A taxonomy of administrative language in public service encounters

References

• Andreotti, A., E. Mingione, and E. Polizzi. 2012. “Local Welfare Systems: A Challenge for Social Cohesion.” Urban Studies 49(9):1925–40. doi: 10.1177/0042098012444884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, K. P. 2013. “Public Encounters: The History and Future of Face-to-Face Contact between Public Professionals and Citizens.” Public Administration 91(2):469–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02101.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, K. P. 2015. Communicative Capacity: Public Encounters in Participatory Theory and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Behnke, N, and S. Kropp. 2021. “Administrative Federalism.” Pp. 35–51 in Public Administration in Germany, edited by S. Kuhlmann, I. Proeller, D. Schimanke, & J. Ziekow. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Blessett, B., J. Dodge, B. Edmond, H. T. Goerdel, S. T. Gooden, A. M. Headley, … B. N. Williams. 2019. “Social Equity in Public Administration: A Call to Action.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 2(4):283–99.
   Google Scholar
• Boer, Noortje. 2020. “How Do Citizens Assess Street‐Level Bureaucrats Warmth and Competence? A Typology and Test.” Public Administration Review 80(4):532–42. doi: 10.1111/puar.13217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogner, A. B. Littig, and W. Menz. 2018. “Generating Qualitative Data with Experts and Elites.” Pp. 652–67 in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, edited by U. Flick. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Bogner, A, and W. Menz. 2009. “The Theory-Generating Expert Interview: epistemological Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction.” Pp. 43–80 in Interviewing Experts, edited by A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menon. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkmann, S. 2018. “The Interview.” Pp. 576–99 in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Bruhn, A., and M. Ekström. 2017. “Towards a Multi‐Level Approach on Frontline Interactions in the Public Sector: Institutional Transformations and the Dynamics of Real‐Time Interactions.” Social Policy & Administration 51(1):195–215. doi: 10.1111/spol.12193.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., and J. L. Hale. 1984. “The Fundamental Topoi of Relational Communication.” Communication Monographs 51(3):193–214. doi: 10.1080/03637758409390195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., and J. L. Hale. 1987. “Validation and Measurement of the Fundamental Themes of Relational Communication.” Communication Monographs 54(1):19–41. doi: 10.1080/03637758709390214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepiku, D., and M. Mastrodascio. 2021. “Equity in Public Services: A Systematic Literature Review.” Public Administration Review 81(6):1019–32. doi: 10.1111/puar.13402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, D. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44(4):823–30. doi: 10.1017/S1049096511001429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., D. H. Solomon, and M. T. Palmer. 1999. “Structuring the Concept of Relational Communication.” Communication Monographs 66(1):49–65. doi: 10.1080/03637759909376462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dose, N. 2019. “Cooperative Administration in Multilevel Governance Analysis: Incorporating Governance Mechanisms into the Concept.” Pp. 79–96 in Configurations, Dynamics and Mechanisms of Multilevel Governance, edited by N. Behnke, J. Broschek, & J. Sonnicksen. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Einsiedel, E. F. 2000. “Understanding ‘Publics’ in the Public Understanding of Science.” Pp. 205–16 in Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, edited by Dierkes Grote. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Fisch, R, and B. Margies. 2014. “Einfluss Der Verwaltungskultur Auf Die Sprache Der Legalistischen Verwaltung.” Pp. 67–79 in Grundmuster Der Verwaltungskultur: Interdisziplinäre Diskurse Über Kulturelle Grundformen Der Öffentlichen Verwaltung, edited by K. König, S. Kropp, S. Kuhlmann, C. Reichard, K.-P. Sommermann, & J. Ziekow. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Fluck, H.-R. 2010. Amtsdeutsch a. D.? Europäische Wege zu Einer Modernen Verwaltungssprache. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. 2004. “What is a Case Study and What is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98(2):341–54. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J., and L. Cojocaru. 2016. “Selecting Cases for Intensive Analysis: A Diversity of Goals and Methods.” Sociological Methods & Research 45(3):392–423. doi: 10.1177/0049124116631692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goss, B. 1972. “The Effect of Sentence Context on Associations to Ambiguous, Vague, and Clear Nouns.” Speech Monographs 39(4):286–9. doi: 10.1080/03637757209375767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, R. M. 1996. “Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration.” Organization Science 7(4):375–87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.4.375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grohs, S. 2021. “Participatory Administration and Co-Production.”Pp. 311–27 in Public Administration in Germany, edited by S. Kuhlmann, I. Proeller, D. Schimanke, & J. Ziekow. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Guy, M. E. M. A. Newman, and S. H. Mastracci. 2014. Emotional Labor: Putting the Service in Public Service. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, L. C., and T. J. Catlaw. 2019. “Accomplishing the Public Encounter: A Case for Ethnomethodology in Public Administration Research.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 2(2):125–37. doi: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvz004.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, F. G. 2021. “How Impressions of Public Employees’ Warmth and Competence Influence Trust in Government.” International Public Management Journal 1–23. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2021.1963361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herd, P, and D. P. Moynihan. 2019. Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The Managed Heart: commercialization of Human Feeling (2. print. ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California Pr.
   Google Scholar
• Honer, A. 1994. “Das Explorative Interview: zur Rekonstruktion Der Relevanzen Von Expertinnen Und Anderen Leuten.” Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Soziologie 20(3):623–40.
   Google Scholar
• Hupe, P. 2019. “Contextualizing Government-in-Action.” Pp. 2–14 in Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy, edited by P. Hupe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Huxley, K., R. Andrews, J. Downe, and V. Guarneros-Meza. 2016. “Administrative Traditions and Citizen Participation in Public Policy: A Comparative Study of France, Germany, the UK and Norway.” Policy & Politics 44(3):383–402. doi: 10.1332/030557315X14298700857974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansson, G., and G. Ó. Erlingsson. 2014. “More e-Government, Less Street-Level Bureaucracy? On Legitimacy and the Human Side of Public Administration.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11(3):291–308. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2014.908155.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, D. C. 2018. “Does Core Task Matter for Decision-Making? A Comparative Case Study on Whether Differences in Job Characteristics Affect Discretionary Street-Level Decision-Making.” Administration & Society 50(8):1125–47. doi: 10.1177/0095399715609383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jilke, S., and L. Tummers. 2018. “Which Clients Are Deserving of Help? A Theoretical Model and Experimental Test.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(2):226–38. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muy002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kampen, J. K., S. Van De Walle, and G. Bouckaert. 2006. “Assessing the Relation between Satisfaction with Public Service Delivery and Trust in Government: The Impact of the Predisposition of Citizens toward Government on Evaluations of Its Performance.” Public Performance & Management Review 29(4):387–404. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447604.
   Google Scholar
• Keiser, L. R., V. Wilkins, K. J. Meier, and C. Holland. 2002. “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Identity, and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 96(3):553–65. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402000321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingsley, J. D. 1944. Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs, O. Brentwood, California: The Antioch Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S, and J. Bogumil. 2021. “The Digitalisation of Local Public Services. Evidence from the German Case.” Pp. 101–13 in The Future of Local Self-Government. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S, and H. Wollmann. 2019. Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kumlin, S., and B. Rothstein. 2005. “Making and Breaking Social Capital: The Impact of Welfare-State Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies 38(4):339–65. doi: 10.1177/0010414004273203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewalter, D., C. Geyer, and K. Neubauer. 2014. “Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Communication Formats on Visitors’ Understanding of Nanotechnology.” Visitor Studies 17(2):159–76. doi: 10.1080/10645578.2014.945345.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. [1980] 2010. (Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S., and M. Musheno. 2000. “State Agent or Citizen Agent: Two Narratives of Discretion.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2):329–58. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024272.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J. 1993. Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policy-Making in the Fourth Branch of Government. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Metts, S, and S. Planalp. 2003. “Emotional Communication.” Pp. 339–74 in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, edited by M. L. Knapp & Daly J. A. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Meuser, M, and U. Nagel. 2009. “The Expert Interview and Changes in Knowledge Production.” Pp. 17–42 in Interviewing Experts, edited by A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menon. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. H. 1995. Creating Public Value: strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Naff, K. C., and K. J. Capers. 2014. “The Complexity of Descriptive Representation and Bureaucracy: The Case of South Africa.” International Public Management Journal 17(4):515–39. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2014.958804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, V. L. 2007. “Differential Treatment and Communicative Interactions: Why the Character of Social Interaction is Important.” Law & Policy 29(2):257–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2007.00255.x.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, V. L., H. Ø. Nielsen, and M. Bisgaard. 2021. “Citizen Reactions to Bureaucratic Encounters: Different Ways of Coping with Public Authorities.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31(2):381–98. doi: 10.1111/puar.13402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picciotto, S. 2007. “Constructing Compliance: Game Playing, Tax Law, and the Regulatory State.” Law & Policy 29(1):11–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2007.00243.x.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. 2006. “Urban Democracy and the Local Trap.” Urban Studies 43(11):1921–41. doi: 10.1080/00420980600897826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raaphorst, N. 2021. “Administrative Justice in Street-Level Decision Making: equal Treatment and Responsiveness.” in The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice, edited by J. Tomlinson, R. Thomas, M. Hertogh, & R. Kirkham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raaphorst, N., S. Groeneveld, and S. Van de Walle. 2018. “Do Tax Officials Use Double Standards in Evaluating Citizen-Clients? A Policy-Capturing Study among Dutch Frontline Tax Officials.” Public Administration 96(1):134–53. doi: 10.1111/padm.12374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raaphorst, N., and K. Loyens. 2020. “From Poker Games to Kitchen Tables: How Social Dynamics Affect Frontline Decision Making.” Administration & Society 52(1):31–56. doi: 10.1177/0095399718761651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravin, Y, and C. Leacock. 2000. “Polysemy: An Overview.” Pp. 1–29 in Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, edited by Y. Ravin & C. Leacock. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B. 2009. “Creating Political Legitimacy:Electoral Democracy versus Quality of Government.” American Behavioral Scientist 53(3):311–30. doi: 10.1177/0002764209338795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., and D. Stolle. 2008. “The State and Social Capital: An Institutional Theory of Generalized Trust.” Comparative Politics 40(4):441–59. doi: 10.5129/001041508X12911362383354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarangi, S, and S. Slembrouck. 2014. Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, Benjamin., Julius. Sim, Tom. Kingstone, Shula. Baker, Jackie. Waterfield, Bernadette. Bartlam, Heather. Burroughs, and Clare. Jinks. 2018. “Saturation in Qualitative Research: exploring Its Conceptualization and Operationalization.” Quality & Quantity 52(4):1893–907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thunman, E., M. Ekström, and A. Bruhn. 2020. “Dealing with Questions of Responsiveness in a Low-Discretion Context: Offers of Assistance in Standardized Public Service Encounters.” Administration & Society 52(9):1333–61. doi: 10.1177/0095399720907807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watzlawick, P. J. B. Bavelas, and D. D. Jackson. 2011 [1967]. Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, D. S., A. R. Landrum, S. E. Metz, and M. Weisberg. 2018. “No Missing Link: Knowledge Predicts Acceptance of Evolution in the United States.” BioScience 68(3):212–22. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch, C., R. Piekkari, E. Plakoyiannaki, and E. Paavilainen-Mäntymäki. 2011. “Theorising from Case Studies: Towards a Pluralist Future for International Business Research.” Journal of International Business Studies 42(5):740–62. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2010.55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yackee, S. W., and D. Lowery. 2005. “Understanding Public Support for the US Federal Bureaucracy.” Public Management Review 7(4):515–36. doi: 10.1080/14719030500362389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacka, B. 2019. “Street-Level Bureaucracy and Democratic Theory.”Pp. 448–61 in Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy, edited by P. Hupe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar