Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044
C. Daum
This article begins with a discussion of the current social equity scholarship and advocates for the increased use of intersectional tools in order to make legible those individuals who are made invisible by dominant normativities. The article then proceeds to an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ [2015]) decision and the subsequent implementation of marriage equality across the states in order to evaluate if policymakers and administrators advanced social equity via their policies and implementation strategies. Particular attention is focused on whether or not state and local policies promote equity between LGBTQ individuals and heterosexuals and gender-conforming individuals and/or equity within LGBTQ communities. A critical intersectional analysis indicates that the tendency of policymakers and administrators to privilege homonormative individuals and relationships and their assimilation into heteronormative institutions advances equality but not equity because these policies actually disadvantage intersectionally identified LGBTQ individuals. The article concludes by proposing that the pillar of social equity be expanded to engage questions of social justice that might empower scholars and administrators to recognize and proactively address the differences within LGBTQ communities.
{"title":"Social Equity, Homonormativity, and Equality: An Intersectional Critique of the Administration of Marriage Equality and Opportunities for LGBTQ Social Justice","authors":"C. Daum","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","url":null,"abstract":"This article begins with a discussion of the current social equity scholarship and advocates for the increased use of intersectional tools in order to make legible those individuals who are made invisible by dominant normativities. The article then proceeds to an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ [2015]) decision and the subsequent implementation of marriage equality across the states in order to evaluate if policymakers and administrators advanced social equity via their policies and implementation strategies. Particular attention is focused on whether or not state and local policies promote equity between LGBTQ individuals and heterosexuals and gender-conforming individuals and/or equity within LGBTQ communities. A critical intersectional analysis indicates that the tendency of policymakers and administrators to privilege homonormative individuals and relationships and their assimilation into heteronormative institutions advances equality but not equity because these policies actually disadvantage intersectionally identified LGBTQ individuals. The article concludes by proposing that the pillar of social equity be expanded to engage questions of social justice that might empower scholars and administrators to recognize and proactively address the differences within LGBTQ communities.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"42 1","pages":"115 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42876547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2019.1659047
A. Dwyer
This article argues administration of police organizations may create barriers and facilitators for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer (LGBTIQ) and/or questioning those seeking police support. With research to date focused on frontline LGBTIQ–police experiences, we are yet to examine the influence of administration. This article begins this conversation using data from research projects documenting policing experiences of LGBTIQ people in Australia to show how we may need to queer police administrative systems to better support LGBTIQ people. The data discussed demonstrates the need for further research exploring how administration of police organizations can complicate supportive LGBTIQ–police relationships.
{"title":"Queering Police Administration: How Policing Administration Complicates LGBTIQ–Police Relations","authors":"A. Dwyer","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2019.1659047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659047","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues administration of police organizations may create barriers and facilitators for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer (LGBTIQ) and/or questioning those seeking police support. With research to date focused on frontline LGBTIQ–police experiences, we are yet to examine the influence of administration. This article begins this conversation using data from research projects documenting policing experiences of LGBTIQ people in Australia to show how we may need to queer police administrative systems to better support LGBTIQ people. The data discussed demonstrates the need for further research exploring how administration of police organizations can complicate supportive LGBTIQ–police relationships.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"42 1","pages":"172 - 190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43829955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-20DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2019.1678351
Joseph Heilman, Arthur J. Sementelli
Abstract Contemporary public administration has much to do with routine. Daily circumstances afford us a perennial onslaught of quotidian tasks, which become routine or typical over time. The sedimentation of typical responses has provided a relatively stable and durable public sector, generally geared towards achieving larger public interests. However, buried within these sedimented practices are communication structures, often obscuring the relationship between action and consequence. This obfuscation impedes our ability to comprehend the situational and transformational aspects of public administration. Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action (ToCA) recognized these obfuscations as impediments to rational action, which worked toward the ends of enlightenment. However, Habermas’ ToCA has remained underutilized. Therefore, we present a theoretically practical interpretation of the ToCA as a remedy, putting forth the argument that it can be included in a modified framework to add utility to discussions of administrative praxis.
{"title":"Rethinking Habermas, from the ideal to the individual: a practical application of critical management theory","authors":"Joseph Heilman, Arthur J. Sementelli","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2019.1678351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1678351","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Contemporary public administration has much to do with routine. Daily circumstances afford us a perennial onslaught of quotidian tasks, which become routine or typical over time. The sedimentation of typical responses has provided a relatively stable and durable public sector, generally geared towards achieving larger public interests. However, buried within these sedimented practices are communication structures, often obscuring the relationship between action and consequence. This obfuscation impedes our ability to comprehend the situational and transformational aspects of public administration. Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action (ToCA) recognized these obfuscations as impediments to rational action, which worked toward the ends of enlightenment. However, Habermas’ ToCA has remained underutilized. Therefore, we present a theoretically practical interpretation of the ToCA as a remedy, putting forth the argument that it can be included in a modified framework to add utility to discussions of administrative praxis.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"42 1","pages":"430 - 442"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2019.1678351","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47990531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Education and national development","authors":"D. Chattopadhyaya","doi":"10.4324/9780367809508-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809508-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78614158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Marx at the margins1","authors":"Kevin B. Anderson","doi":"10.4324/9780367809508-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809508-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86661084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Humanism and science","authors":"Murzban Jal","doi":"10.4324/9780367809508-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809508-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"11 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89956307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-15DOI: 10.4324/9780367809508-16
D. Raveh
{"title":"KnowEthics","authors":"D. Raveh","doi":"10.4324/9780367809508-16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809508-16","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89198613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-15DOI: 10.4324/9780367809508-14
A. Das
{"title":"Reimagining reservation","authors":"A. Das","doi":"10.4324/9780367809508-14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809508-14","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90995492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-09DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2019.1700461
R. Krewson, Christian Matheis
Abstract This article explores how Gloria Anzaldúa’s (1987) La Frontera/Borderlands theory can enable the field of public administration with conceptual and practical resources for responding to complex political problems; specifically, by offering strategies for critically analyzing us/them dichotomies in physical spaces and social structures, to then respond as administración pública de nepantla - public administrators in-between. Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera theoretical framework is applied to public administrators, who constituents often experience as “gatekeepers” to government’s power, to transform them into administrators capable of both/and thinking, who create new alternatives and solutions to social problems as “border crossers.” We specifically revise reliance on orthodox practices of dichotomous us/them, either/or thinking in favor of fostering inclusion of borderland dwellers, who forcibly live as outsiders of societal norms. Using conventional literature, we discuss the state’s role in creating borders for intentional racial discrimination in housing policy and offer administración pública de nepantla as a new paradigm for addressing this longstanding issue.
本文探讨格洛丽亚Anzaldúa(1987)的边疆/边疆理论如何为公共行政领域提供概念和实践资源，以应对复杂的政治问题;具体来说，通过提供在物理空间和社会结构中批判性地分析我们/他们二分法的策略，然后以administración pública de nepantla(介于两者之间的公共管理者)的身份做出回应。Anzaldúa的Borderlands/La Frontera理论框架被应用于公共行政人员，选民通常将他们视为政府权力的“看门人”，将他们转变为既能/又能思考的行政人员，他们作为“过境者”为社会问题创造新的选择和解决方案。我们特别修订了对“我们/他们”二分法的正统做法的依赖，即要么/要么思考，以促进对边境居民的包容，他们被迫作为社会规范的局外人生活。利用传统文献，我们讨论了国家在为住房政策中的故意种族歧视创造边界方面的作用，并提供administración pública de nepantla作为解决这一长期问题的新范例。
{"title":"Administración pública de nepantla: Transforming public administrators from ‘gatekeepers’ to ‘border crossers’","authors":"R. Krewson, Christian Matheis","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2019.1700461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1700461","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores how Gloria Anzaldúa’s (1987) La Frontera/Borderlands theory can enable the field of public administration with conceptual and practical resources for responding to complex political problems; specifically, by offering strategies for critically analyzing us/them dichotomies in physical spaces and social structures, to then respond as administración pública de nepantla - public administrators in-between. Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera theoretical framework is applied to public administrators, who constituents often experience as “gatekeepers” to government’s power, to transform them into administrators capable of both/and thinking, who create new alternatives and solutions to social problems as “border crossers.” We specifically revise reliance on orthodox practices of dichotomous us/them, either/or thinking in favor of fostering inclusion of borderland dwellers, who forcibly live as outsiders of societal norms. Using conventional literature, we discuss the state’s role in creating borders for intentional racial discrimination in housing policy and offer administración pública de nepantla as a new paradigm for addressing this longstanding issue.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"43 1","pages":"82 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2019.1700461","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45450642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2018.1512340
R. L. Heidelberg
The following is an essay, that is to say an attempt, to rethink the debate around accountability. Accountability has been frequently lauded as an essential value of democracy and an idea that is unopposable. Through the following ten theses, I build an argument that accountability is conceptually and practically opposed to the very thing that it is held to guarantee, namely, self-government. I do so by rethinking the contours of the debate between Carl Friedrich and Herman Finer by showing that values of each persist within the existing accountability arrangement. As we understand it today, accountability is best conceived of as a technological concept of automation that is reinforced by the degradation of skills of self-government entrenched into the current practices of the administrative state. This is the nature of accountability in the administrative state, a concept of domination that is premised on the impracticality of self-government.
{"title":"Ten Theses on Accountability","authors":"R. L. Heidelberg","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2018.1512340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2018.1512340","url":null,"abstract":"The following is an essay, that is to say an attempt, to rethink the debate around accountability. Accountability has been frequently lauded as an essential value of democracy and an idea that is unopposable. Through the following ten theses, I build an argument that accountability is conceptually and practically opposed to the very thing that it is held to guarantee, namely, self-government. I do so by rethinking the contours of the debate between Carl Friedrich and Herman Finer by showing that values of each persist within the existing accountability arrangement. As we understand it today, accountability is best conceived of as a technological concept of automation that is reinforced by the degradation of skills of self-government entrenched into the current practices of the administrative state. This is the nature of accountability in the administrative state, a concept of domination that is premised on the impracticality of self-government.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"42 1","pages":"26 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2018.1512340","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41606758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：