Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts

Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts

Robert K. Christensen, John Szmer, Justin Stritch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

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 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Supreme Court
prejudice
gender
trend
workload
public administration
public policy
workplace
justice
Gender bias
Assignment
Prejudice
Workload

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Cite this

Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts : Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts. / Christensen, Robert K.; Szmer, John; Stritch, Justin.

In: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 22, No. 4, 10.2012, p. 625-648.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{53a8c4b9d2ed4569b9c5a4e35102ae37,
title = "Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts: Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts",
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.",
author = "Christensen, {Robert K.} and John Szmer and Justin Stritch",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1093/jopart/mus020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "625--648",
journal = "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory",
issn = "1053-1858",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts

T2 - Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts

AU - Christensen, Robert K.

AU - Szmer, John

AU - Stritch, Justin

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867025781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867025781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jopart/mus020

DO - 10.1093/jopart/mus020

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 625

EP - 648

JO - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

JF - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

SN - 1053-1858

IS - 4

ER -