Screen-level bureaucrats in the age of algorithms: : An ethnographic study of algorithmically supported public service workers in the Netherlands Police
Abstract
Algorithms are rapidly transforming government bureaucracies. The implications of this transformation for the work of public service employees are not yet well understood. So far, the literature has mostly neglected the use of algorithms by these “screen-level bureaucrats”, and this constitutes a major gap in our knowledge about how algorithms affect bureaucracies. To understand the work of screen-level bureaucrats and to explore how they actively engage with algorithmic software to support their assessment of online fraud, we analyzed 45 hours of observations and 12 in-depth interviews at the Netherlands Police. We employ a socio-material perspective to analyze the dynamics between screen-level bureaucrats and algorithms. We conclude that for administrative tasks, algorithms help screen-level bureaucrats to perform their work by providing structured data and allowing them to focus more on assessments which need a nuanced judgement. At the same time, algorithmic advice in a decision-making task is simply ignored by the screen-level bureaucrats as they predominantly rely on their professional judgement in the assessment of online fraud reports. This highlights the need to further investigate how an algorithm should not only provide accurate advice to the screen-level bureaucrats but also convince them to follow it.
References
[1]
Alshallaqi, M. (2022). The complexities of digitization and street-level discretion: A socio-materiality perspective. Public Management Review, 1-23.
[2]
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775-779.
[3]
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2020). Administration by algorithm: A risk management framework. Information Polity, 25(4), 471-490.
[4]
Boere, R. (2021, 24 November). Het wemelt van de nepwinkels en we tuinen er massaal in. Het Algemeen Dagblad. https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.uu.nl/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:6451-34X1-JC8X-62XV-00000-00&context=1516831.
[5]
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174-184.
[6]
Buffat, A. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and e-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149-161.
[7]
Bullock, J.B. (2019). Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 751-761.
[8]
Bullock, J., Young, M.M., & Wang, Y.-F. (2020). Artificial intelligence, bureaucratic form, and discretion in public service. Information Polity, 25(4), 491-506.
[9]
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 205395171562251.
[10]
Busch, P.A., & Henriksen, H.Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3-28.
[11]
Cappellaro, G. (2017). Ethnography in public management research: A systematic review and future directions. International Public Management Journal, 20(1), 14-48.
[12]
Chaput, R., Cordie, A., & Mile, A. (2021, 2 February). Explanation for humans, for machines, for Human-Machine interactions? https://hal.science/hal-03106286.
[13]
Christin, A. (2020). The ethnographer and the algorithm: Beyond the black box. Theory and Society, 49(5–6), 897-918.
[14]
de Boer, N., & Raaphorst, N. (2023a). Automation and discretion: Explaining the effect of automation on how street-level bureaucrats enforce. Public Management Review, 25(1), 42-62.
[15]
Dearman, P. (2005). Computerized social casework recording: Autonomy and control in australia’s income support agency. Labor Studies Journal, 30(1), 47-65.
[16]
Eubanks, V. (2019). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor (First Picador edition). Picador St. Martin’s Press.
[17]
Fountain, J.E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
[18]
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.
[19]
Giest, S.N., & Klievink, B. (2022). More than a digital system: How AI is changing the role of bureaucrats in different organizational contexts. Public Management Review, 1-20.
[20]
Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2012). Enacting Electronic Government Success: An Integrative Study of Government-wide Websites, Organizational Capabilities, and Institutions (Vol. 31). Springer US.
[21]
Gillingham, P. (2021). Algorithmically based decision support tools: Skeptical thinking about the inclusion of previous involvement. Practice, 33(1), 37-50.
[22]
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Tummers, L., & Pandey, S.K. (2017). Promoting state-of-the-art methods in public management research. International Public Management Journal, 20(1), 7-13.
[23]
Hoybye-Mortensen, M. (2015). Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworkers’ room for discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 600-615.
[24]
Leonardi. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147.
[25]
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
[26]
Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2020). Responsible and accountable algorithmization: How to Generate Citizen Trust in Governmental Usage of Algorithms. In: R. Peeters & M. Schuilenburg (eds), The Algorithmic Society. London: Routledge.
[27]
Meijer, A., Lorenz, L., & Wessels, M. (2021). Algorithmization of bureaucratic organizations: Using a practice lens to study how context shapes predictive policing systems. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 837-846.
[28]
Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
[29]
Orlikowski, W.J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
[30]
Peeters, R. (2020). The agency of algorithms: Understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making. Information Polity, 25(4), 507-522.
[31]
Petersen, A.C.M., Christensen, L.R., Harper, R., & Hildebrandt, T. (2021). We would never write that down? Classifications of unemployed and data challenges for AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1-26.
[32]
Petersen, A.C.M., Christensen, L.R., & Hildebrandt, T.T. (2020). The role of discretion in the age of automation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 29(3), 303-333.
[33]
Power, D.J. (2008a). Decision Support Systems: A Historical Overview. In F. Burstein & C.W. Holsapple, Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 121-140.
[34]
Power, D.J. (2008b). Understanding data-driven decision support systems. Information Systems Management, 25(2), 149-154.
[35]
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.
[36]
Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 205395171773810.
[37]
Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[38]
Van Wijnen, J.F. (2019, January). Politie schakelt kunstmatige intelligentie in om aangiftes internetfraude te reduceren. Het Financieele Dagblad. https://advance.lexis.com/document?crid=9a54de3a-22f9-4edf-9043-b25630558372&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5V6V-6SC1-JCD9-2058-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=413081&pdmfid=1516831&pdisurlapi=true.
[39]
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6), 865-899.
[40]
Young, M.M., Bullock, J.B., & Lecy, J.D. (2019). Artificial Discretion as a Tool of Governance: A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, gvz014.
[41]
Zouridis, S., van Eck, M., & Bovens, M. (2020). Automated Discretion. In T. Evans & P. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the Quest for Controlled Freedom, Springer International Publishing, pp. 313-329.
Index Terms
- Screen-level bureaucrats in the age of algorithms: An ethnographic study of algorithmically supported public service workers in the Netherlands Police
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Get Bureaucrats on Board: Unmasking Bureaucrats' Attitudes Toward the Government's Adoption of AI
dg.o '24: Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government ResearchWith the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), governments around the world have been exploring possibilities to adopt AI technologies in their operations to improve efficiency and citizen satisfaction. Few studies examine bureaucrats’ ...
Data Discretion: Screen-Level Bureaucrats and Municipal Decision-Making
Public servants tasked with implementing rules or policies on the street level often make discretionary decisions based on local context. Lipsky has labeled them street-level bureaucrats. During the COVID-19 pandemic, as most face-to-face interactions ...
Doing Together: Co-Designing the Socio-Materiality of Services in Public Sector
This article examines a systemic innovation model into which the relational approach of actor-network theory ANT has been incorporated. The article examines what the relational approach can contribute to the conceptualization of services and to the co-...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
© 2024 – IOS Press. All rights reserved.
Publisher
IOS Press
Netherlands
Publication History
Published: 27 August 2024
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in