This thesis examines the complexities in the resettlement of Bhutanese refugees. Using anthropological ethnographic field methods, this thesis explores the power dynamics between the employees of a resettlement organization and the refugees and the intricate webs of power within different institutions, such as local NGOs and healthcare institutions. The study argues that humanitarian actions and interventions are often driven by bureaucratic politics and policies that contradict what humanitarianism stands for as apolitical and value-neutral. These contradictions or paradoxes in humanitarianism also are also present in refugee resettlement. Analyzing these paradoxes that characterize resettlement, this thesis illuminates structural discontinuities or gaps that result from differences in expectations between the refugees and the employees of resettlement organization. Drawing on analyses of the paradoxes and complexities in resettlement, the study concludes that bureaucratic management of refugees reinforces social inequalities and hierarchies of power that masks state’s responsibility towards both the refugees and local NGOs making resettlement an unsettling process.

The purpose of this study is to understand the collaboration between school and social services. The primary focus of this study is the subject of interaction. The study analyzes how confidentiality affects collaboration between school and social services and examines what effect the organizations’ different roles have on collaboration. The method used is qualitative interviews and the gathered empirical data has been analyzed using theories of discretion and street-level bureaucracy. Eight professionals have been interviewed; four social workers from social services and four teachers. All participants agreed that collaboration is necessary between schools and social services but there is a mutual lack of knowledge about each other's organizations. The study concludes that because of the organizations' differing tasks, it is difficult for them to know who should take responsibility in their interaction. There are some methods that facilitate achieving good interaction.

This thesis examines the evolution of archival theory in light of the ascendance of human rights in Western society. Archives are situated as integral instruments in the protection of human rights within a Western context due to the European preference towards written evidence and bureaucratic systems. The thesis uses a negative case study to demonstrate the power of the record in affecting the human rights of citizens, but also situates access to the government archive among human rights.

This thesis examines the recruitment, role, and effectiveness of special advisers to departmental ministers between 1970 and 1987 and attempts to establish whether their place in the British system of government has become institutionalized. Interviews with 160 advisers, ministers and former officials, a questionnaire completed by advisers, and relevant contemporary literature, provided the principal data. The literature, with its diverse theories on ministers' roles and relationships with the permanent bureaucracy, supplied a framework within which modelling was conducted on both the potential place for advisers in the system and the needs of ministers for extra assistance. An exploration of reasons given by ministers for appointing advisers shows how far ministers felt these needs. Evidence from the questionnaires and interviews reveals the wide range of activities in which advisers engage and that their role and place are products of the interplay of various factors. Variations in the effectiveness of advisers are analysed along with case studies illustrating their occasional impact on policy making. Limitations on advisers, and the characteristics of effective ones, are identified. Most features of the advisers' potential place within the system are shown to exist, along with an increased formalization of the role. Although they are only a partial solution to ministers' problems, the issue seems to have become not whether they have a place, but how it might be extended.

This thesis examines the motivations of bureaucrats in two government agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, and the Environment Agency for England and Wales. The model employed in this work is a Trifocal Model which utilises Rational Choice, Institutional and Cultural approaches in answering the thesis question. The aim of this work is two-fold: one aim is to explain motivations in two agencies; the second aim is to suggest why the existing literature in the field of bureaucracy often fails to capture the diversity of bureaucratic motivations. The claim is that the adherence to one particular paradigmatic approach prevents scholars from attaining a comprehensive understanding of motivations. This work focuses on two elements of the Trifocal Approach, namely institutional and cultural explanations. Rational Choice explanations are given a limited explanatory role in this work, in large part because of the restricted usefulness of an approach which takes the preferences of agents as given. This thesis uses a scientific approach to the analysis of qualitative data, allowing other researchers to make use of, and indeed to question, the findings presented below. The argument in this thesis suggests why scholars must pay more attention to what those people within bureaucracies tell us about themselves and their motivations. To take the preferences of agents as givens is to ignore much of what is most important about the study of politics that is, where preferences come from, and how they shape the political behaviour we observe in bureaucracies. This thesis will show that public sector reforms are often flawed, often failing to consider the interplay of cultural and institutional effects, and how these effects have a bearing on the motivations of staff in organisations undergoing reform. Furthermore, cultural and institutional factors must be considered whenever one considers the question what is it that motivates bureaucrats.

本文的標題為“明代官僚組織的組成及其運作”，因此在行文結構方面主要是針對明代官僚組織的“組成”與“運作”兩方面合併進行說明與分析，在組成方面著重於制度的說明，而運作方面則是配合相關的事例，對於前所述及的制度予以實例性的說明，使讀者能夠有較為深入的瞭解與體會。文中所探討的內容，類似於現代所謂的人事管理制度。古代的人事管理制度，大致上包括有官吏的培訓、選拔、任用、考課、獎懲、調配和俸祿待遇等系列管理方法。本文劃分為取士制度及任官制度兩個面向加以討論。就取士制度來看，官僚組織的組成，其首要的條件，乃是要有足夠的人才。這些人才是如何培育、甄選出來？換言之，透過那些途徑獲得足夠的人才？其利弊得失又是如何？是其所要探討的範圍。大致上以薦舉、吏員、學校與科舉四者為主要的探討對象，分列於第二、三章之中、第二章內容可分為三個部分：取士制度的意義與內容（包括三途並用的說明）、薦舉與吏員。第三章則以學校、科舉為主，並對明代的取士制度作一總結性的說明。之所以做如此安排者，主要乃是從制度面考量而來，其說明詳見後文。其次再就任官制度而言，官僚的派任、陞遷、考核、待遇雖說是息息相關，密不可分的，然而大致上可以分為選官與考績兩部分，因此作者分別於第四、第五章之中論述。此一部分在有關明史的研究中並沒有系統及完整的討論，因此除了作制度的說明之外，同時希望能夠具體地將其實際情形，完整地加以陳述，進而評判其利弊得失。 另外特別注意者，作者在本文所指“官僚組織”主要是限定於文官體系而言，武官體系並不在討論範圍之內。之所以如此者，一方面由於文官體系加上武官體系，使得研究範圍過於龐雜且非作者能力所逮；另一方面，明代的官制乃重文輕武，『雖文武並置，而政事皆歸文職』，例如弘治年間編纂《會典》時，其凡例即明言： 本朝設官，大抵用周制，雖文武並置，而政事皆歸文職，故諸司職掌所載衙門，惟六部、都察院、通政使司、大理寺及五軍都督府斷事官。其文武官制，則分見于吏、兵二部。今會典義當從備，故文武衙門各有職掌者，遂另開具，文職如宗人府之類，武職如五軍都督府之類，敘其建置沿革及所掌職事，而事必歸之六部。（《大明會典》，〈弘治間凡例〉，葉二－三，頁一六－一七） 故而文中所指官僚組織者者，皆意指文官體系而言，作者在此特別聲明之。

This thesis aims to understand the experiences of community development practitioners who are located in the organisational context of bureaucracies. Over the last decade there has been a revitalised interest in community development as a means of addressing social issues within Australia. Local, state and federal governments, as well as large non-government organisations, have developed policies and programs aimed at building, strengthening, renewing and revitalising communities. At the same time, a set of ideologies have emerged that have given rise to a global neoliberal welfare regime, and that have shaped ways of thinking and behaving within bureaucracies. Whilst much has been written about these two broad trends and their impact upon Australia, what appears to be missing from these analyses is an understanding of the impact upon the actual practitioners operating at the intersection of these forces. This research addresses the gap in the literature between the academic discussion and the personal experience of undertaking community development in bureaucracies. This investigation adopts a qualitative approach. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with community development practitioners from federal, state and local government and from large non-government organisations in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The interview transcripts were then analysed utilising a framework known as Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which enabled the responses to be examined through multiple lenses: social, discursive and metaphoric. What this study reveals is that community development practitioners have a largely negative experience of bureaucracies: the work is difficult to do, it is not well understood, and it is not well supported. Whilst this is not particularly surprising, what IS of interest is the level of shock and frustration felt by practitioners, and their lack of preparedness for these experiences. Whilst community development workers have a very good understanding of the content of their practice, what appears to be missing is a critical analysis of their context and themselves as practitioners, and this invites a more negative experience of the work. Practitioners respond to these experiences by distinguishing between themselves as bureaucrats and what they name as their true and authentic selves. They articulate a difference between “working developmentally” from within bureaucracies and undertaking what they call “real” community development, which occurs “in community”. The acts of distinguishing an authentic self and authentic community development are both forms of resistance. However, I suggest that such constructions are largely unhelpful as they construct false binaries which render practitioners ineffective. The work of community development practitioners is compromised because the context in which they are operating is compromised. I also argue that community development students require greater preparation for the organisational context of bureaucracy, which includes understanding not only methodology, but also the objectives, arenas and structures for practice. Practitioners need a deeper understanding of relations of power within these contexts. This requires workers to be clear about their motivations, their commitment and their analysis. Finally I contend that what is required is the creation and sharing of metaphors that articulate a relational rather than individualistic and heroic form of agency. In this way community development theory and practice can shift away from a modernist narrative of development to a discussion of mutual transformation.

This thesis aims to understand the experiences of community development practitioners who are located in the organisational context of bureaucracies. Over the last decade there has been a revitalised interest in community development as a means of addressing social issues within Australia. Local, state and federal governments, as well as large non-government organisations, have developed policies and programs aimed at building, strengthening, renewing and revitalising communities. At the same time, a set of ideologies have emerged that have given rise to a global neoliberal welfare regime, and that have shaped ways of thinking and behaving within bureaucracies. Whilst much has been written about these two broad trends and their impact upon Australia, what appears to be missing from these analyses is an understanding of the impact upon the actual practitioners operating at the intersection of these forces. This research addresses the gap in the literature between the academic discussion and the personal experience of undertaking community development in bureaucracies. This investigation adopts a qualitative approach. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with community development practitioners from federal, state and local government and from large non-government organisations in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The interview transcripts were then analysed utilising a framework known as Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which enabled the responses to be examined through multiple lenses: social, discursive and metaphoric. What this study reveals is that community development practitioners have a largely negative experience of bureaucracies: the work is difficult to do, it is not well understood, and it is not well supported. Whilst this is not particularly surprising, what IS of interest is the level of shock and frustration felt by practitioners, and their lack of preparedness for these experiences. Whilst community development workers have a very good understanding of the content of their practice, what appears to be missing is a critical analysis of their context and themselves as practitioners, and this invites a more negative experience of the work. Practitioners respond to these experiences by distinguishing between themselves as bureaucrats and what they name as their true and authentic selves. They articulate a difference between “working developmentally” from within bureaucracies and undertaking what they call “real” community development, which occurs “in community”. The acts of distinguishing an authentic self and authentic community development are both forms of resistance. However, I suggest that such constructions are largely unhelpful as they construct false binaries which render practitioners ineffective. The work of community development practitioners is compromised because the context in which they are operating is compromised. I also argue that community development students require greater preparation for the organisational context of bureaucracy, which includes understanding not only methodology, but also the objectives, arenas and structures for practice. Practitioners need a deeper understanding of relations of power within these contexts. This requires workers to be clear about their motivations, their commitment and their analysis. Finally I contend that what is required is the creation and sharing of metaphors that articulate a relational rather than individualistic and heroic form of agency. In this way community development theory and practice can shift away from a modernist narrative of development to a discussion of mutual transformation.

Theses (Ed.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1987. / Bibliography: leaves 65-66.

Thesis (M.A.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1994. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references. Also available via the Internet.