equity since the Civil Rights Act of 1964,”
Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(1): 40-58.
Guy, Mary Ellen and Meredith Newman. 2004. “Women’s Jobs,
Men’s Jobs: Sex Segregation and Emotional Labor,”
Public Administration Review 64(3): 289-298.
Hale, Mary. 1996. “Gender Equality in Organizations: Resolving
the Dilemmas,” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 16(1): 7-18.
Hale, Mary. 1999. “He Says, She Says: Gender and Worklife,”
Public Administration Review 59(5), 410-424.
Hall, Erika et al. 2019. “MOSAIC: A Model of Stereotyping
Through Associated and Intersectional Categories,”
Academy of Management Review 44(3): 643-672.
Hankivsky, Olga. 2014. “Rethinking Care Ethics: On the Promise
and Potential of an Intersectional Analysis,” American
Political Science Review 108(2): 252-264.
Hsieh, Chi-Wei and Elizabeth Winslow. 2006. “Gender
Representation in the Federal Workforce: A Comparison
Among Groups,” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 26(3): 276-295.
Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Hopkins, Anne. 1980. “Perceptions of Employment
Discrimination in Race, Gender, and Age,” Public
Administration Review 40(2): 131-137.
Houston, David and Sybil Delevan. 1990. “The State of Public
Personnel Research,” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 10(1-2):97-111.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
537
Huckle, Patricia. 1985. “Whatever Happened to Affirmative
Action? Employment of Women in the Los Angeles City
Department of Water and Power, 1973-1983,” Review of
Public Personnel Administration 6(1): 44-58.
Jackson, Robert and Meredith Newman. 2004. “Sexual
Harassment in the Federal Workplace Revisited:
Influences on Sexual Harassment by Gender,” Public
Administration Review 64(6): 705-717.
Johnson, Bonnie and Belinda Crum-Cano. 2011. “Glass Walls in
Urban Planning: An Examination of Policy Type and
Gender Segregation Within a Profession,” Review of
Public Personnel Administration 31(4): 386-409.
Jones, Rachel Dunkley and Elizabeth Kelan. 2010. “Gender and
the MBA,” Academy of Management Learning and
Education 9(1): 26-43.
Jung, Kwangho, M. Jae Moon, and Sung Deuk Hahm. 2007. “Do
Age, Gender, and Sector Affect Job Satisfaction?” Review
of Public Personnel Administration 27(2): 125-146.
Kellough, J. Edward. 1990. “Integration in the Public Workplace:
Determinants of Minority and Female Hiring in Federal
Agencies, “ Public Administration Review 50(5): 557-
566.
Kelly, Rita Mae et al. 1991, “Public Managers in the States: A
Comparison of Career Advancement by Sex,” Public
Administration Review 51(5): 402-412.
Kerr, Brinck, Will Miller, and Margaret Reid. 2002. “Sex-Based
Occupational Segregation in U. S. State Bureaucracies,
1987-97,” Public Administration Review 62(4): 412-423.
Kim, Chon-Kyun. 2003. “Representation and Policy Outputs:
Examining the Linkage between Passive and Active
Representation,” Public Personnel Management 32(4):
549-559.
Kim, Chon-Kyun. 2004. “Women and Minorities in State
Government Agencies,” Public Personnel Management
33(2): 165-180.
King, Cheryl Simrell, Kathryn Feltey, and Bridget O’Neill Susel.
1998. “The Question of Participation: Towards Authentic
Public Participation in Public Administration,” Public
Administration Review 58(3): 317-327.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
538
Krzystofiak, Frank and Jerry Newman. 1980. “Revisiting Equal
Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government:
The Case of the EEOC,” Public Personnel Management
9(4): 312-317.
Kunz, Karen and Lisa DeFrank-Cole. 2015). “Helen Holt: A
Centenarian’s Reflections on a Lifetime of Public
Service,” Public Administration Review 75(6): 880-888.
Lee, Robert Jr. and Paul Greenlaw. 1995. “The Legal Evolution
of Sexual Harassment,” Public Administration Review
55(4): 357-364.
Lee, Robert Jr. and Paul Greenlaw. 1996. “The Complexities of
Human Behavior: Recent Instances of Alleged Quid Pro
Quo Sexual Harassment.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 16(3): 15-28.
Lee, Robert, Jr. and Paul Greenlaw. 2000. “Employer Liability for
Employee Sexual Harassment: A Judicial Policy-Making
Study,” Public Administration Review 60(2): 123-133.
Lee, Yong. 1989. “Shaping Judicial Response to Gender
Discrimination in Employment Compensation,” Public
Administration Review 49(5): 420-430.
Lewis, Gregory. 1986. “Race, Sex, and Supervisory Authority in
Federal White-Collar Employment,” Public
Administration Review 46(1): 25-30.
Lewis, Gregory. 1987. “Changing Patterns of Sexual
Discrimination in Federal Employment,” Review of
Public Personnel Administration 7(2), 1-13.
Lewis, Gregory. 1988. “Progress Toward Racial and Sexual
Equality in the Federal Civil Service,” Public
Administration Review 48(3):700-707.
Lewis, Gregory. 1992. “Men and Women toward the Top:
Background, Careers, and Potential of Federal Middle
Managers,” Public Personnel Management 21(4): 473-
492.
Lewis, Gregory. 1994. “Women, Occupations, and Federal
Agencies: Occupational Mix and Interagency Differences
in Sexual Inequality in Federal While-Collar
Employment,” Public Administration Review 54(3): 271-
275.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
539
Lewis, Gregory. 1997. “Race, Sex, and Performance Ratings in
the Federal Service,” Public Administration Review
57(6): 479-489.
Mani, Bonnie. 2004. “The Employer’s Advantage in Sexual
Harassment Cases: How the Courts Have Discouraged the
Victims of Sexual Harassment,” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 24(1): 41-69.
Mani, Bonnie. 1997. “Gender and Federal Senior Executive
Service: Where is the Glass Ceiling?” Public Personnel
Management 26(4): 545-558.
Marvel, John. 2015. “Gender Congruence and Work Effort in
Manager-Employee Relationships,” Public
Administration Review 75(3): 455-468.
McGuire, John. 2012. “Gender and the Personal Shaping of Public
Administration in the United States: Mary Anderson and
the Women’s Bureau, 1920-1930,” Public Administration
Review 72(2): 265-271.
Meier, Kenneth, Sharon Mastracci, and Kristen Wilson. 2006.
“Gender and Emotional Labor in Public Organizations:
An Empirical Examination of the Link to Performance,”
Public Administration Review 66(6): 899-909.
Meier, Kenneth and Jill Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. “Gender,
Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The
Case of Sexual Assault,” Public Administration Review
66(6): 850-860.
Meir, Kenneth, Michael Pennington, and Warren Eller. 2005.
“Race, Sex, and Clarence Thomas: Representation
Change in the EEOC,” Public Administration Review
65(2): 171-179.
Meier, Kenneth and Vicky Wilkins. 2002, “Gender Differences in
Agency Head Salaries: The Case of Public Education,”
Public Administration Review 62(4): 405-411.
Miller, Will, Brinck Kerr, and Margaret Reid. 1999. “A National
Study of Gender-Based Occupational Segregation in
Municipal Bureaucracies: Persistence of Glass Walls,”
Public Administration Review 59(3): 218-230.
Moore, Mary and Yohannan Abraham. 1992. “Comparable
Worth: Is It a Moot Issue?” Public Personnel
Management 21(4): 455-472.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
540
Naff, Katherine. 1994. “Through the Glass Ceiling: Prospects for
the Advancement of Women in the Federal Civil
Service,” Public Administration Review 54(6): 507-514.
Neuse, Steven. 1980. “Diversity in the Public Service:
Professional Personnel in State Employment,” Review of
Public Personnel Administration 1(1): 29-43.
Newman, Meredith. 1994. “Gender and Lowi’s Thesis:
Implications for Career Advancement,” Public
Administration Review 54(3): 277-284.
Newman, Meredith, Robert Jackson, and Douglas Baker. 2003.
“Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace,” Public
Administration Review 63(4): 472-483.
Nigro, Lloyd and William Richardson. 1990. “Between Citizen
and Administrator: Administrative Ethics and PAR,”
Public Administration Review 50(6): 623-636.
Oh, Seong Soo and Jungbu Kim. 2015. “Science and Engineering
Majors in the Federal Service: Lessons for Eliminating
Sexual and Racial Inequality,” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 35(1): 24-46.
Outshoorn, Joyce. 2002. “Gendering the “Graying” of Society: A
Discourse Analysis of the Care Gap,” Public
Administration Review 62(2): 185-196.
Opstrup, Niels and Anders Villadsen. 2015. “The Right Mix?
Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams and
Financial Performance,” Public Administration Review
75(2): 291-301.
Pecorella, Robert. 1988. “Remediation and Equity: A Case Study
of Gender Integration,” Public Personnel Management
17(1): 73-81.
Perry, James and Kenneth Kraemer. 1986. “Research
Methodology in the Public Administration Review, 1975-
1984,” Public Administration Review 46(3): 215-226.
Peterson, Donald and Harvey Bollar. 2003. “A Legal Analysis of
Breast-Feeding Accommodation Requirements in the
Workplace,” Public Personnel Management 32(3): 383-
395.
Pitts, David. 2006. “Modeling the Impact of Diversity
Management,” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 26(3): 245-268.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
541
Portillo, Shannon and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2009. “Gender and
Organizational Rule Abidance,” Public Administration
Review 69(2): 339-347.
Rabovsky, Thomas and Hongseok Lee. 2018. “Exploring the
Antecedents of the Gender Pay Gap in U.S. Higher
Education,” Public Administration Review 78(3): 375-
385.
Radin, Beryl. 1980. “Leadership Training for Women in State and
Local Government,” Public Personnel Management 9(2):
52-60.
Reed, Christine. 1988. “Anti-Nepotism Rules and Dual Career
Couples: Policy Questions for Public Personnel
Administrators,” Public Personnel Management 17(2):
223-230.
Reese, Laura and Karen Lindenberg. 2005. “Gender, Age, and
Sexual Harassment,” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 25(4): 325-352.
Rehfuss, John. 1986. “A Representative Bureaucracy? Women
and Minority Executives in California Career Service,”
Public Administration Review, 46(5): 454-460.
Riccucci, Norma. 1997. “Cultural Diversity Programs to Prepare
for Work Force 2000: What’s Gone Wrong?” Public
Personnel Management 26(1): 35-41.
Riccucci, Norma. 2009. “The Pursuit of Social Equity in the
Federal Government: A Road Less Traveled,” Public
Administration Review 69(3): 373-382.
Riccucci, Norma and Greg Van Ryzin. 2017. “Representative
Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity,
Coproduction, and Democracy,” Public Administration
Review 77(1): 21-30.
Riccucci, Norma, Greg Van Ryzin, and Huafang Li. 2016.
“Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to
Coproduce: An Experimental Study,” Public
Administration Review 76(1): 121-130.
Roberts, Robert. 1981. “’Last Hired, First Fired’ and Public
Employee Layoffs: The Equal Employment Opportunity
Dilemma,” Review of Public Personnel Administration
2(1): 29-48.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
542
Rosenbloom, David with the assistance of Deborah Goldman.
1989. Public Administration: Understanding
Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector, 2nd
ed. New York: Random House.
Ross, Cynthia and Robert England. 1987. “State Governments’
Sexual Harassment Policy Initiatives,” Public
Administration Review 47(3): 259-262.
Rubin, Marilyn. 1990. “Women in ASPA: The Fifty-Year Climb
Toward Equality,” Public Administration Review 50(2):
277-287.
Rubin, Marilyn. 2000. “Women in the American Society of Public
Administration: Another Decade of Progress but Still a
Way to Go,” Public Administration Review 60(1): 61-71.
Rubin, Marilyn Marks and John Bartle. 2005. “Integrating Gender
into Government Budgets: A New Perspective,” Public
Administration Review 65(3): 259-273.
Rusaw, A. Carol. 1994. “Mobility for Federal Women Managers:
Is Training Enough?” Public Personnel Management
23(2): 257-262.
Rusaw, A. Carol. 1996. “Achieving Credibility: An Analysis of
Women’s Experience,” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 16(1): 19-30.
Schachter, Hindy Lauer. 1983. “Retroactive Seniority and Agency
Retrenchment,” Public Administration Review 43(1): 77-
81.
Schachter, Hindy Lauer. 2008. “Lillian Borrone: Weaving a Web
to Revitalize Port Commerce in New York and New
Jersey,” Public Administration Review 68(1): 61-68.
Schachter, Hindy Lauer. 2017. “Women in Public Administration:
Giving Gender a Place in Education for Leadership,”
Administration and Society 49(1): 143-158.
Schachter, Hindy Lauer and Rachel (Rongfang) Liu (2005).
“Policy Development and New Immigrant Communities:
A Case of Citizen Input in Defining Transit Problems,”
Public Administration Review 65(5): 614-623.
Schneider, Anne Larason and Helen Ingram 1997. Policy Design
for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas
Press.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
!
543
Scott, James and Elizabeth Rexford. 1997. “Finding a Place for
Women in the World of Diplomacy: Evidence of Progress
Toward Gender Equity and Speculation on Policy
Outcomes,” Review of Public Personnel Administration
17(2): 31-56.
Shaul, Marnie. 1982. “The Status of Women in Local
Governments: An International Assessment,” Public
Administration Review 52(6):
Slack, James. 1987. “Affirmative Action and City Managers:
Attitudes Towards Recruitment of Women,” Public
Administration Review 47(2): 199-206.
Slack, James et al. 1996. “Women, Research, and Mentorship in
Public Administration,” Public Administration Review
56(5): 453-458.
Sneed, Bethany. 2007. “Glass Walls in State Bureaucracies:
Examining the Difference Departmental Functions Can
Make,” Public Administration Review 67(5): 880-891.
Spann, Jeri. 1990. “Dealing Effectively with Sexual Harassment:
Some Practical Lessons,” Public Personnel Management
19(1): 53-70.
Soni, Vidu. 2000. “A Twenty-First-Century Reception for
Diversity in the Public Sector: A Case Study,” Public
Administration Review 60(5): 395-408.
Steel, Brent and Nicholas Lovrich. 1987. “Comparable Worth:
The Problematic Politicization of a Public Personnel
Issue,” Public Personnel Management 16(1): 23-36.
Stivers, Camilla. 2002. Gender Images in Public Administration:
Legitimacy and the Administrative State, 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strickland, Ruth. 1995. “Sexual Harassment: A Legal Perspective
for Public Administrators,” Public Personnel
Management 24(4): 493-513.
Templer, Andrew and James Tolliver. 1983. “Affirmative
Action—Making It Effective in the Public Sector,” Public
Personnel Management 12(1): 211-217.
Thompson, Jeffrey and Robert Christensen. 2018. “Bridging the
Public Service Motivation and Calling Literatures,”
Public Administration Review 78(3):444-457.

PAQ WINTER 2020
!
544
Tompkins, Jonathan. 1987. “Comparable Worth and Job
Evaluation Validity,” Public Administration Review
47(3): 254-258.
Tompkins, Jonathan, Joyce Brown, and John McEwen. 1990.
“Designing a Comparable Worth Based Job Evaluation
System,” Public Personnel Management 19(1): 31-42.
Vertz, Laura. 1985. “Women, Occupational Advancement, and
Mentoring,” Public Administration Review 45(3): 415-
423.
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2012. “Putting Inequality in its Place:
Rural Consciousness and the Power of Perspective,”
American Political Science Review 106(3): 517-532.
Watson, Douglas and Robert Mountjoy. 1991. “Research on Local
Government in Public Administration Review,” Public
Administration Review 51(2): 166-171.
Willoughby, Katherine. 1991. “Gender Based Wage Gap: The
Case of the State Government Budget Analyst,” Review
of Public Personnel Administration 12(1): 33-46.
Wise, Charles. 2002. “Setting the Boundaries for Public Employer
Liability for Sexual Harassment,” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 22(4): 320-325.
Wise, Lois Recascino and Mary Tschirhart. 2000. “Examining
Empirical Evidence on Diversity Effects: How Useful Is
Diversity Research for Public-Sector Managers?” Public
Administration Review 60(5): 386-394.
Witt, Stephanie and Earl Smith. 1995. “The Experience of African
American Women in the Academic Workplace: Doubly
Disadvantaged or Meeting the Challenge of Greater
Opportunity,” Review of Public Personnel Administration
15(1): 24-40.
Worrall, Lisa et al. 2010. “Barriers to Women in the UK
Construction Industry,” Engineering Construction and
Architectural Management 17(3): 268-281.