Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 774

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Documents and Bureaucracy

Hull, Matthew S.·2012·Annual Review of Anthropology
DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104953
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This review surveys anthropological and other social research on bureaucratic documents. The fundamental insight of this literature is that documents are not simply instruments of bureaucratic organizations, but rather are constitutive of bureaucratic rules, ideologies, knowledge, practices, subjectivities, objects, outcomes, even the organizations themselves. It explores the reasons why documents have been late to come under ethnographic scrutiny and the implications for our theoretical understandings of organizations and methods for studying them. The review argues for the great value of the study of paper-mediated documentation to the study of electronic forms, but it also highlights the risk of an exclusive focus on paper, making anthropology marginal to the study of core bureaucratic practices in the manner of earlier anthropology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104953

Cites

130 of 130 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 130 references

Cited by

See all 774

Metadata

Authors
Hull, M. S.
Venue
Annual Review of Anthropology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2012-10-21
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
251-267
ISSN
  • 0084-6570 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4290
DOI
10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104953
OpenAlex
W2144087205
Cited by
774
References
130
FWCI
11.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Documents and Bureaucracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104953
The paper
Hull, M. S. (2012). Documents and Bureaucracy. Annual Review of Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104953

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.