Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts: Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts

Robert K. Christensen, John Szmer, Justin M. Stritch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

Do certain types of administrative processes better inhibit race and gender prejudices that may surface in the public workplace? We compare the effects of three distinct administrative settings on race, gender, and other biases in the workload assignments of state supreme court justices-important public policy making settings that have been understudied in public administration. In particular, we model the extent to which majority opinion-writing assignment processes exhibit prejudice in states that use randomized assignments, rotated assignments, or fully discretionary assignments, respectively. Our findings confirm that administrative process matters. We use theories of status characteristics and administrative oversight to explain the relationship between administrative context and workload assignment patterns. Based on data from all 50 states, we discover that prejudice exists but that certain administrative processes serve better than others to suppress race and gender biases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)625-648
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts: Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this