Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilProposer un articleAppels en coursCall for papers n°13: Digital adm...

Call for papers n°13: Digital administration in the light of work

Special issue edited by Anne Bellon (UTC, Costech), Éric Dagiral (Université Paris Cité, CERLIS) and Jean-Marc Weller (CNRS, LISIS). Deadline for abstract submissions: SEPTEMBER 22nd, 2022

Following the changes they have brought about in fields as varied as leisure, education, health or simply our sociability, digital technologies have also transformed public administrations. Technical devices have indeed become unavoidable in terms of tax declarations, school orientation, or social assistance applications, etc. They contribute to the renewal of state/users’ relationships, internal organization and citizens’ participation in the decision-making.

  • 1 Fountain, Jane, Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change, Washin (...)
  • 2 Henman, Paul. Governing electronically. E-government and the reconfiguration of public administrati (...)
  • 3 O'Reilly, Tim. Government as a Platform. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2011, (...)
  • 4 Jacques Chevallier, « Vers l’État-plateforme ? », Revue française d’administration publique, vol. 1 (...)
  • 5 Some examples of journal issues published in recent years include, Social Science Computer Review o (...)

The digitization of public administrations, which has accelerated in recent years, now affects all sectors of public intervention and is becoming one of the pillars of the modernization of the State. It inspires new strategies and gives rise to new representations of the State, such as the "Virtual State"1 at the end of the 1990s, the "E-Government"2, or more recently the "Government as a Platform"3, an emblematic figure that has been endorsed in France under the expression "Platform State"4, giving rise to both enthusiasm and criticism. This phenomenon has triggered scholarly attention and has already led to several collective publications investigating digitization for specific aspects or areas of public intervention5.

Following this trend, RESET launches a special issue dedicated to administration and digital technology. By "administration", we refer to the voluntarily broad set of public institutions in charge of providing non-market goods and services, and by "digital" we are more particularly interested in the recent computerized devices that contribute to endowing organizations with new production capacities. Clearly, their encounter is accompanied by numerous tensions and entails many forms of adoptions. The misnamed "dematerialization", whether or not followed by a reduction in procedures and paperwork, can exclude those less familiar with computer tools, especially when the deployment of these tools means the suppression of physical offices and alternative modes of communication. The simplification of rules and processes, allegedly facilitated by digital technology, may itself encounter difficulties in implementation, come up against existing practices that make sense for actors, and paradoxically lead to new complexities for professionals and recipients alike.

In short, the ambition of this special issue is to bring together contributions that, in various fields of public action, inform the real uses of digital devices, and even more centrally, the way the latter affect administrative work. Understood as the various tasks actors have to carry out, even if it is not formally recognized as such or experienced as such, work is indeed a heuristic perspective for social analysis. First, work refers to what everyone has to do in practice when they have to use digital technology, whether an agent in a decentralized service or a senior civil servant in a central department, an office worker or a user at home. Secondly, work allows us to question both those who use these technologies on a daily basis and those who design them. It implies considering what the latter have had to do in order to create and implement new devices, as well as the representations and transformations they bring about, in terms of organization or employment. Finally, digital tools are based on scripts that reflects technical choices as much as political ones, and whose capacity to affect or bring about the world they design is experienced in action, through work. After having briefly recalled some historical threads about digital technology and administration (1) and the various perspective that take “work” into account (2), this call will specify the different lines of research our special issue intends to promote (3).

A dual relationship between government and digital technology

  • 6 Jack Goody, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
  • 7 Jon Agar, The government machine, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), 2003.

The digitization of the administration is part of a long history that goes well beyond the more recent transformations this issue intends to focus on. It designates a very old process, if we consider that it is essentially a graphic revolution, combining in renewed ways numbers, letters and figures6. To that extent, it follows a long trail that, from account books to paper files, from typewriters to computers, shows the crucial role of technical and scriptural devices in the building of bureaucracies7.

  • 8 Delphine Gardey, Écrire, calculer, classer. Comment une révolution de papier a transformé les socié (...)

A first aspect of this history is the rise of document production and management systems inherent to the emergence of large organizations and their growing need of coordination. Since the last third of the 19th century, the generalization of writing, the expansion of standardized forms and mail, but also the telegraph, the pneumatic or the telephone, have marked the history of administrative work. Its mechanization, then its computerization, are part of a rational ideal based on calculation, accuracy, objectivity, and speed. This issue focuses on digitization as a last turning point in this gradual process of manufacturing "information", as a detachable entity that can be produced, stored, processed and analyzed8: what does the digital era change, from the point of view of the work associated with this manufacture of information?

  • 9 Éric Dagiral, La construction socio-technique de l’administration électronique. Les usagers et les (...)

Another aspect of this history regards the relationship of the administration with the public, which for a long time was only marginally concerned by the aforementioned innovations. In fact, until the mid-1980s, neither computers nor even the telephone were considered as a strategic vector for exchanges between bureaucracies and the public. It is only with the nascent telematic technologies that an articulation between data-processing development and tools of communication took place for the first time, epitomized in France by the Minitel. Finally, the Internet and its diffusion have favored this hybridization, the internet becoming an unavoidable instrument to promote the "electronic" relations between administration and its "users"9.

Whether in terms of design or practices, the progressive digitization of administration raises various issues, notably legal ones: it informs the rule of law and the fairness of decisions mad in the name of these new technologies. Moreover, it has many local or sectorial variations. From one administration to another, depending on the scale and the field of public intervention, configurations vary, giving rise to experiments that are sometimes innovative, sometimes difficult, and in any case different. This special issue of RESET proposes to explore the diversity of these digital realities within administrations following the thread of work and working processes.

Some considerations on work

Among the many ways of understanding digital assimilation in administrations, several intellectual traditions focus on the question of work. They form a varied landscape of research, in which three main trends can be distinguished.

  • 10 Regarding these examples : Christian Licoppe et Sylvaine Tuncer, « La surveillance par bracelet éle (...)

The first stems from the concern to describe the activity of professionals. The grain of the description is deliberately as fine as possible, using methodological procedures derived from observations (audio or video recordings, textual corpora, etc.), in order to convey from the inside the rationale of actors and the practical constraints they are confronted with. For prison officers in charge of supervising prisoners, teachers struggling with the grading of final papers or judges conducting trial hearings, this body of research describes the acts of language they perform, in interaction with their material and human environment10. Digital technologies are analyzed in this perspective, considering the variously adjusted resources they offer for action. This attention to interactional work and its equipment enables, moreover, to question the transformation of professional practices, the effects of digital devices and the meaning of the policies specific to their deployment.

  • 11 Hull, Matthew, Government of Paper. The materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan, Berkeley, Uni (...)
  • 12 Mesnel Blandine, État des lieux. Les démarches administratives à l’interface des gouvernants et des (...)

A second set of studies is in line with the sociology of science and its preoccupation with restoring the depth of laboratory work, emphasizing the importance of the production of information, measurement and classification instruments. Attention to inscriptions, traces, graphs, and more broadly to writings, files, their circulation and transformation, has inspired research on the work of agents and the practical conditions of regulatory decision-making11. It demonstrates the capacity of these devices to become the support of inequalities, renewed or renewed, as well as the vector of their invisibilization. Administrative "paperwork" is also the object of growing attention in political science, both as a reflection of the relationship between the governors and the governed and as an instrument of intervention12. Constituted as a public problem, its reduction is moreover the stake of "simplification" policies in which most state reform projects are included. It is in this perspective that digital technologies can be understood, through the ways in which they recompose work spaces, but also the processes of manufacturing, processing and circulating information, notably through the "data" that public policies are increasingly claiming as their own.

  • 13 Jean-Marie Pillon, « Hiérarchiser les tâches, classer les chômeurs. La gestion du chômage assistée (...)

Finally, a third body of work extends the study of bureaucratic organizations and policies, as well as of their transformation. Whether to promote investigations "from below" that seek to understand practices on both sides of the counter - and at a distance from it – or to render the implementation of public policies, the focus on actors, their respective interests and their struggles, appears to be central. Approached through the point of view of mobilizable resources or sociability, the work is questioned as regards the strategic use of these tools. For the computer-assisted management of unemployment or the policies that control and fight fraud in the distribution of social benefits, the question of arbitration between files and the dilemmas that are bound to arise have inspired a rich literature. It discusses the effects of digital technology on street-level workers13 who are supposed to have a large margin of interpretation and to contribute to the concrete implementation of public policies, just as it questions the effects in terms of civil rights and possible discrimination.

Three thematic axes to deal with digital administration and work

Given this review of literature, the call for proposal invites empirical contributions dedicated to the study of e-government according to three complementary axes of reflection, each one focusing on a specific consideration on work.

A first axis to highlight the work done by users

  • 14 Marie-Anne Dujarier, Le travail du consommateur, Paris, La Découverte, 2008
  • 15 Antonio Casilli et Dominique Cardon, Qu’est-ce que le digital labor ?, INA, 2015

Sometimes presented as a duty to accomplish, as a list of documents and material elements to provide, or as answers to the administrations and their agents, it is yet not self-evident to consider the actions of users as work. Like the digital labor done by consumers14, or in the light of the debates in social sciences questioning the nature of the tasks accomplished by Internet users in the course of their digital wanderings15, considering the actions of citizens as labor invites us to study a series of shifts within the administrative sphere. In this perspective, the figure of the user is at the crossroads of transformations associated both with the forefront of public service modernization, and the incessant work of appropriating digital technologies. It is clear that, regarding the massification of ordinary and exceptional digital practices over the last twenty years, the work of users has received little attention in this area.

  • 16 Eubanks, Virginia, Automating Inequality: How High-tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor, (...)

First of all, considering the activities of citizens from this angle raises questions about the ways in which work is reconfigured and the new division of work associated with the widespread use of digital tools, both in the daily lives of individuals and among professional users of remote administrative services. Largely guided by scripts, information gathering and procedures can be articulated with other modes of interaction with agents, at a distance or face-to-face. To what extent are these interactions reconfigured, avoided, sought after and sometimes favored, depending on the user? For example, how do citizens navigate among the variety of existing information channels, when they have to obtain or renew an identity card or a passport? What role do territorial dimensions and inequalities play in these processes? If it is accepted that a plurality of remote and face-to-face contact modes should remain accessible, how do users experience the progressively digital-only nature of a growing number of (annual tax return, car registration, etc.)? Assuming that these transformations are intended to answer long-standing criticisms and demands for simplification, with fewer trips to the administrative services in hope of saving time, or more simply, less work to be done at home, to what extent do they actually increase or take weight off the users? At the same time, there are also users for whom such procedures are part of their professional activity: this is the case of farmers who must now integrate variables ways of filling forms and answering the administration into their daily work. This axis of the call therefore invites us to take into account and question the plurality of ways in which users relate with administrations or assert they rights, regardless of the intensity of their mediation by digital means. Beyond the renewed forms of non-use and non-recourse, what discriminations are likely to be committed via the new devices developed16?

  • 17 Dominique Pasquier, L’Internet des familles modestes, Paris, Presses des Mines, 2018
  • 18 Héléna Revil et Philippe Warin, « Le numérique, le risque de ne plus prévenir le non-recours », Vie (...)

Secondly, the attention to users' labor and the possible emergence of new digital chores invites us to analyze the place and the roles taken by administrative tasks among contemporary digital activities, next to leisure practices, sociability, or, at a greater proximity, online banking services. Using online administrative services requires intensive work in order to find and maintain the necessary electronic tools and devices. The ethnography of digital practices in low-income families has indeed highlighted the worries and annoyances generated by the growing importance of online services, alongside undeniable satisfactions17. For employment, education or health procedures, users have to face various tasks, such as exploration and learning, and whose distribution within households - notably its gendered dynamics - deserves to be questioned. For example, in addition to opening and filing papers and forms, citizens have now to manage emails, PDF files, or create an electronic signature. How do they deal with these various tools and services: do they manage to understand the processes and find information about their allowances, what difficulties do they face, eventually leading to drop-out or new forms of non-use18? How much of this work is mediated by third-party professionals, notably from the non-profit sector, helping users to get to grips with digital systems? And even before the cognitive skills required to deal with digital services, an intensive maintenance work is involved: equipment, maintenance and updating of a computer, often a printer, sometimes a scanner, and above all at least one backup device (key, hard disk). On what type of papers and files assemblages are inscribed the taxpayer or beneficiary numbers, the identifiers and passwords of the myriad of portals and services?

A second axis concerns the work of public agents

  • 19 Caroline Datchary, La dispersion au travail, Toulouse, Octarès, 2011
  • 20 Leïla Frouillou, Clément Pin et Agnès van Zanten, « Le rôle des instruments dans la sélection des b (...)
  • 21 Didier Torny, « La traçabilité comme technique de gouvernement des hommes et des choses », Politix, (...)

Characterized by many forms of writing, the work of public servants is based on diverse equipment that digital technologies modify in various ways. What questions does it raise, given the regulatory issues attached to their decisions? From note-taking to data management, from reading files to machine-based decision-making, from responding to users to accompanying them, the work of agents is made up of new activities whose multiple and dispersed nature often constitutes a challenge19. While it is recognized that the introduction of email, collaborative tools, and management software affects practices, the concrete work situations of civil servants are still to be documented. How do teachers manage the additional tasks generated by the use of digital tools dedicated to school guidance or grading? How do judges decide whether to use investigation technologies to gather evidence or locate a suspect, while respecting the rights of the accused? To what extent is the commitment of police officers affected, given the digital devices now in use in some police departments to monitor and regulate their work20? How do actors find the time to check the information that pass on their screen, notably when a decision is involved? In fact, the multiplication of paper trails and the increasing automation of processes intensifies these issues related to administrative work21.

  • 22 Mark Bovens and Stavros Zouridis, From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information (...)
  • 23 Donald Moynihan et Pamela Herd, « Red Tape and Democracy: How Rules Affect Citizenship Rights », Th (...)

The introduction of digital technologies is also leading to new forms of administrative organization, with its alleged concern for transparency, responsiveness and efficiency. The diversification of communication channels and the implementation of a “single-window approach” have replaced the old variety of counters by voice servers, queue management tools, internet portal, chat bot, etc. The processing of cases, sometimes driven by complex algorithms and subject to increased automation, displaces the old divisions of labor and their professions. New modes of control, made possible by automatic monitoring devices (indicators, dashboards, statistics, remote sensing, etc.), has imposed itself to the detriment of older forms (inspections, on-site controls). To what extent do these digital tools of quantification and evaluation, introduced in the name of a rational and managerial vision of public organizations, modify work? Are they not themselves part of the extension of the computerization of public bureaucracies, caught in a tension between the mass processing of files and the necessary consideration of individual situations, whose compromises mark the history of its organization? Should we consider that these tensions and uncertainty increase the risk of arbitrariness and discrimination22? Do they not, at the very least, remind us that the relationship between bureaucracies and their publics is covered by an "administrative burden"23 whose lightening, promised by the "digital transformation", is not so obvious, and may be accompanied by discrimination or non-recourse in terms of access to the law? At what price do professional actors invent and adjust in order to minimize these possible consequences?

A third axis focuses on the work of digital project designers

  • 24 Bellon, Anne. Gouverner l’internet : Mobilisations, expertises et bureaucraties dans la fabrique de (...)
  • 25 Alauzen, Marie. Plis et replis de l'État plateforme. Enquête sur la modernisation des services publ (...)
  • 26 Gilles Jeannot, Simon Cottin-Marx, La privatisation numérique. Déstabilisation et réinvention du se (...)

The implementation of digital technologies within State bureaucracies also relies on the work of those who, from within or outside the administrations, participate in the design and daily maintenance of these systems: senior civil servants in charge of formalizing "e-government" plans, external consultants called upon to integrate new software or, more recently, young data scientists associated with the “Government as a platform” or the auditing of algorithms, etc. Who are these “innovators” and, above all, how does the administration treat or even mistreat them? Previous research has shown that despite the proliferation of digital projects in public administrations, IT experts are still struggling to value their skills in the decision-making process or as an asset in the traditional careers of senior civil servant24. In "start-up" administrations, project teams are faced with budgetary constraints and numerous cross-ministerial arbitrations that contribute to an intensification of their work, and can even lead to weariness or discouragement25. As a result, following the trend of privatization and the resort to consulting firms26, outsourcing appears to become the norm, to the benefit of a rapidly developing consulting sector. The last axis of contributions therefore aims at developing the sociology of those who carry out the projects of digital administration and the ways in which they consider or reconsider administrative work.

  • 27 DiMaggio, Paul J. 1988 `Interest and agency in institutional theory' in Institutional patterns and (...)

One possible theoretical entry arising from political sociology is the study of "bureaucratic entrepreneurs"27, which analyses the mobilization of modernizing agents and the way they contribute to reforming the State and transforming public policies. In line with research on the hybridization of administrative careers, these agents are rarely statutory employees and their professional trajectories are characterized by movements in and out of public administration, which displays their difficult integration into traditional civil servant careers. Using this notion of institutional entrepreneurship, contributions could discuss how these agents import new professional cultures into the administration and have a hand in their translation into technocratic language and processes.

  • 28 Ihl, O., Kaluszynski, M., & Pollet, G. (2003). Les sciences de gouvernement (pp. 218-p). Paris: Eco (...)
  • 29 Alauzen, Marie, et Coline Malivel. « Le design est-il en passe de devenir une science de gouverneme (...)

Another possible thread of exploration is the “sciences of government"28 which questions the recognition or non-recognition of specific expertise in government work. Beyond computer science, design, ergonomics and sociology concur to the construction of digital transformation projects29. What knowledge is therefore used in the drafting, evaluation or monitoring of digital administration? Which professionals embody this expertise and participate in the dissemination and incorporation of this knowledge in the State? And how do they coexist with the established sciences of government such as law or political economy?

  • 30 Patrick Dunleavy, Helen Margetts, Simon Bastow, and Jane Tinkler, Digital Era Governance: IT Corpor (...)

Finally, the proposals of this axis could study the place of innovators within new configurations of actors that take part in the realization of digital projects for the government30. Which actors cooperate, and how, for the implementation of an algorithm or the creation of a consultation platform? According to which hierarchies and despite which tensions? Which other groups are excluded or distanced from these new programs and their design? The aim is to describe the institutional arrangements within which technological devices are designed and implemented, but also to understand how their implementation informs the established divisions of labor, between public and private sectors on the one hand, and between ministries or administrative levels on the other.

Practical information

The abstracts (500 words maximum) are due by September 22nd, 2022. They should be sent to the following addresses:

annebellon2@gmail.com

eric.dagiral@parisdescartes.fr

jean-marc.weller@univ-eiffel.fr

journal.reset@gmail.com

The abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by the issue coordinators and the members of the editorial board. Answers would be sent in October 2022. Authors of submissions selected at this stage will be asked to e-mail their full papers by January 23rd, 2022.

The abstracts, written in either English or French, should state the research question, the methodology, and the theoretical framework used. It will focus on the scientific relevance of the proposed article in light of the existing literature and the call for papers, and may be accompanied by a short bibliography. We would like to draw the authors' attention to a special section called Revisiting the Classics, devoted to new readings of classical authors and theories in light of the Internet.

The journal RESET also accepts submissions to its “Varia” section, open to scholarly work in the Humanities and Social Sciences dealing with an Internet-related object or method of research.

Notes

1 Fountain, Jane, Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change, Washington DC, Brooking Institution Press, 2001.

2 Henman, Paul. Governing electronically. E-government and the reconfiguration of public administration, policy and power. Palgrave MacMillan, 2010.

3 O'Reilly, Tim. Government as a Platform. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2011, vol. 6, no 1, p. 13-40.

4 Jacques Chevallier, « Vers l’État-plateforme ? », Revue française d’administration publique, vol. 167, n° 3, 2018, p. 627-637 et Gilles Jeannot, « Vie et mort de l’État plateforme », Revue française d’administration publique, vol.173, n°1, 2020, p. 165-180.

5 Some examples of journal issues published in recent years include, Social Science Computer Review on E-Government (2003, vol. 21, n°1), the special issue of Réseaux dedicated to local authorities and digital government (2019, no. 218), the one dedicated by Gouvernement et Action Publique to IT devices in the social sector (2015, vol.2, no. 4), or the one published by the Revue française d'administration publique on the production and uses of public data (2018, vol.3, no. 167), among others.

6 Jack Goody, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society, Cambridge University Press, 1986.

7 Jon Agar, The government machine, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), 2003.

8 Delphine Gardey, Écrire, calculer, classer. Comment une révolution de papier a transformé les sociétés contemporaines (1800–1940), La Découverte, 2008.

9 Éric Dagiral, La construction socio-technique de l’administration électronique. Les usagers et les usages de l’administration fiscale. Ecole des Ponts ParisTech & Université Paris Est - Marne-la-Vallée, 2007.

10 Regarding these examples : Christian Licoppe et Sylvaine Tuncer, « La surveillance par bracelet électronique en action. Ethnographie de l’activité dans les pôles centralisateurs de surveillance et analyse des conversations téléphoniques entre surveillants et surveillés », in René Lévy et al., Le bracelet électronique : action publique, pénalité et connectivité, Médecine & Hygiène, 2019, pp.165-188 ; Camille Capelle, « Pratiques de correction sur copies d’examen et nouveaux usages instrumentés », EducPros, 2010, pp.1-16 ; Christian Licoppe, « Ouvrir, suspendre et lever une audience à distance tenue par visio-conférence. Effets performatifs des actes de langage et situations équipées », Etudes de communication, n°29, 2006.

11 Hull, Matthew, Government of Paper. The materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan, Berkeley, University California Press, 2012
et Weller, Jean-Marc, Fabriquer des actes d’Etat. Une ethnographie du travail bureaucratique, Economica, Paris, 2018

12 Mesnel Blandine, État des lieux. Les démarches administratives à l’interface des gouvernants et des gouvernés, Gouvernement et Action publique, 2021/2, p.113-128

13 Jean-Marie Pillon, « Hiérarchiser les tâches, classer les chômeurs. La gestion du chômage assistée par ordinateur », Réseaux, n°195, 2016, pp.197-228 et Vincent Dubois, Morgane Paris et Pierre-Edouard Weill, « Des chiffres et des droits. Le data mining ou la statistique au service du contrôle des allocataires », Revue des politiques sociales et familiales, n°126, 2018, pp.49-60

14 Marie-Anne Dujarier, Le travail du consommateur, Paris, La Découverte, 2008

15 Antonio Casilli et Dominique Cardon, Qu’est-ce que le digital labor ?, INA, 2015

16 Eubanks, Virginia, Automating Inequality: How High-tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor, MacMillan, 2018

17 Dominique Pasquier, L’Internet des familles modestes, Paris, Presses des Mines, 2018

18 Héléna Revil et Philippe Warin, « Le numérique, le risque de ne plus prévenir le non-recours », Vie sociale, n°28, p. 121-133, 2019

19 Caroline Datchary, La dispersion au travail, Toulouse, Octarès, 2011

20 Leïla Frouillou, Clément Pin et Agnès van Zanten, « Le rôle des instruments dans la sélection des bacheliers dans l’enseignement supérieur. La nouvelle gouvernance des affectations par les algorithmes », Sociologie, vol.10, n°2, 2019, pp.209-215 et Bilel Benbouzid, « Quand prédire, c’est gérer. La police prédictive aux Etats-Unis », Réseaux, n°211, 2018, pp.221-256

21 Didier Torny, « La traçabilité comme technique de gouvernement des hommes et des choses », Politix, 44, 1998, p. 51-75

22 Mark Bovens 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, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2002, pp. 174-184.

23 Donald Moynihan et Pamela Herd, « Red Tape and Democracy: How Rules Affect Citizenship Rights », The American Review of Public Administration, vol.40, n°6, 2010, pp.654-670

24 Bellon, Anne. Gouverner l’internet : Mobilisations, expertises et bureaucraties dans la fabrique des politiques numériques (1969-2017). 2018. Thèse de doctorat. Paris 1.

25 Alauzen, Marie. Plis et replis de l'État plateforme. Enquête sur la modernisation des services publics en France. 2019. Thèse de doctorat. Université Paris sciences et lettres.

26 Gilles Jeannot, Simon Cottin-Marx, La privatisation numérique. Déstabilisation et réinvention du service public. Paris, Raisons d’agir, 2022. Horrocks, Ivan. "‘Experts and E-government: Power, influence and the capture of a policy domain in the UK." Information, Communication & Society 12.1 (2009): 110-127.

27 DiMaggio, Paul J. 1988 `Interest and agency in institutional theory' in Institutional patterns and organizations. Lynne Zucker (ed.), 3-32. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Or more recently, Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization studies, 26(3), 385-414.

28 Ihl, O., Kaluszynski, M., & Pollet, G. (2003). Les sciences de gouvernement (pp. 218-p). Paris: Economica.

29 Alauzen, Marie, et Coline Malivel. « Le design est-il en passe de devenir une science de gouvernement ? Réflexion sur les espoirs suscités par les sciences du design dans la modernisation de l’État en France (2014–2019) », Sciences du Design, vol. 12, no. 2, 2020, pp. 36-47.

30 Patrick Dunleavy, Helen Margetts, Simon Bastow, and Jane Tinkler, Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and e-Government? Oxford University Press, 2006.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search