References
- Adman, P., & Jansson, H. (2017). A field experiment on ethnic discrimination among local Swedish public officials. Local Government Studies, 43(1), 44–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1244052
- Ahmed, A., & Sil, R. (2012). When multi-method research subverts methodological pluralism—or, why we still need single-method research. Perspectives on Politics, 10(4), 935–953. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712002836
- Baldassarri, D., & Abascal, M. (2017). Field experiments across the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 41–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112445
- Einstein, K. L., & Glick, D. M. (2017). Does race affect access to government services? An experiment exploring street‐level bureaucrats and access to public housing. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 100–116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12252
- Ernst, R., Nguyen, L., & Taylor, K. C. (2013). Citizen control: Race at the welfare office. Social Science Quarterly, 94(5), 1283–1307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12013.
- Gerring, J. (2017). Qualitative methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 15–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158
- Gilad, S., & Alon-Barkat, S. (2018). Enhancing democracy via bureaucracy: Senior managers' social identities and motivation for policy change. Governance, 31(2), 359–380. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12300
- Giulietti, C., Tonin, M., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2019). Racial discrimination in local public Services: A field experiment in the United States. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(1), 165–204. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx045
- Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1163620
- Grohs, S., Adam, C., & Knill, C. (2016). Are some citizens more equal than others? Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 155–164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12439
- Guryan, J., & Kofi, C. K. (2013). Taste‐based or statistical discrimination: The economics of discrimination returns to its roots. The Economic Journal, 123(572), F417–F432. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12080
- Hemker, J., & Rink, A. (2017). Multiple dimensions of bureaucratic discrimination: Evidence from German welfare offices. American Journal of Political Science, 61(4), 786–803. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12312
- Hendren, K., Luo, Q. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2018). The state of mixed methods research in public administration and public policy. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 904–916. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12981
- Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x.
- Honig, D. (2019). Case study design and analysis as a complementary empirical strategy to econometric analysis in the study of public agencies: Deploying mutually supportive mixed methods. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 299–317. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy049
- Jilke, S., Van Dooren, W., & Rys, S. (2018). Discrimination and administrative burden in public service markets: Does a Public–Private difference exist? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 423–439. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy009
- Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
- Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
- Kolltveit, K., Karlsen, R., & Askim, J. (2019). Understanding reputational concerns within government agencies. Policy & Politics, 47(3), 473–493. doi:https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420144.
- Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43(2), 265–275. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
- Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a Mixed-Method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051762
- Mele, V., & Belardinelli, P. (2018). Mixed methods in public administration research: Selecting, sequencing, and connecting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 334–347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy046
- Michener, G., Velasco, R. B., Contreras, E., & Rodrigues, K. F. (2019). Googling the requester: Identity‐questing and discrimination in public service provision. Governance, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12416
- Milward, B., Jensen, L., Roberts, A., Dussauge-Laguna, M. I., Junjan, V., Torenvlied, R., … Durant, R. (2016). “Is public management neglecting the state?” Governance, 29(3), 311–334.
- Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
- Moynihan, D. (2018). A great schism approaching? Towards a micro and macro public administration. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 1(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.11.15
- Moynihan, D. P. (2017). Commentary: Mapping a more specialized public administration. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 512–514. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12782
- Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., & Robbin, A. (2017). Examining the evolution of the field of public administration through a bibliometric analysis of public administration review. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 496–509. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12737
- Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2018). Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 593–605. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837
- Pedersen, M. J., Stritch, J. M., & Thuesen, F. (2018). Punishment on the frontlines of public service delivery: client ethnicity and caseworker sanctioning decisions in a scandinavian welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 339–354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy018
- Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303
- Ragin, C. C. 2009. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
- Riccucci, N. M. (2008). The logic of inquiry in the field of public administration. In Y. Kaifeng & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration (Vol. 3. p. 12). New York, NY: CRC Press.
- Riccucci, N. M. (2010). Public administration: traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
- Ritz, A., Brewer, G. A., & Neumann, O. (2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414–426. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12505
- Roberts, A. (2018). The aims of public administration: Reviving the classical view. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1), 73–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx003
- Schram, S. F., Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Houser, L. (2009). Deciding to discipline: race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 398–422. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400304
- Seawright, J. (2016). Multi-Method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 411–431. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001179
- Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 57–86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657
- Tarrow, S. (2010). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- White, A. R., Nathan, N. L., & Faller, J. K. (2015). What do I need to vote? Bureaucratic discretion and discrimination by local election officials. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 129–142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000562
- Yang, K., Zhang, Y., & Holzer, M. (2008). Dealing with multiple paradigms in public administration research. In Y. Kaifeng & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration (pp. 25–44). New York, NY: CRC Press.