Talk:Gender in public administration

Article Evaluation: due 09/18/15

Last semester in Dr. Hanks's Introduction to Public Administration course, my group members and I worked very hard on creating this article and getting it published to Wikipedia. I'm proud of the work we did, and recognize that there is much room for improvement. To begin, we have a very prominent warning banner signaling to the reader that our article is an orphan (meaning no other existing articles link to it), and that we wrote it as more of an opinion piece rather than from a neutral point of view. The perfect article according to Wikipedia is one that is completely neutral, not an orphan, and well-written (among several other criteria.) I will focus on tackling the article's lack of neutrality. I think a major problem with this article is that we focused too much on gender theory and the socialization process to explain why there is a gender disparity in public administration, rather than conveying the hard, neutral facts. I'm realizing now that so much of this article is opinion and doesn't really deal with gender in public administration. Rather, it deals with gender theory in relation to society at large and how society's treatment of gender influences public administration. Furthermore, we argued for a specific point of view throughout the article rather than simply conveying the research of experts. For example, under the heading "Benefits of Gender Diversity in Public Administration," we cited an author who feels that gender diversity is crucial and agreed with her rather than remaining neutral. There is a lack of sources that argue the opposite point of view, and we didn't include them because we didn't agree. In order to maintain neutrality, it is necessary for us to not take sides; instead, we must simply relay information. H.k.d.29 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

I believe the above fixes, mentioned in the evaluation, would be really beneficial to the article as a whole, I also think that in some sections more citations could be added to be clearer for the reader to understand where the information is coming from. Mkbarnwell (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)