Robotic bureaucracy: Administrative burden and red tape in university research
Abstract
This Viewpoint essay examines university research administration and the use of software systems that automate university research grants and contract administration, including the automatic sending of emails for reporting and compliance purposes. These systems are described as “robotic bureaucracy.” The rise of regulations and their contribution to administrative burden on university research have led university administrators to increasingly rely on robotic bureaucracy to handle compliance. This article draws on the administrative burden, behavioral public administration, and electronic communications and management literatures, which are increasingly focused on the psychological and cognitive bases of behavior. These literatures suggest that the assumptions behind robotic bureaucracy ignore the extent to which these systems shift the burden of compliance from administrators to researchers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Organizations increasingly use automated systems and automated replies to handle contact with humans, a development described as 'robotic bureaucracy'.
“Some scholars have even warned for “robotic bureaucracy”, in which organizations increasingly use automated systems and automated replies to handle contact with humans (Bozeman and Youtie 2020).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Bozeman and Youtie 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 27 · Cited by 94
- Authors
- Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Youtie, Jan
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-10-07
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 157-162
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2979561955
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 7.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (#174825)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
- Keywords
- administrative burden, red tape, university research management, research grants, contract management, compliance reporting, automation, behavioral public administration, digital communication, cognitive psychology, regulatory burden
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
