ϕ{symbol}α'σμα Phasma

Phasma

Mark EVANS, Meredith EDWARDS

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 514–516doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12102DEBATEφ ́ασμαPhasma1Mark Evans and Meredith EdwardsInstitute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of CanberraI do not resent criticism, even when, for the sakeof emphasis, it parts for the time with reality(Winston Churchill, Speech, House of Com-mons, 22 January 1941 reported in Hansard).This is an extremely interesting reviewwhich makes several important insightsinto the academic literature on women andleadership. It develops a five pronged critiqueand in the process maps out the constituentelements of a potentially important futurecontribution to academic debate. Dr Colleytakes issue with: the absence of theoreticalframing of the research; our limited reflectionon the existing Australian and internationalacademic literature and over-reliance on thegrey literature; she challenges the method-ological rigour of our empirical work on thebasis of the typology used for categorising thesample of departments engaged in the research(despite recognizing that the ‘strength of thepaper is the breadth of the primary data’);and, argues that the prescriptive section of thearticle wasn’t drawn with sufficient detail orradicalism. Dr Colley then provides advice onhow we should have gone about conductingthe research. While we urge Dr Colley to writethis article, it is not the one that we set out towrite in this journal. Let us deal with each ofthe core criticisms in turn under the headingstheorisation, typology and prescription.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)514-516
Number of pages3
JournalAustralian Journal of Public Administration
Volume73
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2014

Fingerprint

symbol
typology
criticism
public administration
medication
governance
literature
time

Cite this

EVANS, Mark ; EDWARDS, Meredith. / ϕ{symbol}α'σμα Phasma : Phasma. In: Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2014 ; Vol. 73, No. 4. pp. 514-516.
@article{62a1dc3600a54c48afa41749c1c3e28c,
title = "ϕ{symbol}α'σμα Phasma: Phasma",
abstract = "Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 514–516doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12102DEBATEφ ́ασμαPhasma1Mark Evans and Meredith EdwardsInstitute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of CanberraI do not resent criticism, even when, for the sakeof emphasis, it parts for the time with reality(Winston Churchill, Speech, House of Com-mons, 22 January 1941 reported in Hansard).This is an extremely interesting reviewwhich makes several important insightsinto the academic literature on women andleadership. It develops a five pronged critiqueand in the process maps out the constituentelements of a potentially important futurecontribution to academic debate. Dr Colleytakes issue with: the absence of theoreticalframing of the research; our limited reflectionon the existing Australian and internationalacademic literature and over-reliance on thegrey literature; she challenges the method-ological rigour of our empirical work on thebasis of the typology used for categorising thesample of departments engaged in the research(despite recognizing that the ‘strength of thepaper is the breadth of the primary data’);and, argues that the prescriptive section of thearticle wasn’t drawn with sufficient detail orradicalism. Dr Colley then provides advice onhow we should have gone about conductingthe research. While we urge Dr Colley to writethis article, it is not the one that we set out towrite in this journal. Let us deal with each ofthe core criticisms in turn under the headingstheorisation, typology and prescription.",
author = "Mark EVANS and Meredith EDWARDS",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/1467-8500.12102",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "514--516",
journal = "Australian Journal of Public Administration",
issn = "0313-6647",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

ϕ{symbol}α'σμα Phasma : Phasma. / EVANS, Mark; EDWARDS, Meredith.

In: Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 73, No. 4, 12.2014, p. 514-516.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - ϕ{symbol}α'σμα Phasma

T2 - Phasma

AU - EVANS, Mark

AU - EDWARDS, Meredith

PY - 2014/12

Y1 - 2014/12

N2 - Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 514–516doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12102DEBATEφ ́ασμαPhasma1Mark Evans and Meredith EdwardsInstitute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of CanberraI do not resent criticism, even when, for the sakeof emphasis, it parts for the time with reality(Winston Churchill, Speech, House of Com-mons, 22 January 1941 reported in Hansard).This is an extremely interesting reviewwhich makes several important insightsinto the academic literature on women andleadership. It develops a five pronged critiqueand in the process maps out the constituentelements of a potentially important futurecontribution to academic debate. Dr Colleytakes issue with: the absence of theoreticalframing of the research; our limited reflectionon the existing Australian and internationalacademic literature and over-reliance on thegrey literature; she challenges the method-ological rigour of our empirical work on thebasis of the typology used for categorising thesample of departments engaged in the research(despite recognizing that the ‘strength of thepaper is the breadth of the primary data’);and, argues that the prescriptive section of thearticle wasn’t drawn with sufficient detail orradicalism. Dr Colley then provides advice onhow we should have gone about conductingthe research. While we urge Dr Colley to writethis article, it is not the one that we set out towrite in this journal. Let us deal with each ofthe core criticisms in turn under the headingstheorisation, typology and prescription.

AB - Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 514–516doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12102DEBATEφ ́ασμαPhasma1Mark Evans and Meredith EdwardsInstitute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of CanberraI do not resent criticism, even when, for the sakeof emphasis, it parts for the time with reality(Winston Churchill, Speech, House of Com-mons, 22 January 1941 reported in Hansard).This is an extremely interesting reviewwhich makes several important insightsinto the academic literature on women andleadership. It develops a five pronged critiqueand in the process maps out the constituentelements of a potentially important futurecontribution to academic debate. Dr Colleytakes issue with: the absence of theoreticalframing of the research; our limited reflectionon the existing Australian and internationalacademic literature and over-reliance on thegrey literature; she challenges the method-ological rigour of our empirical work on thebasis of the typology used for categorising thesample of departments engaged in the research(despite recognizing that the ‘strength of thepaper is the breadth of the primary data’);and, argues that the prescriptive section of thearticle wasn’t drawn with sufficient detail orradicalism. Dr Colley then provides advice onhow we should have gone about conductingthe research. While we urge Dr Colley to writethis article, it is not the one that we set out towrite in this journal. Let us deal with each ofthe core criticisms in turn under the headingstheorisation, typology and prescription.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920556010&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/%CF%95%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1-phasma

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/%CF%95symbol%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1-phasma

U2 - 10.1111/1467-8500.12102

DO - 10.1111/1467-8500.12102

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 73

SP - 514

EP - 516

JO - Australian Journal of Public Administration

JF - Australian Journal of Public Administration

SN - 0313-6647

IS - 4

ER -