Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Fountain was concerned with the effect of information technologies on government. Her thesis was that government organizations are strongly motivated to adopt information technologies and that the ways these technologies are used and their effects vary depending on agency interests. Although Fountain claimed to present original ideas, elements of her thesis have been commonplace for decades in political science, public administration, business administration, and the field of science, technology, and public policy. Instead of crediting orthodox concepts such as technological determinism, rational actor models, incrementalism, and systems analysis, she attacked them as “shadow theories” only to import large elements of them back into her own framework. Fountain sought to dazzle us with her originality when she really was assembling a worthwhile research agenda out of good ideas taken from existing scholarship. Instead of encouraging cooperation in her modest venture, she invites a backlash.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

de Sola Pool, I. (Ed.). (1977). The social impact of the telephone. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage .

Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .

Grafton, C. (1975). The creation of federal agencies . Administration and Society, 7, 328-364 .

Grafton, C. (1979). The reorganization of federal agencies . Administration and Society, 10, 437-474 .

Korpi, W. (2000). Contentious institutions: An augmented rational-actor analysis of the origins and path dependency of welfare state institutions in the Western countries (Working paper series). Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University .

Kuhns, W. (1971). The post-industrial prophets. New York: Weybright and Talley .

Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88 .

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill .

10.

Mesthene, E. (1981). How technology will shape the future. In T. Kuehn & A. Porter (Eds.), Science, technology and national policy (pp. 57-80). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press .

11.

Mahoney, J. (2001). Path-dependent explanations of regime change: Central America in comparative perspective . Studies in Comparative International Development, 36, 111-141 .

12.

Mumford, L. (1963). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World .

13.

Mumford, L. (1967). The myth of the machine. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World .

14.

Niskanen, W. (1994). Bureaucracy and public economics. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar .

15.

Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

16.

Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .

17.

Price, D. K. (1962). Government and science. New York: Oxford University Press .

18.

Rae, J. (1965). The American automobile. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .

19.

Richardson, L. F. (1960). Arms and insecurity. Chicago: Quadrangle .

20.

Schon, D. (1967). Technology and change. New York: Delacorte .

“Shadow Theories” in Fountain's Theory of Technology Enactment

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References