Survey Research for Public Administrators
Survey Research for Public Administrators
复制标题
公共行政人员调查研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1979
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Klobus
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Daneke;P. Klobus
近年来，人们越来越意识到行政政策的制定和随后的绩效评估不能仅仅依赖于经济分析（例如成本效益评估）。这种认识产生了广泛的社会评估，并以各种标签出现，包括：评估研究、社会影响分析和生活质量账户。在这些社会评估的背景下，人们越来越重视主观指标（例如公民偏好）和客观指标（例如身体特征）。正如马克·施奈德（Mark Schneider）所言，在评估总体生活质量时，主观衡量标准可能比客观衡量标准更重要。1 虽然特定政策或服务行业的物理维度可以通过各种经验手段来衡量，但主观衡量通常需要与广大公众进行某种形式的直接接触。这种联系可能涉及公开听证会、研讨会和/或政策德尔菲技术；然而，最直接且可能最具代表性的主观评估手段是调查研究。托马斯·赫伯莱因解释说：
In recent years there has been a growing awareness that administrative policy formulations and subsequent performance evaluations cannot rely solely upon economic analysis (e.g., cost-benefit assessments). This realization has produced a broad range of social assessments, emerging under a variety of labels including: evaluation research, social impact analysis, and qualityof-life accounts. Within the context of these social assessments, there is an increased emphasis on subjective indices (e.g., citizen preferences) as well as objective indices (e.g., physical characteristics). As Mark Schneider suggests, subjective measures may be more important than objective measures when assessing the general quality of life.1 While the physical dimensions of a given policy or service industry can be measured through a variety of empirical devices, subjective measurement normally entails some sort of direct contact with the public at large. This contact might involve public hearings, workshops, and/or policy delphi techniques; however, the most direct and potentially the most representative device for subjective assessment is survey research. Thomas Heberlein explains: