{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011504424778761062, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6923076923076925, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
INNOVATION, SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: Some methodological reflections

The critics of best practice research argue that it is based on selective reporting, does not ask whether innovations are sustainable and does not compare excellent organizations to those that are failing. This article attempts to defend best practice research from these criticisms as well as provide suggestions for future best practice research. The best applications to innovations awards are shown to be representative samples of innovative activity and sustainable. A number of examples of practitioner studies of best practice and academic or auditor studies of organizational failure are provided. The article concludes with suggestions as to how to integrate studies of success and failure, such as case studies of turnarounds and more quantitative studies intended to explain differences in performance among organizations (for example, league tables). The conclusion reached is that the criticisms of best practice research have become less relevant as best practice research has become methodologically more sophisticated.