User talk:Addisonrivers/sandbox

Sophiaacampos's review of Street-level bureaucracy


 * (copy and pasted from the word document version of eval, so my answers are a direct response to those questions)*

Wikipedia principle #1: Comprehensiveness

Yes, I think the lead section is clear and gives the reader enough background info on the topic and a clear definition to work with. It also explains how the topic is relevant / how it has been relevant in the past.

The key points as I understand them are that street level bureaucrats serve a different purpose through the eyes of many. They are interpreted differently on small and large scales. Some think they should use little personal discretion and some think they should reflect the decisions of the people.

I think more could be included in the article to fully understand the concept of street level bureaucracy.

More examples could be given to give the reader real life application to a concept that is broad and hard to graph unless it’s applied.

The points are supported by claims and the people who are quoted are named.

I think the topic could be made clearer with more information; the article almost seems to be about the people who have opinions on the what street level bureaucracy is rather than actually focused on street level bureaucracy.

The article does include scholarly support—and very neatly with reference numbers.

Yes, the article does include many POVs.

Yes, the article include multiple POVs to give the reader an idea of how broad the topic can be.

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

Yes, there is a superscript number after every claim. The reference are all scholarly articles.

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

Yes, the article has a neutral POV because of all the references and people cited.

I think more information on the topic could be supplied so that the POVs from people aren’t interpreted as facts.

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

The entry should be proofread for small punctuation errors and typos (missing periods, missing words).

Overall, it is easy to understand, however I would break up what is written into different paragraphs to make it easier for readers to follow (especially when listing the different POVs).

It appears that all the headings are in the article, they just aren’t filled in yet.

The article’s focus and organization could be made clearer if more information was given, as well as if it was broken up into smaller parts.

I’m not sure if only the first letter is meant to be capitalized because all titles that are more than one word are all completely capitalized. All sections have headings. There are sufficient links to relevant related topics.

No images are used yet.

Open-ended feedback Questions Open-ended Questions

I like that the article has useful background info and presents many POVs on the topic. This gives the reader more insight into the topic right off the bat and helps the reader understand the depth of street level bureaucracy.

I think the article needs more information to help readers understand what the main focus is (the topic, not the people commenting on the topic). Also, I think the article needs to be cleaned up for typos and to be restructured so it’s easier to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiaacampos (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryanmadden1's Peer Review of Technology & Street-Level Bureaucracy

Comprehensiveness The changes help establish what street level bureaucracy is, while simultaneously discussing the history, impacts, problems, and solutions to street-level bureaucracy. It includes a good amount of information, is well organized, and establishes structure. There could be a few more references, but there is an acceptable amount already. The article clearly focuses on street-level bureaucracy and has detailed scholarly support when needed. It is effectively neutral and without bias, even though the subject matter itself is hardly controversial.

Sourcing The article does a good job of taking a neutral, objective viewpoint and is fairly balanced. It only states as facts what it can back up with sources/references, which is good. The overall coverage is well balanced, for the most part. Maybe spend a little less time on discretion and more on corruption and accountability.

Readability All the language is pretty well written. It has very few typos or errors. Written scholastically but not in a way that would prohibit most from understanding the content of this article. The structure is probably the strongest aspect of the article, provided that y'all fill in the blank spots obviously. Good use of headings, tables, and all that stuff to illustrate your points. It follow Wikipedia's proper formatting details fairly well. Capitalization should be review in some parts. I would also recommend finding one or two applicable picture and using them for the article.

Open-Ended Questions 1. I really like the way that the group has strutted the article. They have a lot of different sections that each cover a different part of street-level bureaucracy. I also really like the table that is used and all of the different facets of y'all's sections.

2. The first improvement: Fill in the blank areas like "corruption" and "accountability" where there is currently nothing. The second improvement: Maybe find a few more sources to go with the ones you already have.

Great job, guys! Ryanmadden1 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's my initial contribution!

Technology and Street-Level Bureaucracy

Concerning increasing technological advances and its relationship with street-level bureaucracy, there are two major theories: Curtailment theory, and Enablement Theory. Curtailment theory holds that increasing technological advances hinders street-level bureaucrats and their ability to perform effectively; especially concerning their ability of discretion. Enablement theory holds that increasing technological advances, at best, empowers the existing abilities of the street-level bureaucrat and better informs the citizen. At worst, its effects are ambiguous.

Curtailment Theory: It was first argued by Snellen (1998, 2002) that increasing technological advances (ITA) “deeply challenges [the street-level bureaucrat’s] ability to manipulate information.” Snellen believed it was the ability to manipulate information that gave the SLB’s their power. He further argued that as more decisions are made by computers or other automated machines, SLB’s will lose their discretionary powers and it will shift to other actors (Snellen 1998, 2002, Buffat). However, there are four problems with this thesis. First, it is implied, but never proven, that with the arrival of more technology, discretion at the frontline will diminish or become non-existent (Buffat). Second, Snellen’s definition of the SLB’s source of power is too narrow and does not take into account other sources of discretion (Buffat). Third, this thesis only pertains to particular public organizations and does not apply to more common types of street-level bureaucracies such as police departments, schools, or social welfare departments (Buffat). Lastly, this theory does not take into account how SLB’s and other caseworkers actually utilize this new technology and how that might affect their performance.

Enablement Theory: In contrast to the Curtailment Theory, a 2007 study by Jorna and Wagenaar showed that ITA was able to increase the amount of work done while cutting down on inconsistencies. However, the meaning and content of this work was not able to be captured and understood by ITA. A 2004 study by Vitalis and Duhaut highlighted the ambiguous nature of ITA. It was shown that the internet or other forms of technology were utilized for simpler tasks, and more elaborate and complex matters were dealt with face to face with workers and citizens. Vitalis and Duhaut come to the conclusion that a SLB has their discretionary power enhanced by ITA, and citizens benefit from ITA by being better informed of their rights when dealing with SLBs and their institutions. This theory maintains that discretion by the SLB is not hindered in anyway by ITA and will continue to do their jobs effectively. This theory also focuses more on how ITA is utilized by both citizens and state agents which puts more emphasis on the ability of ITA to further help and empower SLBs and citizens (Buffat).

Erik SaucedoEsauce95 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Addison, this is just a replacement of my bibliography to make it more simple for you to obtain information. Hupe, Peter, and Michael Hill. "Street-Level Bureaucracy And Public Accountability." Public Administration 85.2 (2007): 279-99. Web. .

Bergen, Ann, and Alison While. "'Implementation Deficit' and 'street-level Bureaucracy': Policy, Practice and Change in the Development of Community Nursing Issues." Health and Social Care in the Community 13.1 (2005): 1-10. Web.

Bovens, Mark, and Stavros Zouridis. "From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control." Public Administration Review 62.2 (2002): 174-84. Web.

Moore, S. T. "The Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy: A Positive Critique." Administration & Society 19.1 (1987): 74-94. Web.

Thomas, John C., and Victoria Johnson. "The Urban Public Hospital as Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Employee Perspective." Public Personnel Management 20.3 (1991): 271-81. 02:45, 26 March 2015 Billirish01 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bovens, Mark, and Stavros Zouridis. "From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control." Public Administration Review 62.2 (2002): 174-84. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. .

Carrington, Keith. "Is There a Need for Control?" Public Administration Quarterly 29.1 (2005): 140-61. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. .

Honig, Merideth. "Street Level Bureaucracy Revisited: Frontline District Central-Office Administrators as Boundary Spanners in Education Policy Implementation." Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 28.4 (2006): 357-83. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. .

Kelly, Marisa. "Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4.2 (1994): 119-40. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. .

Lipsky, Michael. "Street-Level Bureaucracy." On Managing Street Level Bureaucracy (2010): 212-37. JSTOR. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. .

"Protecting Children: The Banality of Bureaucracy." Los Angeles Times, 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. .