Bureaucratization - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Bureaucratization

The Experts below are selected from a list of 285 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Barry Bozeman – 1st expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Bureaucratization in academic research policy what causes it
    , 2017
    Co-Authors: Barry Bozeman, Jiwon Jung

    Abstract:

    Senior academic researchers and research administrators whose careers have spanned decades have witnessed a monotonic trend in the growth of bureaucratic rules and structures pertaining to research policy. The increase in administrative requirements takes many forms, some directly related to research and others tangentially related. While the onslaught of rules has increased administrative burdens, not all of these requirements are red tape; many are useful and even vital. But when taken together, the amount of administrative procedure and documentation associated with research conduct and administration becomes crushing. Others have well documented the Bureaucratization of university research policy and administration. Our primary purpose is to explain why rules and regulations and the bureaucratic structures supporting them continue to grow, extracting an ever-greater toll on time and resources available for actual research. Absent an explanation of the growth of administrative burden, it is not possible to provide valid assessment of the effectiveness of rules and regulations pertaining to research policy. We examine the problem from the lens of a well-developed theory of organizational red tape specifically, applying it specifically to the problem of research administration red tape. The theory suggests that the increase in research policy Bureaucratization can be explained chiefly by three different factors: crisis response, pressures for bureaucratic over-control, and the use of research policy for side-payments, both social side-payments (to achieve social goals not directly related to research) and political side-payments (conferring factor with political supporters by proving rules or policy symbols favored by them). To help elaborate the theory as well as to provide context, we provide case illustrations of ranging from the vitally important (research misconduct) to mundane bureaucratic requirements (standardization of required biosketches).

  • Bureaucratization in Academic Research Policy: What Causes It?
    Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 2017
    Co-Authors: Barry Bozeman, Jiwon Jung

    Abstract:

    Senior academic researchers and research administrators whose careers have spanned decades have witnessed a monotonic trend in the growth of bureaucratic rules and structures pertaining to research policy. The increase in administrative requirements takes many forms, some directly related to research and others tangentially related. While the onslaught of rules has increased administrative burdens, not all of these requirements are red tape; many are useful and even vital. But when taken together, the amount of administrative procedure and documentation associated with research conduct and administration becomes crushing. Others have well documented the Bureaucratization of university research policy and administration. Our primary purpose is to explain why rules and regulations and the bureaucratic structures supporting them continue to grow, extracting an ever-greater toll on time and resources available for actual research. Absent an explanation of the growth of administrative burden, it is not possible to provide valid assessment of the effectiveness of rules and regulations pertaining to research policy. We examine the problem from the lens of a well-developed theory of organizational red tape specifically, applying it specifically to the problem of research administration red tape. The theory suggests that the increase in research policy Bureaucratization can be explained chiefly by three different factors: crisis response, pressures for bureaucratic over-control, and the use of research policy for side-payments, both social side-payments (to achieve social goals not directly related to research) and political side-payments (conferring factor with political supporters by proving rules or policy symbols favored by them). To help elaborate the theory as well as to provide context, we provide case illustrations of ranging from the vitally important (research misconduct) to mundane bureaucratic requirements (standardization of required biosketches).

  • Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer from US government R&D laboratories: the impact of market orientation
    Technovation, 1992
    Co-Authors: Barry Bozeman, Karen Coker

    Abstract:

    This study, based on a national survey of US government laboratories, assesses the degree of success laboratories have had in transferring technology to industry, taking into account the laboratories’ differing receptivity to market influences. Three success criteria are considered here, two based on self-evaluations, and a third based on the number of technology licenses issued from the laboratory. The two self-evaluations are rooted in different types of effectiveness, ‘getting technology out the door’ in one case and, in the other, having a demonstrable commercial impact. A core hypothesis of the study is that the two types of effectiveness will be responsive to different factors and, in particular, the laboratories with a clearer market orientation will have a higher degree of success on the commercial impact and technology license criteria. Overall, the results seem to suggest that multi-faceted, multi-mission laboratories are likely to enjoy the most success in technology transfer, especially if they have relatively low levels of Bureaucratization, and either ties to industry (particularly direct financial ties) or a commercial orientation in the selection of projects.

Chris Barrie – 2nd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • the Bureaucratization of war moral challenges exemplified by the covert lethal drone
    Headmark, 2014
    Co-Authors: Richard Adams, Chris Barrie

    Abstract:

    This paper interrogates the Bureaucratization of war, incarnate in the covert lethal drone. Bureaucracies are criticized typically for their complexity, inefficiency, and inflexibility. The present paper is concerned with their moral indifference. We explore killing, which is so highly administered, so morally remote, and of such scale, that we acknowledge a covert lethal program. This is a bureaucratized program of assassination in contravention of critical human rights.

  • the Bureaucratization of war moral challenges exemplified by the covert lethal drone
    Ethics & Global Politics, 2013
    Co-Authors: Richard Adams, Chris Barrie

    Abstract:

    This article interrogates the Bureaucratization of war, incarnate in the covert lethal drone. Bureaucracies are criticized typically for their complexity, inefficiency, and inflexibility. This article is concerned with their moral indifference. It explores killing, which is so highly administered, so morally remote, and of such scale, that we acknowledge a covert lethal program. This is a bureaucratized program of assassination in contravention of critical human rights. In this article, this program is seen to compromise the advance of global justice. Moreover, the Bureaucratization of lethal force is seen to dissolve democratic ideals from within. The bureaucracy isolates the citizens from lethal force applied in their name. People are killed, in the name of the State, but without conspicuous justification, or judicial review, and without informed public debate. This article gives an account of the risk associated with the Bureaucratization of the State’s lethal power. Exemplified by the covert drone, this is power with formidable reach. It is power as well, which requires great moral sensitivity. Considering the drone program, this article identifies challenges, which will become more prominent and pressing, as technology advances.

John P Walsh – 3rd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • the Bureaucratization of science
    Research Policy, 2015
    Co-Authors: John P Walsh

    Abstract:

    While science is traditionally treated as a distinct domain of work organization, increasingly science is organized around larger and larger work groups that resemble small firms, with knowledge as the product. The growth of organized science raises the question of whether we also see a bureaucratic structuring of scientific work groups as predicted by organization theory, with implications for the academic credit system and scientific labor markets. Building on organization theory, we examine the relation between project group size, technical environment, and bureaucratic structuring of scientific work. Using survey data on scientific projects, we find size predicts bureaucratic structuring, with declining marginal effects. We also find that interdisciplinarity and task interdependence have distinct effects on bureaucratic structuring. Finally, the relationship between size and some dimensions of bureaucratic structuring is contingent on levels of work group interdependence in the field. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for policy debates about authorship and scientific careers.