What is worth reasserting from the tradition begun by Refounding Public Administration? In this time of reboots and remixes in pop-culture, it may seem trite to suggest reevaluating an established scholarly paradigm. But, in the continued absence of a strong theory of Public Administration and the emergence of new challenges to administrative practice, it is worth revisiting the key concepts of the Refounding tradition to show how this successful normative theory might help solve key problems in contemporary public administration, such as incorporation of algorithmic decision making into public agencies.
Baeza-YatesR. (2016). Data and algorithmic bias in the web. In NedjlW.HallW.PargiP.StaabS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Conference on Web Science (pp. 1-6). Hannover, Germany: Association for Computing Machinery.
2.
BallT.FarrJ.HansonR. L. (Eds.). (1989). Political innovation and conceptual change (Vol. 11). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BarthT. J. (1996). The facilitative role for public administrators. Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges (p. 168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BenzU. C.HofmannP.WillhauckG.LingenfelderI.HeynenM. (2004). Multi-resolution, object-oriented fuzzy analysis of remote sensing data for GIS-ready information. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 58, 239-258.
5.
BoskC. L. (2003). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
BoydD.CrawfordK. (2012). Critical questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 662-679.
7.
BozdagE. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology, 15, 209-227.
8.
CateF. H.Mayer-SchönbergerV. (2013). Notice and consent in a world of Big Data. International Data Privacy Law, 3, 67-73.
9.
ChughD.BazermanM. H.BanajiM. R. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In MooreD. A.CainD. M.LoewensteinG.BazermanM. H. (Eds.), Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 74-95). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CookB. J. (2014). Bureaucracy & self-government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.
CoppedgeM. (1999). Thickening thin concepts and theories: Combining large N and small in comparative politics. Comparative Politics, 31, 465-476.
12.
DallmayrF. R. (1996). Beyond orientalism: Essays on cross-cultural encounter. New York: State University of New York Press.
13.
DavenportT. H. (2014). Big Data at work: Dispelling the myths, uncovering the opportunities. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
14.
DavenportT. H.BarthP.BeanR. (2012). How big data is different. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(1), 43-46.
15.
DavisG. F.MarquisC. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4), 332-343.
16.
DennardL. (1996). The maturation of public administration. Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges (pp. 293-326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DruckerP. F. (1995). People and performance: The best of Peter Drucker on management. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
EisenhardtK. M.BourgeoisL. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737-770.
19.
FredericksonH. G. (1980). New public administration. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
20.
FredericksonH. G. (1989). Minnowbrook II: Changing epochs of public administration. Public Administration Review, 49(2), 95-100.
21.
GallieW. (1955). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, new series, 167-198.
22.
GoodenS.JonesD.MartinK. J.BoydM. (2009). Social equity in local emergency management planning. State and Local Government Review, 41, 1-12.
23.
GoodenS.PortilloS. (2011). Advancing social equity in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 1), i61-i76.
24.
GoodsellC. T. (1977). Bureaucratic manipulation of physical symbols: An empirical study. American Journal of Political Science, 21, 79-91.
25.
GoodsellC. T. (1981a). Looking once again at human service bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics, 43, 763-778.
26.
GoodsellC. T. (Ed.). (1981b). The public encounter: Where state and citizen meet. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
27.
GoodsellC. T. (1988). The social meaning of civic space: Studying political authority through architecture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
28.
GoodsellC. T. (1990). Public administration and the public interest. In WamsleyG. L.et al (Eds.), Refounding public administration (pp. 96-113). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
GoodsellC. T. (2003). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
30.
GoodsellC. T. (2006). A new vision for public administration. Public Administration Review, 66, 623-635.
31.
GoodsellC. T. (2014). The new case for bureaucracy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
32.
GreenR. T.WamsleyG. L.KellerL. F. (1993). Reconstituting a profession for American public administration. Public Administration Review, 53, 516-524.
33.
GreenwoodD.StopczynskiA.SweattB.HardjonoT.PentlandA.LaneJ.NissenbaumH. (2014). The new deal on data: A framework for institutional controls. Privacy, Big Data, and the public good: Frameworks for engagement (pp. 192-210). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
GuyattG. H.OxmanA. D.VistG. E.KunzR.Falck-YtterY.Alonso-CoelloP.SchünemannH. J. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal, 336, 924-926.
35.
HabermasJ. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411-426.
36.
HajianS.BonchiF.CastilloC. (2016, August). Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to fairness-aware data mining. In KrishapuramB.ShahM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 2125-2126). San Francisco, CA: Association for Computing Machinery.
37.
HarmonM. M. (1971). Normative theory and public administration: Some suggestions for a redefinition of administrative responsibility. In MariniF. (Ed.), Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 172-185). Scranton, PA: Chandler Publications Company.
38.
HasnasJ. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 19-42.
39.
IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. (2015). Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems, (EADv1). Retrieved from http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/autonomous_systems.html
40.
IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. (2017). Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems, (EADv2). Available from https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/
41.
JewellC. J.BeroL. A. (2008). “Developing good taste in evidence”: Facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. The Milbank Quarterly, 86, 177-208.
42.
JordanS. R.IpE. C. Y. (2013). Demystifying the Hermit Kingdom: The constitution and public administration in North Korea. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79, 544-562.
43.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Girous.
44.
KingC. S.StiversC.BoxR. C. (1998). Government is us: Strategies for an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LaneJ.StoddenV.BenderS.NissenbaumH. (Eds.). (2014). Privacy, big data, and the public good: Frameworks for engagement. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
LavertuS. (2015). We all need help: “Big Data” and the mismeasure of public administration. Public Administration Review, 76, 864-872.
48.
LazerD.KennedyR.KingG.VespignaniA. (2014). The parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data analysis. Science, 343, 1203-1205.
49.
LittleJ. H. (1996). Thinking government: Bringing democratic awareness to public administration. Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges (pp. 327-351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
MacIntyreA. (2013). After virtue. London: A&C Black.
51.
McSwiteO. C. (1996). Postmodernism, public administration. Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges (pp. 198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
MergelI.BretschneiderS. I. (2013). A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73, 390-400.
53.
MergelI.RethemeyerR. K.IsettK. (2016). Big Data in public affairs. Public Administration Review, 76, 928-937.
54.
MertonR. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: The Free Press.
ObolerA.WelshK.CruzL. (2012). The danger of Big Data: Social media as computational social science. First Monday, 17(7).
57.
O’LearyR.Van SlykeD. M.KimS. (Eds.). (2011). The future of public administration around the world: The Minnowbrook perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
58.
O’NeilC. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How Big Data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
59.
PalonenK. (2002). The history of concepts as a style of political theorizing: Quentin Skinner’s and Reinhart Koselleck’s subversion of normative political theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 1, 91-106.
60.
PocockJ. G. A. (1976). Virtue, commerce, and history: Essays on political thought and history, chiefly in the eighteenth century (Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61.
RohrJ. A. (1976). The study of ethics in the PA curriculum. Public Administration Review, 36, 398-406.
62.
RohrJ. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
63.
RohrJ. A. (1988). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values (Vol. 36). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
64.
RohrJ. A. (1990). The constitutional case for public administration. In WamsleyG. L.et al. (Eds.), Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
65.
RohrJ. A. (2002). Civil servants and their constitutions. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
66.
RosenbloomD. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 43, 219-227.
67.
RosenbloomD. H. (1993). Have an administrative Rx? Don’t forget the politics!Public Administration Review, 53, 503-507.
68.
RosenbloomD. H. (2002). Building a legislative-centered public administration: Congress and the administrative state, 1946-1999. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
69.
RossiE.SleatM. (2014). Realism in normative political theory. Philosophy Compass, 9, 689-701.
70.
SartoriG. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1033-1053.
71.
SartoriG. (1984). Social science concepts: A systematic analysis (Vol. 1). London, UK: Sage.
72.
SelznickP. (2011). TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization. New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro Books. (Original work published 1949)
73.
SimonH. A. (2013). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
74.
SimonH. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75.
SmithA. M. (2008). Control, responsibility, and moral assessment. Philosophical Studies, 138, 367-392.
76.
SmithA. M. (2012). Attributability, answerability, and accountability: In defense of a unified account. Ethics, 122, 575-589.
77.
StiversC. M. (1990). Active citizenship and public administration. Refounding public administration (pp. 246-273). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
78.
StiversC. (1996). Refusing to get it right: Citizenship, difference, and the refounding project. Refounding democratic public administration (pp. 260-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
StiversC. M. (2002a). Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public administration in the progressive era (Studies in government & public policy). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
80.
StiversC. M. (2002b). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81.
TeneO.PolonetskyJ. (2012). Big Data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 11, xxvii.
82.
WamsleyG. L. (1990). The agency perspective: Public administrators as agential leaders. In WamsleyG. L.et al (Eds.), Refounding public administration (p. 114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
83.
WamsleyG. L. (1996). A public philosophy and ontological disclosure as the basis for normatively grounded theorizing in public administration. In Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges (pp. 351-401). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
WamsleyG. L.BacherR. N.GoodsellC. T.KronenbergP. D.RohrJ. A.StiversC. M.WolfJ. F. (1990). Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
85.
WamsleyG. L.GoodsellC. T.RohrJ. A.WhiteO. F.WolfJ. F. (1984). The public administration and the governance process: Refocusing the American dialogue. Dialogue, 6(2), 2-18.
86.
WamsleyG. L.GoodsellC. T.RohrJ. A.WhiteO. F.WolfJ. F. (1992). A legitimate role for bureaucracy in democratic governance. In The state of public bureaucracy (pp. 59-86).
87.
WamsleyG. L.WolfJ. F. (Eds.). (1996). Refounding democratic public administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88.
WamsleyG. L.ZaldM. N. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Public Administration Review, 33, 62-73.
89.
WhiteO. F. (1990). Reframing the authority/participation debate. In WamsleyG.et al (Eds.), Refounding public administration (pp. 186-245). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
90.
WinnerL. (2014). Technologies as forms of life. Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 48-60). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
91.
WolfJ. F.BacherR. N. (1990). The public administrator and public service occupations. In WamsleyG. L.et al. (Eds.), Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
92.
WolinS. S. (2016). Politics and vision: Continuity and innovation in western political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
93.
WrightB. F. (2017). American interpretations of natural law: A study in the history of political thought. New York, NY: Routledge.
94.
ZavestoskiS.ShulmanS.SchlosbergD. (2006). Democracy and the environment on the internet: Electronic citizen participation in regulatory rulemaking. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31, 383-408.
95.
ŽliobaitėI. (2017). Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 31, 1060-1089.
