One of the beautiful themes of public administration is that it continues to flourish as a field due in no small part to its reliance on theoretical developments in other disciplines. Over the last century, public administration has borrowed from myriad disciplines including, but not limited to political science, economics, psychology, biology, sociology, and physics. This amazing tapestry has led to some of the discipline's most important research. For example, nascent research in behavioral public administration has borrowed heavily from psychology and economics resulting in an outpouring of scholarship. The inclusion of so many academic disciplines outside of public administration in our research streams is often compared to an umbrella, where public administration is the canopy under which fields and subfields continue to thrive. In other words, the theme of inclusivity and theoretical development go hand in hand in public administration. Our current issue embodies this theme, with contributions and symposia borrowing from many disciplines in an effort to bring clarity to information technology, performance, race and civil rights, and gender equity. For us, as editors, this issue provides a nostalgic look back over our last two years' work. Many miles were traveled, and emails exchanged to move from discrete ideas to collections of research articles focused around these increasingly salient topics.

We begin this issue with two research articles. Hansen and Tummers (2020) review 42 field experiments in public administration to explore how they have developed over time, trends in field experiments, and issues to take into account, including: costs, practicality, ethics, and validity. They conclude with recommendations for authors to consider in developing and conducting successful field experiments. Next, Hong (2020) explores the effectiveness of a central government regulatory reform policy on actual local reductions in red tape using a quasi‐experimental regression discontinuity design. Hong finds that local levels of red tape were reduced significantly, but only among low‐performing localities, suggesting asymmetric responses to performance information. The effect was clearest among those localities most reliant on the central government for resources.

We next take up the first of four symposia (three research, one Viewpoint) appearing in this issue. Transformation of Government in the Era of Smart Technology presents a collection of papers that explore the increasing role of technology in public administration. Guest editors Soonhee Kim (KDI School of Public Policy and Management), Kim Normann Andersen (Copenhagen Business School), and Jungwoo Lee (Yonsei University) called on scholars around the world to contribute papers and participate in a workshop in Copenhagen in Summer, 2019. Their dedication and support are clear from the manuscripts included.

In recent years, information technology has proven instrumental to many facets of public administration, including: performance, security, employee rights, and equity (Van den Berg et al. 2020; Xu and Tang 2020). Indeed, having the right technology in place enables improved communication and distribution of relevant information across agencies and governments (Vogl et al. 2020). For public managers, a greater appreciation of technology is necessary for the effective delivery of services. Moreover, a greater awareness of the benefits of information technology has raised the expectations of public employees, managers, customers, regulators, and end‐users or citizens. In the way of an example, Whitford et al. (2020) confirm that the adoption of advanced robotics technology in crime labs can be explained by familiar factors including the push of agency professionalism, the pull of agency task environments, and resource capacity.

Another important IT related task is the management of institutional knowledge. Public managers, as the arbiters of organizational information, face increased demand from stakeholders and thus play a vital role in the implementation and integration of public policy. While the private sector came to this realization decades ago, the public sector has only recently adopted the information technology mantra. Public managers now are challenged to integrate vital information for the maintenance of organizational knowledge in a rapidly changing environment. As such, they seek to drive performance in a dynamic environment by analyzing relevant data efficiently.

More recent advances in information technology—computer networks and cloud‐based software—have ushered in a new era of managing public information. These applications allow public managers and their staff to manage large amounts of public information while making this information available to employees, management, citizens, and others. New developments in artificial intelligence are expanding the conceptual boundaries of what public managers will be able to do with information technology in the near future. Information technology now provides an integrated platform for managing strategic planning, performance management, workforce planning, development, compensation and benefits, and risk management. Indeed, this is most evident in recruitment strategies for improving participation where technology can play a central role in citizen involvement and representation (Van den Berg et al. 2020).

The second research symposium, Advancing Government Quality through Capacity and Competitiveness, was guest edited by Tobin Im (Seoul National University), Robert K. Christensen (Brigham Young University), and Lotte Bøgh Andersen (Aarhus University). This symposium invited theoretical and empirical work that would align, clarify, and integrate the concepts of government capacity and competitiveness relative to each other, and to performance more broadly. The capacity‐performance paradigm is increasingly viewed as a necessary foundation to understand performance (Hall 2008; Poister, Aristigueta, and Hall 2014), and as already mentioned, performance expectations continue to rise with improvements to technology and service delivery. Three papers explore this relationship on different levels.

Moynihan, Baekgaard, and Jakobsen (2020) examine performance in Danish hospitals. They show that managerial performance information shapes the way frontline professionals engage in goal‐based learning. Moreover, the way managers use performance data seems to matter; if managers reinforce the perception of performance management as an externally imposed tool of control, professionals withdraw effort, but when managers use data in ways that solve organizational problems, professionals engage in goal‐based learning. Bello‐Gomez (2020) explores the interaction of capacity at different levels, looking closely at the indirect national contribution to subnational performance in a context. Taking Columbian schools as the object of study, the results suggest that national capacity boosts education provision, and that regions with the least own‐source capacity benefit the most. Deslatte and Stokan (2020) examine the conditions under which local governments diversify into new areas of service delivery. Seeking to apply resource‐based theories to the public sector, they distinguish between more and less fungible capabilities and posit that local government officials make such commitments to enhance the competitiveness of their communities. They find that a variety of factors shape city attention to sustainability commitments. Collectively, these pieces offer new insight into the myriad ways capacity can shape performance and competitiveness.

The third research symposium, The Pursuit of Civil Rights and Public Sector Values in the 21st Century: Examining Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Vision in the Trump Era, was guest edited by Richard Greggory Johnson III (University of San Francisco), Susan Gooden (Virginia Commonwealth University), and RaJade Berry (North Carolina State University). Here, six papers highlight various important topics related to civil rights in light of the current political and administrative context. In their paper, “At the Junction of Administrative Evil and Administrative Racism: The Obstacles and Opportunities for Public Administrators in the United States to Uphold Civil Rights in the 21st Century,” Brian N. Williams and Brendin R. Duckett draw from a historical and a contemporary case to explore the cause of harm to marginalized populations, concluding with prescriptions for improvement (Williams and Duckett 2020). Headley and Wright II (2020) use individual‐level data from New Orleans to estimate the impact of racial congruence and incongruence on policing outcomes. Bishu and Headley (2020) draw from interview data to highlight the gendered internal organizational processes, arrangements, and interactions that shape women's experiences in male‐dominated roles. Their findings suggest that women constantly face gendered barriers and boundaries that directly impact their experiences on the job and their work‐related outcomes, requiring cultural change to bring about improvement.

Elias (2020) examines LGBTQ+ civil rights in major U.S. municipalities by analyzing government websites from the 10 most populous U.S. cities to understand the policies, programs, and services offered, but also to understand the language used to frame these policies, programs, and services as expressions of power and representations of identity. Starke Jr. (2020) undertakes a qualitative analysis of data from congressional testimonies (n = 34) before and after the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, to discover the role of public administrators as contributors to welfare policy discourse and the resulting implications for the fight for equality and equal citizenship. He finds that bureaucrats’ welfare policy discourse marginalized vulnerable populations, particularly African‐American women. To round out the symposium, Berry‐James, Gooden, and Johnson III (2020) examine the implementation of Census 2020; as Census undercounts disproportionately impact marginalized communities there is heightened concern for Census 2020 along two core social equity dimensions: (1) race and ethnicity, and (2) immigration and citizenship. Notably, on October 13th, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration to end the 2020 Census rather than extend the headcount.

As most of us are aware, recent events in the United States have highlighted the continued need for public administration research that focuses on civil rights and public sector values (see Civil Rights and Public Sector Values Symposium Introduction this issue). For public administration, the discussion of civil rights is firmly rooted in the employment practices of the public sector. Increasingly, research has shown that we must focus not just on representation as an input to the process, but that we must be equally attentive to social equity during implementation, compensating for bias and structural inequality that creates disproportionate burden and benefits for different groups. The notion of a representative workforce (i.e., a public sector comprising employees who are demographically similar to the citizens they serve) is not new. Rooted in the civil rights movement and related scholarship of the 1960s, representative bureaucracy has proven to be a valuable organizing principle for both scholars and practitioners. A representative workforce is an asset for guiding the many interests of a diverse citizenry (Williams and Duckett 2020). This stood in contrast to the makeup of the public sector workforce through the 1960s, which was overwhelmingly white and male. For practitioners and academics alike, the advantage of a representative bureaucracy is that it can draw from the many skills and abilities of the entire spectrum of the population, enabling the public sector to address a broader set of policy problems (Starke Jr. 2020; Williams and Duckett 2020). Indeed, research has highlighted the performance gains attributable to a representative workforce, noting boosts to productivity among minorities and nonminorities alike (Meier, Wrinkle, and Polinard 1999). A representative bureaucracy is also seen as a means for establishing greater legitimacy in the public service, a view expressed in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

Continued research on diversity and inclusiveness must be a goal of public administration. Scholarship in public human resource management (PHRM) has largely taken up this challenge, while broader public administration research has more work to do. As scholars and practitioners of public administration, we have a singular duty to investigate the causes and consequences of persistent discrimination in the public workplace. The work in PHRM has sought to appreciate the impact diversity and inclusion has on the culture of the organization, particularly, workplace climate. So far, research has demonstrated the effectiveness of inclusiveness in the workplace on fewer instances of bullying and discrimination, higher perceptions toward workplace climate, legitimacy, trust, and representativeness—all of which enhance overall agency effectiveness (Andrews and Ashworth 2015; Riccucci and Van Ryzin 2017).

However, there is a greater need for work focusing on sexual harassment in this stream of research. Of particular interest is the impact sexual harassment has on individual psyches and overall workplace culture and climate (see #MeToo Viewpoint Symposium Introduction). In 2015 alone, the EEOC recovered $164.5 million in direct costs for workers alleging harassment. However, the cost of lost worker productivity resulting from a hostile work environment is less clear and difficult to measure (see Rubin and Alteri 2017).

Changing workplace culture in the public sector is instrumental to preventing discrimination. A critical component to make the necessary changes is employee training. Typically, training is viewed as a means for informing employees and upholding legal liability within the organization. A recent EEOC report suggests that this view of training has largely been ineffective if not harmful. The EEOC suggests rethinking training protocols and providing more novel approaches for communicating the message of a harassment‐free workplace. Moreover, such training should tailor that message to fit a particular agency's culture and type of employee (e.g., supervisor, subordinate) (EEOC 2016). Support from the top is essential to successfully implement any new training practices. This is especially true of ensuring the success of social equity workplace initiatives in general (Andrews and Ashworth 2015; Gooden 2017). According to the EEOC (2016), “trained correctly, middle‐managers and first‐line supervisors in particular can be an employer's most valuable resource in preventing and stopping harassment” (p. v).

Our final symposium of the issue highlights gender‐based discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. In their Viewpoint symposium, Implications of the #MeToo Movement for Academia, editors Nicole Elias (City University of New York) and Maria d'Agostino (City University of New York), present six articles that highlight the importance of gender equality in general, but in higher education in particular.

This issue, for us, not only illustrates the variety of important topics being considered by scholars around the globe, but it culminates nearly three years of effort shepherding these symposia through to fruition. We have received, reviewed, and rejected dozens of manuscripts to winnow down the pool to those that withstood the rigors of PAR's peer review process. The manuscripts presented here reflect only a small subset of those generated in response to our calls for proposals. As we often lament, we must reject a great deal of good work. We expect many of those pieces to find homes in outlets more closely aligned to the specialized concepts they consider, as the residual diaspora of these calls for papers begins to appear across the literature. These projects have been a labor of love, and they have facilitated new relationships with phenomenal scholars around the globe, and new familiarity with the innovative work being carried out by their institutions. In closing, we are still reflecting on the umbrella we have opened during our editorial term—the breadth of topics covered, in particular—but one can also extend the metaphor. To wit, what are the negative implications of closing it? Will this umbrella be sufficient to protect the content it covers as the winds of change and innovation howl about us. These are tempestuous times, indeed.

公共行政的美好主题之一是，它继续作为一个领域蓬勃发展，这在很大程度上要归功于它依赖于其他学科的理论发展。上个世纪，公共行政学借鉴了无数学科，包括但不限于政治学，经济学，心理学，生物学，社会学和物理学。这种惊人的挂毯导致了该学科的一些最重要的研究。例如，行为公共行政方面的新生研究已从心理学和经济学中大量借用，导致奖学金大量涌入。在我们的研究流中，将如此多的公共行政以外的学科纳入研究通常被与一个伞相比。在伞中，公共行政是田间和子田继续蓬勃发展的顶棚。换句话说，包容性与理论发展的主题在公共行政中是并驾齐驱的。本期杂志体现了这一主题，许多学科都做出了贡献和专题讨论会，以期使信息技术，绩效，种族和公民权利以及性别平等更加清晰。对我们来说，作为编辑，这一期使我们对过去两年的工作有了怀旧的回忆。行驶了许多英里，并且交换了电子邮件，以将离散的想法转移到围绕这些日益突出的主题的研究论文集。种族和公民权利，以及性别平等。对我们来说，作为编辑，这一期使我们对过去两年的工作有了怀旧的回忆。行驶了许多英里，并且交换了电子邮件，以将离散的想法转移到围绕这些日益突出的主题的研究论文集。种族和公民权利，以及性别平等。对我们来说，作为编辑，这一期使我们对过去两年的工作有了怀旧的回忆。行驶了许多英里，交换了电子邮件，从离散的想法转变为围绕这些日益突出的主题的研究文章的集合。

我们从两篇研究文章开始本期。Hansen和Tummers（2020）回顾了42个公共管理领域的实地实验，以探索它们随着时间的发展，实地实验的趋势以及要考虑的问题，包括：成本，实用性，道德和有效性。他们最后提出了建议，供作者在开发和进行成功的现场实验时考虑。接下来，洪（2020）使用准实验回归不连续性设计，探索了中央政府监管改革政策对实际减少繁文tape节的有效性。Hong发现，本地的繁文tape节水平显着降低，但仅限于表现不佳的地区，这表明对绩效信息的反应不对称。在最依赖中央政府资源的那些地区中，影响最为明显。

接下来，我们讨论本期中出现的四个座谈会（三个研究，一个观点）中的第一个。智能技术时代的政府转型提出了一系列论文，探讨了技术在公共管理中日益重要的作用。特邀编辑Soonhee Kim（KDI公共政策与管理学院），Kim Normann Andersen（哥本哈根商学院）和Jung Jung Lee（延世大学）呼吁世界各地的学者发表论文并参加2019年夏季在哥本哈根举行的研讨会从其中的手稿中可以清楚看出他们的奉献精神和支持。

近年来，信息技术已被证明对公共管理的许多方面都起作用，包括：绩效，安全性，员工权利和平等（Van den Berg等人 2020； Xu and Tang  2020）。确实，拥有适当的技术可以改善各机构和政府之间相关信息的交流和分配（Vogl等人，  2020年）。对于公共管理者来说，对技术的更高理解对于有效交付服务是必要的。此外，对信息技术优势的更多认识提高了公共雇员，经理，客户，监管者以及最终用户或公民的期望。作为一个例子，Whitford等。（2020年）确认可以通过熟悉的因素来解释在犯罪实验室中采用先进的机器人技术，这些因素包括代理机构专业化的推动，代理机构任务环境的拉动以及资源容量。

与IT相关的另一个重要任务是机构知识的管理。公共管理者作为组织信息的仲裁者，面临着利益相关者日益增长的需求，因此在公共政策的实施和整合中起着至关重要的作用。私营部门在几十年前实现了这一目标，而公共部门直到最近才采用了信息技术的口头禅。现在，公共管理人员面临着整合重要信息以在快速变化的环境中维护组织知识的挑战。因此，他们试图通过有效地分析相关数据来在动态环境中提高性能。

信息技术的最新进展（计算机网络和基于云的软件）已经进入了管理公共信息的新时代。这些应用程序使公共管理人员及其员工可以管理大量公共信息，同时使这些信息可供员工，管理层，公民和其他人使用。人工智能的新发展正在扩大公共管理人员在不久的将来将能够使用信息技术的概念界限。信息技术现在提供了一个集成平台，用于管理战略计划，绩效管理，员工队伍计划，开发，薪酬和福利以及风险管理。确实， 2020年）。

第二届研究研讨会，“通过能力和竞争力提高政府质量”，由Tobin Im（汉城国立大学），Robert K. Christensen（杨百翰大学）和LotteBøghAndersen（奥胡斯大学）共同编辑。这次专题讨论会邀请了理论和实证研究工作，这些工作将使政府能力和竞争力的概念相对于彼此，更广泛地与绩效保持一致，明确和整合。能力绩效范式被越来越多地视为了解绩效的必要基础（Hall  2008； Poister，Aristigueta和Hall  2014）），并且如上所述，随着技术和服务交付水平的提高，对性能的期望也不断提高。三篇论文分别探讨了这种关系。

Moynihan，Baekgaard和Jakobsen（2020年）研究了丹麦医院的表现。他们表明，管理绩效信息塑造了前线专业人员进行基于目标的学习的方式。此外，管理者使用绩效数据的方式似乎很重要。如果管理人员加强了将绩效管理视为外部施加的控制工具的认识，则专业人员会撤回努力，但如果管理人员以解决组织问题的方式使用数据，则专业人员将进行基于目标的学习。贝洛·戈麦斯（2020年）探讨了能力在不同层次上的相互作用，并密切关注了国家对地方绩效的间接贡献。以哥伦比亚学校为研究对象，研究结果表明，国家能力促进了教育提供，而自有能力最少的地区受益最大。德斯拉特和斯托坎（2020）研究地方政府在新的服务提供领域进行多元化经营的条件。为了将基于资源的理论应用于公共部门，他们区分了功能的可替代性和可替代性，并假定地方政府官员做出了这样的承诺以增强其社区的竞争力。他们发现，各种因素影响着城市对可持续发展承诺的关注。总而言之，这些作品为人们了解能力如何影响绩效和竞争力提供了新的见解。

第三次研究研讨会，“对21世纪公民权利和公共部门价值的追求：在特朗普时代审视马丁·路德·金博士的愿景”，由理查德·格雷格里·约翰逊三世（旧金山大学）编辑， Susan Gooden（弗吉尼亚联邦大学）和RaJade Berry（北卡罗莱纳州立大学）。在此，有六篇论文根据当前的政治和行政背景，重点介绍了与公民权利有关的各种重要主题。Brian N. Williams和Brendin R. Duckett在他们的论文“在行政邪恶与行政种族主义的交界处：美国公共行政人员在21世纪维护公民权利的障碍和机会”中一个当代案例，探讨对边缘化人群造成伤害的原因， 2020年）。Headley and Wright II（2020）使用来自新奥尔良的个人水平数据来估计种族一致性和不一致性对警务结果的影响。Bishu and Headley（2020）从访谈数据中得出了突出性别内部组织过程，安排和互动的信息，这些因素塑造了女性在男性主导角色中的经历。他们的发现表明，妇女不断面临性别障碍和界限，这些障碍和界限直接影响她们的工作经验和与工作相关的结果，需要文化变革来带来改善。

埃里亚斯（Elias，2020年）通过分析美国10个人口最多的城市的政府网站，研究了美国主要城市的LGBTQ +公民权利，以了解所提供的政策，计划和服务，同时也了解用来构成这些政策，计划和服务的语言作为权力的表达和身份的表示。小斯塔克（2020）对1996年《个人责任与工作机会和解法》颁布之前和之后来自国会证词（n = 34）的数据进行定性分析，以发现公共管理者在福利政策讨论中起的作用，以及由此带来的影响争取平等和平等公民权的斗争。他发现，官僚们的福利政策话语使弱势人群，特别是非裔美国妇女处于边缘地位。为使座谈会圆满结束，Berry-James，Gooden和Johnson III（2020年）审查2020年人口普查的实施情况；由于人口普查低估对边缘化社区的影响不成比例，因此人们对2020年人口普查的关注日益突出，主要体现在两个核心社会平等方面：（1）种族和族裔，以及（2）移民和公民身份。值得注意的是，在2020年10月13日，美国最高法院支持特朗普政府终止2020年人口普查，而不是增加人数。

正如我们大多数人所知道的那样，美国最近发生的事件凸显了对公共行政研究的持续需求，该研究侧重于民权和公共部门价值（请参阅本期《民权和公共部门价值专题讨论会简介》）。对于公共行政而言，关于公民权利的讨论牢固地扎根于公共部门的雇用实践中。越来越多的研究表明，我们不仅必须将代表作为流程的投入，而且必须在实施过程中同样关注社会公平，以弥补造成不同群体负担和收益过大的偏见和结构性不平等。具有代表性的劳动力（即，由人口统计学上与所服务的公民相似的雇员组成的公共部门）的概念并不是什么新鲜事物。代表官僚机构植根于1960年代的民权运动和相关学术研究，已被证明对于学者和从业者都是宝贵的组织原则。有代表性的劳动力是引导多元化公民的许多利益的资产（威廉姆斯和达克特 2020年）。与此形成鲜明对比的是，直到1960年代，公共部门的劳动力都是白人和男性。对于从业者和学者而言，代议制官僚制的优势在于它可以利用整个人口群体的许多技能和能力，使公共部门能够解决更广泛的政策问题（小斯塔克 2020；威廉姆斯和Duckett  2020）。确实，研究强调了具有代表性的劳动力所带来的绩效提升，并指出了少数族裔和非少数族裔的生产力提高（Meier，Wrinkle和Polinard，  1999年））。1978年的《公务员制度改革法》也表达了一种观点，即代议制官僚机构也被视为在公共服务中建立更大合法性的一种手段。

不断研究多样性和包容性必须是公共行政的目标。公共人力资源管理（PHRM）的奖学金在很大程度上解决了这一挑战，而更广泛的公共管理研究还有很多工作要做。作为公共管理的学者和实践者，我们负有调查公共场所持续歧视的原因和后果的责任。PHRM的工作力图了解多样性和包容性对组织文化，尤其是工作环境的影响。到目前为止，研究表明，在更少的欺凌和歧视事件，对工作场所气候，合法性，信任， 2015 ; Riccucci和Van Ryzin  2017）。

但是，在这一研究流中，更需要着重于性骚扰的工作。特别令人感兴趣的是性骚扰对个人心理以及整体工作场所文化和气候的影响（请参阅#MeToo观点研讨会简介）。仅在2015年，欧洲经济共同体就指控骚扰的工人直接赔偿了1.645亿美元。但是，由于敌对的工作环境而导致的工人生产力损失的成本尚不清楚，并且难以衡量（参见Rubin和Alteri  2017）。

公共部门不断变化的工作场所文化有助于防止歧视。进行必要更改的关键因素是员工培训。通常，培训被视为通知员工和维护组织内部法律责任的一种手段。EEOC最近的一份报告表明，这种培训观点即使无害，但在很大程度上还是无效的。EEOC建议重新考虑培训协议，并提供更多新颖的方法来传达无骚扰工作场所的信息。此外，此类培训应使该信息适应特定机构的文化和员工类型（例如，主管，下属）（EEOC  2016））。高层的支持对于成功实施任何新的培训实践至关重要。在总体上确保社会公平工作场所计划的成功尤其如此（Andrews和Ashworth，  2015； Gooden，  2017）。根据EEOC（2016），“经过正确培训的中层管理人员，尤其是一线主管，可以成为雇主预防和制止骚扰的最宝贵资源”（p。v）。

我们在该问题的最后专题讨论会上重点介绍了工作场所中基于性别的歧视和性骚扰。在Nicole Elias（纽约城市大学）和Maria d'Agostino（纽约城市大学）的观点研讨会中，＃MeToo运动对学术界的影响，发表了六篇文章，着重强调了总体上性别平等的重要性，但尤其是在高等教育中。

对我们而言，这个问题不仅说明了全球学者正在考虑的各种重要主题，而且使将这些专题讨论一直付诸实践达到了近三年的努力。我们已经收到，审查和拒绝了数十份手稿，以免遭受PAR同行审查过程的严峻考验。这里展示的手稿仅反映了为响应我们的征集建议而生成的一小部分。正如我们经常感叹的那样，我们必须拒绝很多出色的工作。我们希望这些作品中的许多作品能在与他们所考虑的专业概念更接近的地方找到家，因为这些征集论文的残余散居者开始在整个文献中出现。这些项目是爱的劳动，他们促进了与全球杰出学者的新关系，并使他们对其机构正在开展的创新工作有了新的了解。最后，我们仍在反思我们在编辑任期内打开的一把伞，尤其是涉及的话题的广度，但也可以扩大这个比喻。也就是说，关闭它有什么负面影响？当变革和创新之风席卷我们时，这把伞足以保护它涵盖的内容。确实，这是艰难的时期。也就是说，关闭它有什么负面影响？当变革和创新之风席卷我们时，这把伞足以保护它涵盖的内容。确实，这是艰难的时期。也就是说，关闭它有什么负面影响？当变革和创新之风席卷我们时，这把伞足以保护它涵盖的内容。确实，这是艰难的时期。