Public Administration ReviewVolume 81, Issue 4 p. 810-810 ERRATUMFree Access An Empirical Assessment of the Intrusiveness and Reasonableness of Emerging Work Surveillance Technologies in the Public Sector This article corrects the following: An Empirical Assessment of the Intrusiveness and Reasonableness of Emerging Work Surveillance Technologies in the Public Sector Étienne Charbonneau, Carey Doberstein, Volume 80Issue 5Public Administration Review pages: 780-791 First Published online: September 28, 2020 First published: 21 July 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13325AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat In Charbonneau and Doberstein (2020), the following corrections by the authors were not made before the publication of the Version of Record. The corrections have now been made; a list of each correction is included below. On page 780, the word ‘wait’ has been deleted and the text ‘of users waiting for public services’ has been inserted in the second sentence of the first paragraph (left column). On page 781, the text ‘than as customers’ has been inserted at the end of the second sentence of the second full paragraph (left column). And the text ‘types of’ should be inserted and the text ‘dimensions of’ should be changed to ‘in’ at the last sentence of the third full paragraph (right column). On page 782, the reference citation ‘(Ankabi 2017)’ in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph under subsection ‘Electronic Performance Monitoring (EPM) in Workplaces’ should be corrected to ‘(Akanbi 2017)’. On page 784, the text ‘Closed-circuit televisions’ have been inserted before ‘(CCTVs)’ at the first sentence of the second paragraph under ‘Surveillance Technologies in the Workplace’ subsection. And the second sentence ‘The dimension we focus on is surveillance for two vivid examples of public servants with (typically) higher and lower appreciation among the public, a social worker ((Fukuyama 2013 and a government tax agent (Tummers et al. 2015).’ under the subsection Study Design should be corrected. On page 785, the text ‘original’ and ‘of surveyed Americans’ should be inserted before and after the word ‘results’ at the first sentence of the paragraph after Table 1. On page 789, the word ‘it’ before and after the word ‘allows’ in the third sentence of the first paragraph under Conclusion section should be corrected to ‘technology’ and ‘surveillance’ respectively. And the text ‘do it’ in the fourth sentence of the same section should be changed ‘surveil workers’. In the References section, the following references should have been added: Akanbi, Opeyemi. 2017. New Media, Work Boundaries, and Privacy. International Journal of Communication 11: 4769–4782. Blasina, Robert B. 2007. Video Surveillance and the Employment Relationship. The Advocate 65(4): 447–478. Ciocchetti, Corey A. 2011. The Eavesdropping Employer: A Twenty-First Century Framework for Employee Monitoring. American Business Law Journal 48(2): 285–369. These have been corrected in the online version. Reference Charbonneau, Étienne, and Carey Doberstein. 2020. An Empirical Assessment of the Intrusiveness and Reasonableness of Emerging Work Surveillance Technologies in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review 80(5): 780– 791. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13278Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume81, Issue4July/August 2021Pages 810-810 ReferencesRelatedInformation