When public values and user-centricity in e-government collide – A systematic review

IF 7.8 1区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Government Information Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2024.101956
Linda Weigl , Tamara Roth , Alexandre Amard , Liudmila Zavolokina
{"title":"When public values and user-centricity in e-government collide – A systematic review","authors":"Linda Weigl ,&nbsp;Tamara Roth ,&nbsp;Alexandre Amard ,&nbsp;Liudmila Zavolokina","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.101956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>User-centricity in e-government is a double-edged sword. While it helps governments design digital services tailored to the needs of citizens, it may also increase the burden on users and deepen the digital divide. From an institutional perspective, these fundamental conflicts are inevitable. To better understand the role and effect of user-centricity in e-government, this paper analyses academic literature on user-centricity and public values. The analysis leads to three main insights: First, there is a conflict in citizen representation that may result from the normative dominance of decision-makers. Second, we identify an accountability conflict that can prevent user-centric innovation from thriving in a highly institutionalized environment. Third, we identify a pluralism conflict that emerges from a clash between the reality of a diverse society and the assumed homogeneity of actors. The need to address these conflicts increases with rapid technological innovation, such as distributed ledger technologies, artificial intelligence, and trust infrastructures. These technologies put the user at the center stage and permeate aspects of social life beyond government. In response to these insights, we outline suggestions for further research and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"41 3","pages":"Article 101956"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X24000480/pdfft?md5=f48993078874d36b53248d06936af5db&pid=1-s2.0-S0740624X24000480-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Government Information Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X24000480","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

User-centricity in e-government is a double-edged sword. While it helps governments design digital services tailored to the needs of citizens, it may also increase the burden on users and deepen the digital divide. From an institutional perspective, these fundamental conflicts are inevitable. To better understand the role and effect of user-centricity in e-government, this paper analyses academic literature on user-centricity and public values. The analysis leads to three main insights: First, there is a conflict in citizen representation that may result from the normative dominance of decision-makers. Second, we identify an accountability conflict that can prevent user-centric innovation from thriving in a highly institutionalized environment. Third, we identify a pluralism conflict that emerges from a clash between the reality of a diverse society and the assumed homogeneity of actors. The need to address these conflicts increases with rapid technological innovation, such as distributed ledger technologies, artificial intelligence, and trust infrastructures. These technologies put the user at the center stage and permeate aspects of social life beyond government. In response to these insights, we outline suggestions for further research and practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当电子政务中的公共价值和以用户为中心发生碰撞时--系统性综述
电子政务以用户为中心是一把双刃剑。它在帮助政府设计符合公民需求的数字服务的同时,也可能增加用户的负担,加深数字鸿沟。从制度的角度来看,这些基本冲突是不可避免的。为了更好地理解以用户为中心在电子政务中的作用和影响,本文分析了有关以用户为中心和公共价值观的学术文献。分析得出了三个主要观点:首先,决策者的规范主导地位可能导致公民代表权的冲突。第二,我们发现了一种问责冲突,这种冲突可能会阻碍以用户为中心的创新在高度制度化的环境中蓬勃发展。第三,我们确定了多元化冲突,它产生于多元化社会的现实与假定的行动者同质性之间的冲突。随着分布式账本技术、人工智能和信任基础设施等技术创新的快速发展,解决这些冲突的必要性与日俱增。这些技术将用户置于中心位置,并渗透到政府之外的社会生活的方方面面。针对这些见解,我们概述了进一步研究和实践的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Government Information Quarterly
Government Information Quarterly INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Government Information Quarterly (GIQ) delves into the convergence of policy, information technology, government, and the public. It explores the impact of policies on government information flows, the role of technology in innovative government services, and the dynamic between citizens and governing bodies in the digital age. GIQ serves as a premier journal, disseminating high-quality research and insights that bridge the realms of policy, information technology, government, and public engagement.
期刊最新文献
A more secure framework for open government data sharing based on federated learning Does trust in government moderate the perception towards deepfakes? Comparative perspectives from Asia on the risks of AI and misinformation for democracy Open government data and self-efficacy: The empirical evidence of micro foundation via survey experiments Transforming towards inclusion-by-design: Information system design principles shaping data-driven financial inclusiveness Bridging the gap: Towards an expanded toolkit for AI-driven decision-making in the public sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1