象征性代表重要吗？被动符号表征联系的元分析

    象征性代表理论认为，官僚的被动代表性可提升机构的合法性认知并改善公民结果。然而，关于象征性代表后果的经验证据却是好坏参半。通过对 286 个效应量进行元分析，本研究发现被动代表与其预期的象征性结果之间存在显著的正相关，尽管这种关联很弱。元回归分析进一步检验了象征性代表的显著性如何受到被动代表性、象征性结果、政策和地理背景以及研究设计等多个方面的调节。结果表明，被动代表的象征性好处在前线比在管理环境中更为明显，并且其在实验研究设计中的效果比在观察研究设计中的更强。本研究呼应了人们对背景对于代表性官僚机构研究的重要性的日益关注，并有助于对象征性代表进行更精细的理论探索。

    The theory of symbolic representation expects that passive representativeness of bureaucrats can heighten agencies' perceived legitimacy and enhance citizen outcomes. Empiri- cal evidence on the consequences of symbolic representa- tion, however, is mixed. By performing a meta-analysis of 286 effect sizes, this study finds a significantly positive, though weak, association between passive representation and its anticipated symbolic outcomes. A meta-regression analysis further examined how the salience of symbolic rep- resentation is moderated by multiple aspects of passive rep- resentativeness, symbolic outcomes, policy and geographical contexts, and research design. Results suggest that the sym- bolic benefits of passive representation are more observed at the frontline than in managerial settings, and the effects are stronger in experimental research designs than observa- tional ones. This research echoes the increasing attention dedicated to the importance of context to representative bureaucracy research and contributes to a more refined the- oretical exploration of symbolic representation.

引言

    代表性官僚主义已被证明在多个方面有利于公共组织绩效和公民。在这些讨论中，两种主要机制被概念化：主动表示和象征性表示。最近的一项元分析表明，一般来说，象征性和主动代表同样能促进组织绩效。为了系统地分析符号表示的效果及其变化如何遵循某些有意义的模式，对28项定量研究和286种效果大小进行了元分析。元回归分析进一步研究了符号代表的突出性如何受到被动代表性、符号结果、政策和地理背景以及研究设计的影响。

    这项元分析以多种方式为符号表示的研究做出了贡献。首先，通过审查来自不同环境的研究结果，这项研究确定了对象征性表示的乐观期望是否合理。此外，本研究超越了被动和象征性代表作为一维结构的概念，并研究了其复杂性质中不同方面的重要性。另外，本研究通过元回归分析，通过考察观察到的被动-符号表征联系是否受到背景和研究设计的调节，阐述了符号表征的适用性和局限性。通过实质性的研究结果，本研究强调了超越是或否争论的重要性，即质疑“它存在吗？”，而是问“什么时候、在什么条件下，它重要吗？”因此，这些问题的答案将呼应人们越来越关注背景对代议制官僚体制的影响，并有助于对符号表征进行更精细的理论探索。

    Representation bureaucracy has been shown to benefit public organizational performance and citizens in multiple ways. In these discussions, two primary mechanisms have been conceptualized: active and symbolic representation. A recent meta-analysis suggested that in general, symbolic and active representation equally promotes organizational performance. To systematically analyze the effect of symbolic representation and how its variation may follow certain meaningful patterns, a meta-analysis of 28 quantitative stud- ies and 286 effect sizes was conducted. A meta-regression analysis further examined how the salience of symbolic representation is influenced by passive representativeness, symbolic outcomes, policy and geographical contexts, and research design.

    This meta-analysis contributes to research on symbolic representation in several ways. First, by reviewing research findings from diverse settings, this study identifies whether optimistic expectations for symbolic representa- tion are warranted. Further, this study expands beyond the concept of passive and symbolic representation as one- dimensional constructs and examines the significance of different facets within their complex nature. Moreover, through meta-regression analysis, this study elaborates on the applicability and limitations of symbolic representation by examining whether the observed passive-symbolic representation linkage is moderated by context and research design. Through its substantive findings, this study highlights the importance of moving beyond the yes-or-no dispute that questions, “Does it exist?” and rather asks, “When, and under what conditions, does it matter?” The answers to such questions will thus echo the need for increasing attention dedicated to contex- tual impacts on representative bureaucracy and contribute to a more refined theoretical exploration of symbolic representation.

调节因素

1.     代表性衡量：组织或个人层面

有两种不同的代表措施，呼应了在解释象征性表示的发生时采取的上述两种观点，这可能是对观察到的象征性效果的影响因素之一。一方面，研究表明，官僚代表在组织层面的存在，或者说，官僚机构在总体意义上“看起来像”它所服务的客户，就可以发出有意义的信号，从而唤起积极的公民反应。与此相反，另一组研究考察了客户和官僚在实际互动中一对一的身份一致性所产生的象征效应。在这些研究中，对代表性的测量大多是二分法的，表明公民个体和官僚是否共享某种身份。

2.     组织分层：一线或管理代表

官僚代表的象征性影响可能因官僚代表在场的级别（或组织级别）而异。从经验上讲，在专注于组织或个人层面代表性的研究中，对一线和管理层代表性进行了调查。“谁代表？”这个问题在主动表示研究的背景下进行了充分的讨论，但对象征表示的调查同样重要——这是一个相对较少受到关注的研究领域。因此，本研究将组织分层作为调节因素，并评估象征效应在不同级别的官僚代表之间的差异程度。

3.     代表身份：种族、性别或其他

虽然代表性官僚主义理论本质上表明了对多样性代表性的关注，但现有的实证研究主要集中在种族和性别等最突出的人口特征上。为了超越共享身份的狭隘操作化，学者们已经开始探索种族和性别以外的身份，在特定背景下，这些身份仍然可以突出代表人群。随着独立研究越来越多地捕捉到更广泛的不可观察和交叉身份，以推进代表性官僚理论的实证应用，研究种族和性别方面的人口显著性是否仍然表明独特或更实质性的影响是有意义的。

4.     代表结果：感知或实质性

象征性代表的潜在益处已从多个方面得到报道，根据其形式可分为感知结果和实质性结果。为了评估关注公民的感知结果或实质性结果是否影响了现有研究中检测到的被动代表和象征性代表之间的联系强度，本分析包括对代表结果的测量作为调节因素。

5.     政策背景：对于所讨论的代表身份是否显着

实现积极代表性的先决条件之一是，一项政策必须对所讨论的人口特征具有显著性。也就是说，政策实施应直接惠及所代表的人口群体。政策背景被纳入为调节因素，以调查在被认为与所代表的人口更相关的政策领域是否仍会出现更强的象征效应。

6.     国家背景：美国或非美国环境

关于代议制官僚体制的文献主要集中在美国。为了应对普遍性的挑战，最近的学术研究扩大了其地理覆盖范围，以研究代议制官僚体制理论的多个方面。鉴于这一进步，值得一问的是，象征性代表制的预期结果是否因美国和非美国环境而异。

7.     研究设计：观察性或实验性

除了上述实质性调节因素外，此元分析还考察了研究设计的重要性程度。为了确定研究设计的差异是否也能解释符号表示结果的差异，该方法指标被纳入为附加调节因素

1. Measurement of representativeness: Organizational- or individual-level

There are two different measures of representatives that echo the two aforementioned perspectives taken in inter- preting the occurrence of symbolic representation, which could be one of the impact factors on observed symbolic effects. On the one hand, research shows that the mere presence of bureaucratic representatives at the organiza- tional level, or say, the fact that a bureaucracy “looks like” the clients it serves in an aggregate sense, can send mean- ingful signals, thus evoking positive citizen responses. In contrast, another body of research examines the symbolic effects of one-to-one identity congruence between the client and the bureaucrat during actual interactions. In these studies, the measurement of representativeness is largely dichotomous, indicating whether the individual citizen and bureaucrat share a certain identity.

2. Organizational stratification: Frontline or managerial representation

The symbolic effects of bureaucratic representation might vary from the rank (or, say, the organizational level) at which bureaucratic representatives are present. Empirically, both frontline and managerial representation have been investigated in studies focused on either organizational or individual-level representativeness. The question of “Who represents?” has been adequately discussed in the context of research on active representation, but is of equal significance to investigations of symbolic representation—an area of research where it has received comparatively less attention. Hence, this study incorporates organizational stratification as a moderator and assesses the extent to which symbolic effects vary across different ranks of bureaucratic representatives.  

3. Represented identity: Race, gender, or other

While the theory of representative bureaucracy demonstrates con- cerns for diverse representativeness in its essence, existing empirical studies have predominantly focused on the most prominent demographic characteristics, such as race and gender. To move beyond a narrow operationalization of shared identity, scholars have begun to explore identities beyond race and gender, which can still be salient to the represented popu- lation in specific contexts. As independent studies increasingly capture broader non-observable and intersectional identities to advance the empirical application of representative bureaucratic theory, it is meaningful to examine whether demo- graphic salience in terms of race and gender still indicates a unique or more substantial effect

4. Representation outcome: Perceptual or substantive

The potential benefits of symbolic representation have been reported from diverse aspects, which can be categorized as perceptual and substantive outcomes in terms of their forms. To assess whether focusing on perceptional or substantive outcomes of citizens influenced the strength of the detected linkage between passive and symbolic representation in existing studies, this analysis includes the measurement of representation outcome as a moderator.

5. Policy context: Salient or not for the represented identity in question

One of the prerequisites for active representation to occur stipulates that a policy must be salient for the demo- graphic characteristic in question. That is, policy implementation shall directly benefit the represented population as a class. Policy context is included as a moderator to investigate whether stronger symbolic effects still appear in policy domains deemed more relevant to the represented population.

6. National context: US or Non-US settings

The literature on representation bureaucracy has primarily focused on a US. context. Responding to the challenge of generalizability, recent scholarship has expanded its geographic coverage in examin- ing multiple aspects of representative bureaucracy theory. Given this advancement, it is worthwhile to ask whether the expected outcomes of symbolic rep- resentation vary across US and non-US contexts.

7. Research design: Observational or experimental

Besides the abovementioned substantive moderators, this meta-analysis also looks at the extent to which research design matters. To determine if divergences in research design also account for the variation of findings on symbolic representation, this method indicator is included as an additional moderator.

数据和方法

    该元分析分五个阶段完成：（1）检索文献并筛选相关研究；（2）根据原始研究提供的信息提取和计算效应大小；（3）估计平均效应大小以表明被动表征与其象征效应之间的总体关联；（4）进行元回归和互补亚组分析，探讨研究间差异和效应大小的来源（即调节因素）；（5）检查潜在的出版偏见。

    数据收集始于使用 Web of Science (WoS) SSCI 数据库搜索同行评审期刊文章。在“主题”字段中使用了“象征性代表”、“代表的象征性影响”和“象征性和代表性官僚机构”等搜索词。图1描述了文献搜索和包含的程序。

（图1: 文献搜索和包含的程序）

    为确保检索的全面性，进行了两次补充检索。收集相关研究后，进行全文审查，使用以下纳入标准确定进行元分析的主要研究：（1）该研究对被动官僚代表的象征性结果进行直接的定量检验。（2）被动代表作为自变量，以官僚代表的比例（在组织层面）或个别官僚与客户（在个人层面）之间的身份一致性来衡量。（3）因变量，即代表的象征效应，被操作化为公民对代表机构或特定政策结果的感知或行为反应。（4）本研究提供了足够的统计信息，包括但不限于样本量、t、Z、卡方、beta 值和 p 值。完善的全文审查产生了 28 项可接受的研究，构成了元分析的最终样本，其中包括 25 项已发表的研究和 3 项未发表的研究。综合数据编码了两类数据：表示效应大小的数据和调节因素的数据。当未提供相关系数 r 或标准化回归系数 β 时，使用

下公式计算基于 r 的效应大小：。

      如果没有报告，则通过参数估计和标准误差计算 t 分数。遵循顶级公共管理期刊上发表的先前元分析的方法。对于仅采用均值检验或方差分析 (ANOVA) 的研究，计算基于组差异的效应大小 (Cohen's d)，然后将其转换为基于 r 的效应大小。对于估计 probit 或 logit 模型的研究，我首先记录基于比值 (odds) 的效应大小，然后将其转换为基于 r 的效应大小。对于同时进行均值比较和回归的实验研究，采用回归结果。此外，进行了 Fisher 的 r-to-Z 变换以纠正 r 估计的轻微向下偏差。变换公式如下：，方差为。

    从 28 项研究中确定了 32 个独立样本，其效应大小按年份或国家区分。鉴于被动符号表征链接的潜在变化来源，为元回归生成了四个实质性指标、一个方法论指标和两个上下文指标。

    This meta-analysis was accomplished in five stages: (1) searching the literature and screening for relevant studies; (2) extracting and calculating the effect sizes based on information provided in the original studies; (3) estimating the average effect size to suggest an overall association between passive representation and its symbolic effects; (4) conducting meta-regression and complementary subgroup analysis to explore the sources of variations among studies and effect sizes (i.e., the moderators); (5) checking for potential publication bias.

    Data collection commenced by using the Web of Science (WoS) SSCI database to search for peer-reviewed journal articles. Search terms such as “symbolic representation,” “symbolic effects of representation,” and “symbolic AND representative bureaucracy” were used in the “topic” field. Figure 1 depicts the procedures for the literature search and inclusion.

    To ensure the comprehensiveness of the search, two supplementary searches were conducted. The collection of relevant studies was followed by a full-text review using the following inclusion criteria to identify primary studies for meta-analysis: (1) The study conducts a direct quantitative test of the symbolic outcomes of passive bureaucratic representation. (2) Passive representation, as the independent variable, is measured as the proportion of bureaucratic representatives (at the organizational level) or identity congruence between the individual bureaucrats and clients (at the individual level). (3) The dependent variable, that is, the symbolic effect of representation, is operationalized as citizens' perceptual or behavioral responses to representative agencies, or specific policy outcomes. (4) Sufficient statistical information, including but not limited to sample size, t, Z, chi-square, beta values, and p-values, is provided in the study. The refined full-text review yielded 28 acceptable studies comprising the final sample for the meta-analysis, including 25 published and three unpublished studies.

    Two categories of data were coded in the synthesis: data indicating the effect sizes and data for the moderators. When the correlation coefficient r or the standardized regression coefficient β were not provided, the following equation was used to calculate the r-based effect sizes: 

    The t-scores, if not reported, were calculated via the parameter estimates and standard errors. Following the lead of previous meta-analyses published in top public administration journals. For the studies employing tests of means or analysis of variance (ANOVA) only, group difference-based effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated and then converted into r-based effect sizes. For the studies estimating probit or logit models, I first recorded the odds-based effect sizes and then transformed them into r-based effect sizes. For experimental studies performing both mean comparisons and regressions, the regression results were adopted. Further, Fisher's r-to-Z transformation was conducted to remedy the slight downward bias of the r estimate. The formulas of transformation are as follows: , with vari- ance .

    32 independent samples were identified from the 28 studies, with separate effect sizes distinguished by year or country. In light of the potential sources of variations for the passive-symbolic representation link, four substantive, one methodological, and two contextual indicators were generated for the meta-regression.

分析与结果

    结果从经验上支持了象征性代表的重要性，表明被动的官僚代表可以产生总体有利的结果。管理代表的象征性效应似乎不如一线代表的象征性效应那么强大（β = 0.13，p < 0.05）。这一结果意味着，考虑到现有研究设计检测到的效应大小，公民对街头官僚代表的存在的反应比对管理职位的反应更强烈。方法论调节变量也发现了显著的影响。在观察性研究中观察到的被动-象征性代表联系比在采用实验设计的研究中更弱（β = 0.092，p < 0.1）。实验研究的子组总体效应估计为 0.082（见表 A2），从 12 个样本中贡献了 127 个效应大小，报告的被动代表的象征性效应比观察研究更显著。

    其余调节变量的结果表明，这些因素对观察到的被动-象征性代表联系没有显著影响。无论被动代表性是作为代表性官僚的总体比例还是一对一的身份一致性来操作，它都不会显著地缓和符号代表性的显著性。同时，没有证据表明种族或性别的代表性比当前样本研究中涉及的其他类型的身份（如职业、移民身份或当地身份）产生更大的象征效应。此外，代表性结果是通过客户方面的实质性行为和政策结果来衡量的，还是通过他们的态度和感知变化来衡量的，在象征效应方面并没有显著差异。此外，即使在通常不强调代表性问题的政策背景下（如环境保护或应急管理），符号代表性也可能提供宝贵的见解。最后，研究地点本身似乎与解开符号代表性的神话无关。鉴于系数不显著，观察到的符号代表性强度在美国和非美国国家之间差异不大。

    当一项研究发表的概率受到其结果的影响时，就会出现出版偏见。进行了 Egger 回归检验。相应系数被证明不显著。综合考虑，鉴于效应大小异质性程度高以及多重检验的结果，出版偏见并不是此元分析的主要威胁。     

    The results empirically support the significance of symbolic representation, suggesting that passive bureaucratic representation can result in overall favorable outcomes. The symbolic effects of managerial representation appear less robust than that of frontline-level representation (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). This result implies that given the effect sizes detected by existing research designs, stronger responses from citizens are found to the presence of bureaucratic representatives at the street level rather than the managerial positions. A significant effect was also found on the methodological moderator. The observed passive-symbolic representation link turned out to be weaker in observational studies than in the studies that adopted experimental designs (β = 0.092, p < 0.1). With a sub-group aggregate effect estimate of 0.082 (see Table A2), the experimental studies, which contribute 127 effect sizes from 12 samples, reported a more substantial symbolic effect of passive representation than their observational counterparts.

    Results for the rest of the moderators suggest no significant impact of these factors on the observed passivesymbolic representation linkage. Regardless of whether the passive representation is operationalized as aggregate proportions of representative bureaucrats or one-to-one identity congruence, it does not significantly moderate the salience of symbolic representation. At the same time, there is no evidence that the representativeness of race or gender resulted in greater symbolic effects than other types of identities that are involved in the current sample studies, such as profession, immigrant status or local identity. In addition, whether the representation outcomes were measured by substantive behaviors and policy outcomes on the client side, or their attitudes and perceptual changes, makes no significant difference in terms of the symbolic effects. Moreover, symbolic representation may offer invaluable insight even in policy contexts that do not typically emphasize representation issues (like environmental protection or emergency management). Finally, the research location itself does not seem to matter with regard to untangling the myth of symbolic representation. Given the insignificant coefficients, the observed strength of symbolic representation does not vary much among the US and non-US countries.

    Publication bias occurs when the probability of a study getting published is affected by its results. Egger's regression test was conducted. The corresponding coefficient was proven insignificant. Taken together, given a high degree of effect size heterogeneity and the results of multiple tests, publication bias is not a major threat in the present meta-analysis.

讨论

    首先，鉴于观察性研究和实验性研究对该领域的贡献不同，需要更加关注研究设计以推进符号表征的研究。其次，鉴于已有的研究，与管理层相比，官僚表征在一线的影响力更大。第三，虽然没有发现其他实质性调节变量的显著调节作用，但这些结果有助于从多方面深化对符号表征的理解。第四，值得一提的是，鉴于在非美国背景下没有发现不太显著的影响，从制度设置的角度推广符号表征理论是一个良好的开端。

    虽然这项研究提供了有意义的启示，但也有必要承认它的局限性。首先，对被动表征与其符号效应之间线性关系的关注限制了可比研究中发现的交互效应的纳入。其次，目前对调节变量的测量可能无法捕捉到更细微的层级内差异。此外，还有其他可能影响被动-符号表征联系的因素由于观察有限而未被纳入。最后，定性研究所关注的问题在当前的元分析中无法得到很好的解决，但它们在理解公民日常经历中的象征效应方面发挥着不可替代的作用。

    First, given the different contributions of observational and experimental studies to the field, more attention on research design is required to advance the study of symbolic representation. Second, more potent effects of bureaucratic representation are observed at the frontline compared with mana- gerial levels, given the accomplished studies. Third, while no significant moderating effects were found regarding the other substantive moderators, these results help deepen the understanding of symbolic representation in multiple ways. Fourth, it is worth mentioning that given that less significant effects were not found within non-US contexts, generalizing the symbolic representation theory in terms of institutional settings is off to a promising start.

    While this study provides meaningful implications, it is necessary to acknowledge its limitations. First, the focus on the linear relationship between passive representation and its symbolic effects limits the inclusion of interactive effects found in comparable studies. Secondly, the current measurements of moderators may fail to capture more nuanced within-level differences. Further, there are other factors with the potential to impact the passive-symbolic representation linkage that have not been included due to limited observations. Last, concerns by qualitative work cannot be well addressed in the current meta-analysis, while they play an irreplace- able role in understanding symbolic effects in the everyday experiences of citizens.

    就被动代表本身是政府进程包容性和开放性的象征性表现而言，象征性代表自代表官僚主义诞生以来一直是关于代表性官僚主义的文献中关注的问题。然而，在最近的实证调查中观察到的无效发现质疑符号表示概念的独立性，并呼吁更加关注其实际影响的局限性。通过汇总关于符号表示的现有经验证据并探索潜在的变异来源，该元分析期望符号表示能带来独立的好处。根据在多个主持人之间观察到的被动符号表示链接的变化，提供了有价值的见解。尽管存在一些局限性，但这一元分析指出了进一步研究的途径，并推进了代表性官僚主义的知识和实践，特别强调其象征性方面。重要的是，上下文对符号表示非常重要。在实践中，在考虑基于这一元分析的结果的进一步政策影响时，也应重视具有非常独特的设计背景的独立研究的见解。

    In so much as passive representation itself is a symbolic manifestation of the inclusivity and openness of government processes, symbolic representation has been a concern within the literature on representative bureaucracy since its inception. However, null findings observed in recent empirical investigations questioned the independence of the concept of symbolic representation and called for greater attention to the limits of its actual effects. By aggregating existing empirical evidence on symbolic representation and exploring potential sources of variation, this meta-analysis expects for symbolic representation to bring independent benefits. Valuable insights were provided based on the variations observed for the passive-symbolic representation linkage across multiple moderators. Despite a few limitations, this meta-analysis points to avenues for further research, and advances knowledge on and the practice of representative bureaucracy, with a particular emphasis on its symbolic facet. Importantly, contexts matter a lot to symbolic representation. In practice, insights from the independent study with its very unique background of design, shall also be valued when considering further policy implications of the results based on this meta-analysis.

《公共行政》微信公众号刚刚上线不久，我们期待来自各界的宝贵意见，您可将您的建议发送给后台。如果您对我们推送的文章感兴趣，也可在下方留言评论，与其他读者一起交流。

”