Sorting through: The role of representation in Bureaucracy

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 791-816

  Kennedy, Brandy A ^a  

^a GEORGIA COLLEGE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885355991     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mut028     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bradbury, Mark, and J. Edward Kellough. 2007. Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research 18:697-714.
2. Brewer, Gene A., Sally Coleman Selden, and Rex L. Facer II. 2000. Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review 60:254-264.
3. Brown, Steven R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Application of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
4. Brown, Steven R. 1991. A Q methodological tutorial. (accessed January 4, 2009).
5. Reprinted in A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjecti vity 16:91-138. 1993. Retrieved from http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/Primer1.html (accessed April 30, 2013).
6. Cayer, N. Joseph, and Lee S. 1980. Minorities and women in state and local government: 1973-1975. Public Administration Review 40:443-50.
7. Danielson, Stentor. 2009. Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods 21:219-37.
8. Dometrius, Nelson C. 1984. Minorities and women among state agency leaders. Social Science Quarterly 65:127-37.
9. Durning, Dan, and Will O. 1994. Policy analysts? roles and value orientations: An empi rical investigation using Q methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13:629-57.
10. Hindera, John J. 1993. Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in EEOC district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3:415-29.
11. Jewell, Malcolm E. 1983. Legislator-Constituency relations and the representative process. Legislative Studies Quarterly 8:303-37.
12. Kelly, Rita M. 1998. An inclusive democratic polity, representative bureaucracies and the new public management. Public Administration Review 58:201-8.
13. Kingsley, J. Donald. 1944. Representative bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
14. Krislov, Samuel. 1974. Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Lim, Hong-Hai. 2006. Representative bureaucracy: Reth inking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review 66:193-205.
16. Long, Norton E. 1952. Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. American Political Science Review 46: 808-18.
17. Lowi, Theodore. 1985. The state in politics: The relation between policy and administration. In Regulatory policy and the social sciences, ed. R. Noll. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
18. McKeown, Bruce, and Dan T. 1988. Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Univ. Papers.
19. Meier, Kenneth J. 1993. Latinos and representative B: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and T heory 3:393-414.
20. Meier, Kenneth J., and Robert E. England. 1984. Black representation and education policy: Are they related? American Political Science Review 78:392-403.
21. Meier, Kenneth J., and Jill Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review 66:850-61.
22. Meier, Kenneth J., and Loyd G. Nig ro. 1976. Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review 36:458-69.
23. Meier, Kenneth J., and Joseph Stewart Jr. 1992. The impact of representative bureaucracy: Educational systems and public policies. American Review of Public Administration 22:157-77.
24. Meier, Kenneth J., Robert D. Wrinkle, and J. L. Polinard. 1999. Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. Journal of Politics 61:1025-39.
25. Mosher, Frederick. 1968. Democracy and the public service. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
26. Newman, Meredith Ann. 1994. Gender and Lowi's thesis: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review 54:277-84.
27. Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
28. Selden, Sally C. 1997. The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. New York, NY: Sharpe.
29. Selden, Sally, Gene A. Brewer, and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 1999. Reconciling competing values in public administration. Administration & Society 31:171-204.
30. Selden, Sally C., Jeffrey L. Brudney, and J. Edward Kellough. 1998. Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. American Journal of Political Science 42:717-25.
31. Slack, James. 2001. Zero-Sum politics, the Herbert thesis and the Ryan White Care Act: Lessons learned from the local side of AIDS. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 24:80-103.
32. Thielmann, Greg S., and Joseph Stewart Jr. 1996. A demand-Side perspective on the importance of representative bureaucracy: AIDS, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Public Administration Review 56:168-73.