Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the treatment of AI in public administration research as a monolithic category, arguing for a more nuanced typology that distinguishes between five types of AI systems: hand-coded, glass-box, black-box, general-purpose, and agentic. By analyzing 91 highly-cited papers from 2019 to 2025, the authors reveal significant imprecision in how these studies specify the AI systems they examine, with over half failing to adequately define the system type. The findings underscore the necessity for technical precision in AI research to ensure accurate assessments of how these systems impact public values like accountability and non-discrimination.
Over half of public administration research on AI fails to specify the system type, leading to misleading conclusions about accountability and justice.
Research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector often treats "AI" as a single category, neglecting technical distinctions between different AI systems. But these distinctions affect how different systems impact core public values like accountability, procedural justice, and non-discrimination. This paper argues that public administration research would benefit from more technical precision on "AI" and makes three contributions to this end. First, we introduce a typology of five categories of AI systems: hand-coded, glass-box, black-box, general-purpose, and agentic systems. We calibrate the typology to public administration by grouping system types by their distinct implications for public values. Second, we evaluate technical precision in recent public administration research about AI by coding 91 highly-cited papers (2019-2025) using our typology. We find widespread imprecision: most papers (55\%) leave the studied system underspecified, 31\% motivate their work with a different system than they study, and 41\% make more general conclusions than the studied system supports. Finally, we give practical recommendations for future research. We highlight common pitfalls to avoid, and suggest that researchers should, at a minimum, provide enough technical detail to locate the studied system in our typology. To this end, we provide a practical guide -- a short set of diagnostic questions answerable from public information and without specialist technical knowledge.
