The goal of this investigation was to develop an understandrng of the social context of state merit systems of personnel. Ten key informants were interviewed following an “interpretivist” paradigm to illuminate the political and social construction of public policy. The key informants reveal a basic self-belief in the rationality of merit systems of personnel under which only the “best-qualified” candidates are given employment. Under this doctrine, merit may mean equality without equity for people with disabilities. Merit systems of personnel are dominated by people who have historically had more access to experience and training than people with disabilities, who are underrepresented in state jobs. However, the informants argue that underrepresentation is the result of unintended consequences. Personnel administrators' willingness to ascribe underrepresentation to an unintended consequence may undercut policies requiring reasonable accommodations for applicants with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albany Law Review. (1989). Civil rights and the disabled: A comparison of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 in the employment setting. Albany Law Rev, 54, 123–140.
2.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101. (1990).
3.
Anderson, C. W. (1987). Political philosophy, practical reason, and policy analysis. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), Confronting values in policy analysis (pp. 22–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Brewer, G. D., & deLeon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
6.
Burgdorf, R. (1991). The Americans With Disabilities Act: Analysis and implications of a second-generation civil rights statute. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 26, 413–522.
7.
Campbell, J. (1994). Unintended consequences in public policy: Persons with psychiatric disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Policy Studies Journal, 22 (1), 133–145.
8.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109–126). Boston: Little, Brown.
9.
Clark, T. N. (1976). Policy research and urban public policy. Policy Analysis, 4, 67–90.
10.
Coleman, J., Kelly, S., & Moore, J. (1975). Trends in school segregation 1968–1973. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
11.
Collins, R. (1979). The credential society. New York: Academic Press.
12.
Collins, R. (1982). Sociological insight. An introduction to non-obvious sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Cronbach, L., Ambron, S., Dornbusch, S., Hess, R., Hornik, R., Phillips, D., Walker, D., & Weiner, S. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Dejong, G. (1994). Toward a research and training capacity in disability policy. Policy Studies Journal, 22 (1), 152–160.
15.
Dror, Y. (1971). Design for policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.
16.
Drum, C. E., & Rhodes, L. (1987). Strategies for expanding employment opportunities in Oregon for persons with developmental disabilities. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Specialized Training Program.
17.
Finn, J., & Pfeiffer, D. (1995). A summary of the responses by state and territorial government officials to a survey on ADA implementation. Boston: Suffolk University.
18.
Finsterbusch, K., & Motz, A. B. (1980). Social research for policy decisions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
19.
Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1987). Confronting values in policy analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Gans, H. J. (1971). Social science for social policy. In I. L. Horowitz (Ed.), The use and abuse of social science (pp. 13–33). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
21.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
22.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
23.
Guba, E. (1985). What can happen as a result of a policy? Policy Studies Review, 5, 11–16.
24.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Hahn, H. (1985). Changing perceptions of disability and the future of rehabilitation. In L. G. Perlman & G. F. Austin (Eds.), Societal influences in rehabilitation planning: A blueprint for the 21st century (pp. 53–64). Alexandria, VA: National Rehabilitation Association.
26.
Hahn, H. (1993). The potential impact of disability studies on political science (as well as vice versa). Policy Studies Journal, 21, 740–751.
27.
Hargrove, E. C. (1975). The missing link: The study of the implementation of social policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
28.
Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped youth exiting high school from 1979–1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455–469.
29.
Lee, R. D., Jr. (1979). Public personnel systems. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
30.
Lee, Y. S. (1992). Public personnel administration and constitutional values. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
31.
Levin, M. A., & Ferman, B. (1985). The political hand: Policy implementation and youth employment programs. New York: Pergamon Press.
32.
Lincoln, J., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34.
MacRae, D., & Haskins, R. (Eds.). (1985). Models for analysis of social policy: An introduction. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
35.
Mannheim, K. (1940). Man and society in an age of reconstruction. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
36.
Maynard-Moody, S., & Stull, D. (1987). The symbolic side of policy analysis: Interpreting policy change in a health department. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), Confronting values in policy analysis (pp. 248–265). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. L. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scot, Foresman.
38.
McKillip, J. (1987). Needs analysis: Tools for the human services and education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
McNeil, J. (1993). Americans with disabilities: 1991–1992. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current populations reports, P 70–33. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
40.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (1981). The politics of policy implementation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
42.
National Organization on Disability/Louis Harris and Associates. (1994). NOD/Harris Survey of Americans With Disabilities. New York: Author.
43.
Olzak, S., West, E., & Shanahan, S. (1992). Did desegregation provoke racial conflict in America? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
44.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45.
Percy, S. L. (1993). Challenges and dilemmas in implementing disability rights policies. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4 (1), 41–63.
46.
Rhodes, L., & Drum, C. E. (1989). Supported employment in the public sector: Procedural issues in implementation. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14 (3), 197–204.
47.
Rist, R. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545–557). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
Scotch, R. K. (1984). From good will to civil rights: Transforming federal disability policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
49.
Scotch, R. K. (1991). The impact of civil rights legislation on employment of Americans with work disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Disability Studies, Oakland, CA.
50.
Seidel, J. V., Kjolseth, R., & Seymour, E. (1988). The ethnograph: A user's guide. Corvallis, OR: Qualis Research Associates.
51.
Stahl, O. G. (1971). Public personnel administration. New York: Harper & Row.
52.
Stone, D. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. New York: Harper Collins.
53.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55.
Taylor, H., Kagay, M. R., & Leichenko, S. (1987). Bringing disabled Americans into the mainstream: A nationwide survey of 1,000 disabled people. New York: National Organization on Disability/Louis Harris and Associates.
56.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: John Wiley.
57.
Tucker, B. P. (1989). The Americans With Disabilities Act: An overview. University of Illinois Law Rev, 1989, 845–939.
58.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995. (115th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
59.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). ADA: Effects of the law on access to goods and services. (GAO/PEMD-94–14; June 21, 1994).
60.
Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration and Society, 6, 445–485.
61.
Van Riper, P. P. (1958). History of the United States civil service. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.
62.
Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, 29 U.S.C. 5794. (1973).
63.
Watson, S. (1994). Applying theory to practice: A prospective and prescriptive analysis of the implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5 (1), 1–24.
64.
Weatherly, R. A., & Lipinsky, M. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Education Review, 47, 171–197.
65.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York: Bedminster Press.
66.
Wehman, P., Kregel, J., & Sefarth, J. (1985). Employment outlook for young adults with mental retardation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 29 (2), 90–98.
67.
Zimmer, M. J., Sullivan, C. A., & Richards, R. F. (1982). Cases and materials on employment discrimination. Boston: Little, Brown.
68.
Zola, I. K. (1993). Disability statistics, what we count and what it tells us: A personal and political analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4 (2), 9–39.
69.
Zola, I. K. (1994). Shaping an interdisciplinary field of disability studies: The perspective of sociology. Disability Studies Quarterly, 14 (2), 17–20.
