The Adoption of Robotics by Government Agencies: Evidence from Crime Labs
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| Author | Andrew B. Whitford,Jeff Yates,Adam Burchfield,Jason L. Anastasopoulos,Derrick M. Anderson |
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13301 |
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 80, Iss. 6, pp. 976–988. © 2020 The
Authors. Public Administration Review
published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of
American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.1111/puar.13301.
976 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
The Adoption of Robotics by Government Agencies:
Evidence from Crime Labs
Abstract: Two decades of research have helped show that government agencies can be innovative under certain
conditions. We test hypotheses about the adoption and use of robotics as a key emerging leading-edge technology
as advanced economies undergo the latest technological revolution. We focus on the case of U.S. crime laboratories
as a core component of the “evidence assembly process” in the U.S. justice system. Using data from the census of
crime labs, we show that the adoption of robotics depends on familiar “push-and-pull” factors: the push of agency
professionalism, the pull of agency task environments, and the supporting capability of resources. Together these
findings suggest that agencies can be early adopters of robotics as advanced technologies if they have the capacity
(and need) to do so.
Evidence for Practice
• Different factors support or constrain the adoption of advanced technologies such as robotics.
• Demand-pull factors such as the agency’s task environment drive adoption.
• Technology-push factors are harder to identify but also drive adoption.
• Capability factors such as budgets also drive adoption.
• It is important to distinguish between early and late adoption of advanced technologies.
Brynjolfsson and McAfee(2014) argue that
human civilization is at the beginning of a
“second machine age” in which machines and
algorithms will replace skilled and cognitive work.
Schwab(2017) argues that machines, algorithms,
and esoteric technologies such as deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) sequencing will augment human work
in the “fourth industrial revolution.” Debate centers
on whether advanced technologies such as robotics
will empower rather than replace, serve rather than
disrupt—and on how to maintain ethical boundaries
that underpin human existence.
Both views tell of a new world of advanced technology
inhabited by machines of daunting capabilities—a
world that promises improvements and claims
attention by prognosticators and technologists alike.
The adoption and use of emerging technologies
such as robotics are key concerns in advanced
economies, but technological changes do not occur in
vacuums because organizations make decisions about
interacting with such technological shifts, thus acting
as conduits of technological change.
Firms and factories often adopt robotics and
advanced manufacturing techniques at a fast rate, but
government agencies are often seen as lagging in their
adoption of such tools (e.g., Dunleavy et al.2006;
Mergel2018; Roper2006). Notwithstanding
“sci-fi” narratives about the use of scary machines by
government agencies, there are just as many narratives
about broken air conditioners and eternal lines.
Public access to the internet is now 30 years old, and
many governments still struggle to maintain usable
webpages (Youngblood and Mackiewicz2012).
But we know that government agencies, under certain
conditions, can lead in their adoption of innovative
technologies and methods. In Borins’ seminal 1998
book Innovating with Integrity, he shows clearly that
agencies can innovate, but that the “when, why,
how, and where” of innovation is full of nuance and
conditionality. Even so, Borins shows the viability
of empirical paths for a better understanding of
innovation by government agencies. More recently,
studies such as that of Clausen, Demiricioglu, and
Alsos (2020) push the bounds of our knowledge about
government’s adoption of innovations in terms of
both theory and empirics. What we have learned in
the intervening years echoes Borins’ original findings:
that the take-up and distribution of innovations in
government remains conditional and nuanced, a result
of what Clausen, Demiricioglu, and Alsos identify
as the combined impact of push-and-pull dynamics
Andrew B. Whitford
Jeff Yates
Adam Burchfield
Jason L. Anastasopoulos
Derrick M. Anderson
University of Georgia
Binghamton University
Arizona State University
University of Georgia
Jason L. Anastasopoulos is an assistant
professor of public administration and policy
and political science as well as an adjunct
professor of statistics at the University of
Georgia. His research and teaching interests
focus on understanding how technology
shapes political institutions and decision-
making. He also does methodological
research on causal inference, natural
language processing, and machine learning.
Derrick M. Anderson is an associate
professor of science and technology policy
in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona
State University. His research and teaching
relate to university research management
and the role of governments and industry in
shaping new technologies.
Adam Burchfield is a doctoral candidate
in public administration at The University of
Georgia. His research focuses on criminal
justice policy and the performance of the
criminal justice system.
Jeff Yates is an attorney and professor
of political science at Binghamton
University. His research focuses on law,
public policy, and American politics. His
most recent book,
These Estimable Courts
:
Understanding Public Perceptions of State
Judicial Institutions and Legal Policy-Making
(Oxford University Press), investigates the
development and impact of institutional
legitimacy on judiciary–citizen relations. His
website is www.jeff-yates.com.
Andrew B. Whitford is the Alexander M.
Crenshaw Professor of public policy in the
School of Public and International Affairs
at the University of Georgia. His research
concentrates on strategy and innovation in
public policy and organization studies. He is
coeditor of the Cambridge University Press
book series Public and Nonprofit Elements.
His website is andrewwhitford.com. Email:
aw@uga.edu.
Research
Symposium:
Transformation
of Government in
the Era of Smart
Technology
[The copyright line for this article was
changed on 9 February 2022 after original
online publication.]
To continue reading
Request your trial