1

AFIPS. A national survey of the public's attitudes toward computers. Project of the American Federation of Information Processing Society and Time Magazine, AFIPS Press, Montvale, N.J., 1971.

2

Aiken, M., and Afford, R. Community structure and innovation. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 64 (Sept. 1970), 843-864.

3

Bingham, R.D. The Adoption of Innovation by Local Government. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1976.

4

Clark, T.N. Community structure, decision-making, budget expenditures, and urban renewal in 51 American communities. American Sociol. Rev. 33 (Aug. 1968), 576-593.

5

Crain, R.J., Katz, E., and Rosenthal, D.B. The Politics o f Community Conflict: The Fluoridation Decision. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1969.

6

Crain, R.L., and Rosenthal, D.B. Community status as a dimension of local decision-making. American Sociol. Rev. 32 (Dec. 1967), 970-985.

7

Danziger, J.N. Computers, local government, and the litany to EDP. Public Admin. Rev. 37 (Jan./Feb. 1977), 28-37.

8

Danziger, J.N., and Dutton, W.H. Technological innovation in local government: The case of computers. Policy and Politics 6 (Sept 1977), 27-49.

9

Danziger, J.N., Kraemer, K.L., and King, J.L. An assessment of computer technology in U.S. local governments. To appear in J. Urban Syst.

10

Downs, A. Inside Bureaucracy. Little, Brown, Boston, 1967, pp. 191-210.

11

Downs, G. Jr., and Mohr, L. Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 21 (Dec. 1976), 700-14.

12

Dutton, W., and Kraemer, K. Administrative reform, technology, and intra-organizational values. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting Amer. Soc. for Public Admin., Washington, D.C., 1976.

13

Dutton, W.H., and Kraemer, K.L. Executive support for urban technology: The case of computing. Public Policy Res. Org. Working Paper WP-77-23, U. of California, Irvine, Jan. 1977.

14

Feller, I., and Menzel, D. Diffusion milieux as a focus of research in the public sector. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Amer. Polit. Sci. Assoc., San Francisco, Sept. 1975.

15

Feller, I., Menzel, D., and Engle, A. Diffusion of technology in state mission-oriented agencies. Center for the Study of Science Policy, Pennsylvania State U. University Park, Pa., 1974.

16

Greenstone, J.D., and Peterson, P.E. Reformers, machines, and the war on poverty. In City Politics and Public Policy, J. Q. Wilson, Ed., Wiley, New York, 1968, pp. 267-292.

17

Hawkins, B.W. Politics and Urban Policies. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1971.

18

Kling, R. The Riverville social services information and referral system. Public Policy Res. Org. Working Paper WP-75-02, U. of California, Irvine, June 1975.

19

Kraemer, K. Local government, information systems, and technology transfer. Public Admin. Rev. 37 (July/Aug., 1977), 368-382

20

Kraemer, K. Who's really in charge of EDP? Nation's Cities 13, 10 (Oct. 1975), 14-16.

21

Kraemer, K.L., Danziger, J.N., and King, J.L. An Assessment of Information Technology in U.S. Local Governments. Report submitted to the Office of Economic Cooperation and Development panel on Information Technology and Urban Management, Paris, Dec. 1976.

22

Kraemer, K.L., Mitchel, W., Weiner, M., and Dial, O.E. Integrated Municipal Information Systems. Praeger, New York, 1974.

23

Laudon, K.C. Computers and Bureaucratic Reform. Wiley, New York, 1975.

24

Leege, D.C., and Francis, W.L. Political Research. Basic Books New York, 1974.

25

Mohr, L.B. Determinants of innovation in organizations. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 63 (March 1969), 111-126.

26

Roessner, J.D. Incentives to innovate in public and private organizations. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Polit. Sci. Assoc., Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 1975.

27

Rogers, E., and Shoemaker, F.F. Communication o f Innovations. Free Press, New York, Sec. Ed., 1971.

28

Row, L.A., and Boise, W.B. Organizational innovation. Public Admin. Rev. 34, 3 (May/June 1974), 284-93.

29

Thompson, V. Bureaucracy and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 10, 1 (June 1975), 1-20.

30

Walker, J. The adoption of innovations by the American states. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 63 (Sept. 1969), 880-89.

31

Wilson, J.Q., and Banfield, E. Political ethos revisited. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 65 (Dec. 1971), 1048-1062.

32

Wilson, J.Q., and Banfield, E.C. Public regardingness as a value premise in voting behavior. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 58 (Dec. 1964), 876-887.

33

Winch, R.L., and Campbell, D.T. Proof? no. evidence? yes The significance of tests of significance. Amer. Sociologist 4 (May 1969), 140-143.

34

Yin, R., Heald, K., Vogel, M., Fleischauer, P., and Vladeck, B. A review of case studies of technological innovations in state and local services. Rand Corp., Washington, D.C., 1976.

Rob Kling, Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.12 n.1, p.61-110, March 1980

William H. Dutton , Kenneth L. Kraemer, Management utilization of computers in American local governments, Communications of the ACM, v.21 n.3, p.206-218, March 1978

James N. Danziger, Innovation in innovation?: the technology enactment framework, Social Science Computer Review, v.22 n.1, p.100-110, Spring 2004

Kenneth C. Laudon, Environmental and institutional models of system development: a national criminal history system, Communications of the ACM, v.28 n.7, p.728-740, July 1985

Kai R. T. Larsen, A Taxonomy of Antecedents of Information Systems Success: Variable Analysis Studies, Journal of Management Information Systems, v.20 n.2, p.169-246, Number 2/Fall 2003

James N. Danziger: colleagues

William H. Dutton: colleagues