Government Information Quarterly最新文献

英文中文

The haves and the have nots: Civic technologies and the pathways to government responsiveness

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102007

Jonathan Mellon , Fredrik M. Sjoberg , Tiago Peixoto , Jacob Lueders

As civic life has moved online, scholars have questioned whether this will exacerbate political inequalities due to differential access to technology. However, this concern typically assumes that unequal participation inevitably leads to unequal outcomes: if online participants are unrepresentative of the population, then participation outcomes will benefit groups who participate and disadvantage those who do not. In this paper, we combine results from eight previous studies and new analysis to trace the digital inequality process from the digital divide through to policy outcomes for four different forms of online participation: online voting for Participatory Budgeting in Brazil, online local problem reporting in the United Kingdom through Fix My Street, crowdsourced constitution drafting in Iceland, and online petitioning across 132 countries on change.org. In every case, the assumed links in the chain from 1) the digital divide to 2) inequalities in online participation to 3) inequalities in demands made through the platform to 4) inequalities in participation outcomes. In each case, the link broke down because of the platform's institutional features and the surrounding political process. These results show that it is necessary to examine all the steps of online participation and its translation into policy to understand how inequality is created. The simple assumption that inequalities in participation always translate into the same inequalities in outcomes is not borne out in practice.

{"title":"The haves and the have nots: Civic technologies and the pathways to government responsiveness","authors":"Jonathan Mellon , Fredrik M. Sjoberg , Tiago Peixoto , Jacob Lueders","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As civic life has moved online, scholars have questioned whether this will exacerbate political inequalities due to differential access to technology. However, this concern typically assumes that unequal participation inevitably leads to unequal outcomes: if online participants are unrepresentative of the population, then participation outcomes will benefit groups who participate and disadvantage those who do not. In this paper, we combine results from eight previous studies and new analysis to trace the digital inequality process from the digital divide through to policy outcomes for four different forms of online participation: online voting for Participatory Budgeting in Brazil, online local problem reporting in the United Kingdom through Fix My Street, crowdsourced constitution drafting in Iceland, and online petitioning across 132 countries on <span><span>change.org</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>. In every case, the assumed links in the chain from 1) the digital divide to 2) inequalities in online participation to 3) inequalities in demands made through the platform to 4) inequalities in participation outcomes. In each case, the link broke down because of the platform's institutional features and the surrounding political process. These results show that it is necessary to examine all the steps of online participation and its translation into policy to understand how inequality is created. The simple assumption that inequalities in participation always translate into the same inequalities in outcomes is not borne out in practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102007"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Unveiling civil servants' preferences: Human-machine matching vs. regulating algorithms in algorithmic decision-making——Insights from a survey experiment

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102009

Huanhuan Li , Zongfeng Sun , Jiacheng Xi

While research has explored trust in algorithmic decision-making, the factors shaping civil servants' trust perceptions remain underexamined. Using public value theory and technology adoption frameworks, this study employs a survey experiment to analyze the effects of human-machine matching and algorithm regulation on civil servants' trust and adoption inclination. The findings indicate that both factors independently influence adoption inclination, with trust perceptions mediating this relationship, but no interaction effect is observed. Addressing gaps in technology acceptance and ethical frameworks, this study highlights the importance of algorithm regulation and human-machine matching in advancing algorithmic governance and achieving public value through procedural and performance dimensions, offering practical implications for policy and governance.

引用次数: 0

Which data should be publicly accessible? Dispatches from public managers

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102008

Mary K. Feeney , Federica Fusi , Ignacio Pezo

Open government data (OGD) seeks to promote transparency and accountability by enabling public access to government data. While public managers are increasingly supportive of OGD initiatives worldwide, researchers note that they also carefully select which data to release to balance openness with traditional values of professionalism and secrecy as well as concerns about cyber incidents and privacy. Understanding the factors that influence this micro-level choice is important to make valuable types of data publicly accessible. Using 2018 survey data from a nationally representative sample of 2500 department heads in 500 small and medium-sized US cities, we look at variation in public managers' level of comfort with making different types of government data open - from criminal records to government employee salary data. We find that managerial comfort reflects historic practices of public accessibility and privacy concerns with individual data. Managers who believe OGD creates positive outcomes for society are more comfortable with publicly disclosing all types of data. We also find variation across department types, suggesting fragmented views towards OGD within public organizations.

{"title":"Which data should be publicly accessible? Dispatches from public managers","authors":"Mary K. Feeney , Federica Fusi , Ignacio Pezo","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102008","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Open government data (OGD) seeks to promote transparency and accountability by enabling public access to government data. While public managers are increasingly supportive of OGD initiatives worldwide, researchers note that they also carefully select which data to release to balance openness with traditional values of professionalism and secrecy as well as concerns about cyber incidents and privacy. Understanding the factors that influence this micro-level choice is important to make valuable types of data publicly accessible. Using 2018 survey data from a nationally representative sample of 2500 department heads in 500 small and medium-sized US cities, we look at variation in public managers' level of comfort with making different types of government data open - from criminal records to government employee salary data. We find that managerial comfort reflects historic practices of public accessibility and privacy concerns with individual data. Managers who believe OGD creates positive outcomes for society are more comfortable with publicly disclosing all types of data<em>.</em> We also find variation across department types, suggesting fragmented views towards OGD within public organizations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102008"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A coordination perspective on digital public services in federal states

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984

Hendrik Scholta , Sebastian Halsbenning , Marco Niemann

The digitalization of public services is particularly challenging in federal states, in part because a federal structure separates organizations through a division of power and established jurisdictions, and digitalization facilitates interconnection between society and its organizations. The many actors involved in federal states' digital public services require coordination, so the literature suggests centralized coordination so federal states can benefit from the advantages of both unitary and federal states. However, this approach has not been adapted to digitalization and it remains unclear how centralized coordination applies to digital public services. This article determines how public managers in federal states should coordinate activities in digital public services with the help of centralization. Since coordination depends on decision-makers' being willing to give up some of their power, we also investigate the mechanisms that public managers in federal states use to influence decision-makers. Using a conceptual analysis and interviews with 28 public managers from three countries, we derive three types of coordination—shared services, digital identity, and strategic committee—and identify the influencing mechanisms of persuasion, incentive, pressure, and experience. In so doing, this article contributes to the literature in identifying the types of coordination, design principles for their arrangement, and the mechanisms managers typically use to influence decision-makers. The three types of coordination constitute a new theoretical lens through which to investigate the influence of the federal structure on the digitalization of public services, while the influencing mechanisms extend existing work by introducing the passive role of the influencer.

{"title":"A coordination perspective on digital public services in federal states","authors":"Hendrik Scholta , Sebastian Halsbenning , Marco Niemann","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The digitalization of public services is particularly challenging in federal states, in part because a federal structure separates organizations through a division of power and established jurisdictions, and digitalization facilitates interconnection between society and its organizations. The many actors involved in federal states' digital public services require coordination, so the literature suggests centralized coordination so federal states can benefit from the advantages of both unitary and federal states. However, this approach has not been adapted to digitalization and it remains unclear how centralized coordination applies to digital public services. This article determines how public managers in federal states should coordinate activities in digital public services with the help of centralization. Since coordination depends on decision-makers' being willing to give up some of their power, we also investigate the mechanisms that public managers in federal states use to influence decision-makers. Using a conceptual analysis and interviews with 28 public managers from three countries, we derive three types of coordination—shared services, digital identity, and strategic committee—and identify the influencing mechanisms of persuasion, incentive, pressure, and experience. In so doing, this article contributes to the literature in identifying the types of coordination, design principles for their arrangement, and the mechanisms managers typically use to influence decision-makers. The three types of coordination constitute a new theoretical lens through which to investigate the influence of the federal structure on the digitalization of public services, while the influencing mechanisms extend existing work by introducing the passive role of the influencer.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 101984"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Artificial intelligence governance: Understanding how public organizations implement it

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003

Patricia Gomes Rêgo de Almeida , Carlos Denner dos Santos Júnior

While observing the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation and global governance, public organizations are faced with the need to structure themselves so that their AI systems consider ethical principles. This research aimed to investigate how public organizations have incorporated the guidelines presented by academia, legislation, and international standards into their governance, management, and AI system development processes, focusing on ethical principles. Propositions were elaborated on the processes and practices recommended by literature specialized in AI governance. This entailed a comprehensive search that reached out to 28 public organizations across five continents that have AI systems in operation. Through an exploratory and descriptive aim, based on a qualitative and quantitative approach, the empirical analysis was carried out by means of proposition analysis using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method in crisp-set and fuzzy modes, based on questionnaire responses, combined with an interview and document content analysis. The analyses identified how processes and practices, across multiple layers and directed at the application of ethical principles in AI system production, have been combined and internalized in those public institutions. Organizations that trained decision-makers, AI system developers, and users showed a more advanced stage of AI governance; on the other hand, low scores were found on actions towards AI governance when those professionals did not receive any training. The results also revealed how governments can boost AI governance in public organizations by designing AI strategy, AI policy, AI ethical principles and publishing standards for that purpose to government agencies. The results also ground the design of the AIGov4Gov framework for public organizations to implement their own AI governance.

{"title":"Artificial intelligence governance: Understanding how public organizations implement it","authors":"Patricia Gomes Rêgo de Almeida , Carlos Denner dos Santos Júnior","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While observing the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation and global governance, public organizations are faced with the need to structure themselves so that their AI systems consider ethical principles. This research aimed to investigate how public organizations have incorporated the guidelines presented by academia, legislation, and international standards into their governance, management, and AI system development processes, focusing on ethical principles. Propositions were elaborated on the processes and practices recommended by literature specialized in AI governance. This entailed a comprehensive search that reached out to 28 public organizations across five continents that have AI systems in operation. Through an exploratory and descriptive aim, based on a qualitative and quantitative approach, the empirical analysis was carried out by means of proposition analysis using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method in crisp-set and fuzzy modes, based on questionnaire responses, combined with an interview and document content analysis. The analyses identified how processes and practices, across multiple layers and directed at the application of ethical principles in AI system production, have been combined and internalized in those public institutions. Organizations that trained decision-makers, AI system developers, and users showed a more advanced stage of AI governance; on the other hand, low scores were found on actions towards AI governance when those professionals did not receive any training. The results also revealed how governments can boost AI governance in public organizations by designing AI strategy, AI policy, AI ethical principles and publishing standards for that purpose to government agencies. The results also ground the design of the AIGov4Gov framework for public organizations to implement their own AI governance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102003"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

AI: Friend or foe of fairness perceptions of the tax administration? A survey experiment on citizens' procedural fairness perceptions

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102002

Anouk Decuypere, Anne Van de Vijver

Governments are increasingly using AI for their decision making. Research on citizen perceptions highlight the context-dependent nature of their fairness assessment, rendering administrations unsure about how to implement AI so that citizens support these procedures. The survey experiments in this study, conducted in a pilot and a main study, (N_pilot = 232; N_{main study} = 2366) focuses on a high-risk decision-making context, i.e., selection of citizens for fraud detection. In the scenarios, we manipulated the proportion of the selection made by AI, based on information from past fraudsters, versus civil servants, who work based on their experience. In addition, we tested the effect of transparency (and explanation) statements and its impact on procedural fairness scores. We found that a higher proportion of AI in the selection for fraud audits was perceived as more procedurally fair, mostly through increased scores on bias suppression and consistency. However, participants' general attitude toward AI and trust in the administration explained more variance than the experimental manipulation. Transparency (explanations) had no impact.

{"title":"AI: Friend or foe of fairness perceptions of the tax administration? A survey experiment on citizens' procedural fairness perceptions","authors":"Anouk Decuypere, Anne Van de Vijver","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Governments are increasingly using AI for their decision making. Research on citizen perceptions highlight the context-dependent nature of their fairness assessment, rendering administrations unsure about how to implement AI so that citizens support these procedures. The survey experiments in this study, conducted in a pilot and a main study, (N<sub>pilot</sub> = 232; N<sub>main study</sub> = 2366) focuses on a high-risk decision-making context, i.e., selection of citizens for fraud detection. In the scenarios, we manipulated the proportion of the selection made by AI, based on information from past fraudsters, versus civil servants, who work based on their experience. In addition, we tested the effect of transparency (and explanation) statements and its impact on procedural fairness scores. We found that a higher proportion of AI in the selection for fraud audits was perceived as more procedurally fair, mostly through increased scores on bias suppression and consistency. However, participants' general attitude toward AI and trust in the administration explained more variance than the experimental manipulation. Transparency (explanations) had no impact.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102002"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Hybrid intelligence for the public sector: A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence and crowd intelligence

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102006

Helen K. Liu , MuhChyun Tang , Antoine Serge J. Collard

With the increasing attention paid to artificial intelligence (AI) and crowd intelligence (CI) in government, their connections still need to be explored. This study explores the dynamic relationship between AI and CI that constitutes hybrid intelligence for the public sector. Thus, we adopt a bibliometric analysis to identify trends, emerging themes, topics, and interconnections between these two streams of literature. Our review illustrates the intersection between AI and CI, revealing that AI designs can improve efficiency from CI inputs. Meanwhile, AI advancement depends on the quality of CI data. Furthermore, our review highlights key domains such as smart cities (Internet of Things), personnel design, social media, and governance through cases. Based on these illustrated cases, we conceptualize a hybrid intelligence spectrum, ranging from “engagement” to “efficiency,” with crowd intelligence anchoring the former through its emphasis on public participation and AI anchoring the latter through its focus on automation and optimization. Hybrid intelligence, encompassing various forms, occupies the middle ground to balance maximizing public engagement and achieving computational efficiency. Additionally, we elaborate on components of hybrid intelligence designs regarding input (conscious crowds and unconscious crowds), process (algorithmic management and artificial discretion), and outcome (user-focus benefits and non-user-focus outputs). Finally, we recommend prioritizing questions related to the design, regulation, and governance of hybrid intelligence for the public sector.

{"title":"Hybrid intelligence for the public sector: A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence and crowd intelligence","authors":"Helen K. Liu , MuhChyun Tang , Antoine Serge J. Collard","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>With the increasing attention paid to artificial intelligence (AI) and crowd intelligence (CI) in government, their connections still need to be explored. This study explores the dynamic relationship between AI and CI that constitutes hybrid intelligence for the public sector. Thus, we adopt a bibliometric analysis to identify trends, emerging themes, topics, and interconnections between these two streams of literature. Our review illustrates the intersection between AI and CI, revealing that AI designs can improve efficiency from CI inputs. Meanwhile, AI advancement depends on the quality of CI data. Furthermore, our review highlights key domains such as smart cities (Internet of Things), personnel design, social media, and governance through cases. Based on these illustrated cases, we conceptualize a hybrid intelligence spectrum, ranging from “engagement” to “efficiency,” with crowd intelligence anchoring the former through its emphasis on public participation and AI anchoring the latter through its focus on automation and optimization. Hybrid intelligence, encompassing various forms, occupies the middle ground to balance maximizing public engagement and achieving computational efficiency. Additionally, we elaborate on components of hybrid intelligence designs regarding input (conscious crowds and unconscious crowds), process (algorithmic management and artificial discretion), and outcome (user-focus benefits and non-user-focus outputs). Finally, we recommend prioritizing questions related to the design, regulation, and governance of hybrid intelligence for the public sector.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102006"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Citizen-centricity in digital government: A theoretical and empirical typology

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102005

Simon Dechamps, Anthony Simonofski, Corentin Burnay

Putting citizens as the cornerstone of a policymaking or service design process is usually referred to as citizen-centricity and is often considered a key practice in the context of digital government transformation. Nevertheless, the lack of a common comprehension of what citizen-centricity entails leads to practical and theoretical difficulties, among which the confusion generated by the multiple heterogeneous definitions and the difficulty of measuring the level of citizen-centricity of a digital initiative, to cite only two. As an answer, this study characterizes citizen-centricity by suggesting a typology grounded in theory and practice. It does so by surveying the recent scientific literature using a systematic literature review of 58 studies, combined with 14 qualitative interviews with public agents. The key contribution from our citizen-centricity typology is threefold. First, by emphasizing four understandings of citizen-centricity, sometimes referring to an end-result, a design process, a governance mode, or a way of identifying the user, we demonstrate that the concept has the potential to encompass a multitude of disparate realities. Furthermore, it provides a crucial lens through which to comprehend the concept, thereby facilitating alignment between stakeholders engaged in the pursuit of citizen-centricity. Second, we identify the characteristics given by the literature and practitioners for each understanding. Finally, we suggest that the four understandings of citizen-centricity cannot be sequenced, even iteratively, since they interact continuously. These contributions should guide future research and facilitate communication between research and practice about this concept.

{"title":"Citizen-centricity in digital government: A theoretical and empirical typology","authors":"Simon Dechamps, Anthony Simonofski, Corentin Burnay","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Putting citizens as the cornerstone of a policymaking or service design process is usually referred to as citizen-centricity and is often considered a key practice in the context of digital government transformation. Nevertheless, the lack of a common comprehension of what citizen-centricity entails leads to practical and theoretical difficulties, among which the confusion generated by the multiple heterogeneous definitions and the difficulty of measuring the level of citizen-centricity of a digital initiative, to cite only two. As an answer, this study characterizes citizen-centricity by suggesting a typology grounded in theory and practice. It does so by surveying the recent scientific literature using a systematic literature review of 58 studies, combined with 14 qualitative interviews with public agents. The key contribution from our citizen-centricity typology is threefold. First, by emphasizing four understandings of citizen-centricity, sometimes referring to an end-result, a design process, a governance mode, or a way of identifying the user, we demonstrate that the concept has the potential to encompass a multitude of disparate realities. Furthermore, it provides a crucial lens through which to comprehend the concept, thereby facilitating alignment between stakeholders engaged in the pursuit of citizen-centricity. Second, we identify the characteristics given by the literature and practitioners for each understanding. Finally, we suggest that the four understandings of citizen-centricity cannot be sequenced, even iteratively, since they interact continuously. These contributions should guide future research and facilitate communication between research and practice about this concept.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102005"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Governing collective ambidexterity: Antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes in digital service ecosystems

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102001

Heidi Hietala , Tero Päivärinta

Digitalization drives societal transformation to reform existing practices in the evolving environment. Central to this transformation is the creation of interoperable digital public services across diverse organizations, increasingly guided by human-centric principles and life-event orientation. This paper explores the complex process of achieving digital service innovation, emphasizing the need for inter-organizational balancing between radical transformation and efficiency through collective ambidexterity, where multiple ecosystem actors coordinate to balance innovation and efficiency simultaneously. While previous research predominantly studied ambidexterity at the organizational level, focusing on its antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes, our study extends this inquiry to the broader ecosystem. Via a single-case study, we investigate how collective ambidexterity can be governed in a large-scale digital service ecosystem. To address the research question, we developed a multi-level conceptual model of governing mechanisms, antecedents, and outcomes of collective ambidexterity across three analytical levels: the ecosystem, organization group, and organization. Our theoretical contribution is twofold. First, we enhance conceptual clarity on collective ambidexterity and show how Modes of Collaboration (MoC) can facilitate innovation and efficiency of human-centric digital services throughout the three levels of governance. Second, the resulting governance model emphasizes the need to connect centralized, decentralized, and group-level governance strategies for developing digital services—to achieve and govern collective ambidexterity in the development of digital services in the public sector.

{"title":"Governing collective ambidexterity: Antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes in digital service ecosystems","authors":"Heidi Hietala , Tero Päivärinta","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Digitalization drives societal transformation to reform existing practices in the evolving environment. Central to this transformation is the creation of interoperable digital public services across diverse organizations, increasingly guided by human-centric principles and life-event orientation. This paper explores the complex process of achieving digital service innovation, emphasizing the need for inter-organizational balancing between radical transformation and efficiency through collective ambidexterity, where multiple ecosystem actors coordinate to balance innovation and efficiency simultaneously. While previous research predominantly studied ambidexterity at the organizational level, focusing on its antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes, our study extends this inquiry to the broader ecosystem. Via a single-case study, we investigate how collective ambidexterity can be governed in a large-scale digital service ecosystem. To address the research question, we developed a multi-level conceptual model of governing mechanisms, antecedents, and outcomes of collective ambidexterity across three analytical levels: the ecosystem, organization group, and organization. Our theoretical contribution is twofold. First, we enhance conceptual clarity on collective ambidexterity and show how Modes of Collaboration (MoC) can facilitate innovation and efficiency of human-centric digital services throughout the three levels of governance. Second, the resulting governance model emphasizes the need to connect centralized, decentralized, and group-level governance strategies for developing digital services—to achieve and govern collective ambidexterity in the development of digital services in the public sector.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102001"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Multidimensional policy citation features: Insights into policymakers' policy adoption decision-making

IF 7.8 1区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Government Information Quarterly

Pub Date : 2024-12-27 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102004

Zhichao Ba , Leilei Liu , Yikun Xia

Scholarly citation has been extensively utilized to explore scholars' citation behaviors and elucidate their citation decision-making during academic writing. Likewise, policy citation serves as an invaluable instrument for scrutinizing policymakers' policy adoption decisions during policy formulation. This study offers a fine-grained portrayal and measurement of policy citation features, providing insights into policy adoption decisions from a novel perspective of citation choice. Specifically, each policy citation is conceptualized as a multidimensional feature collection consisting of 26 interpretable citation features (comprising 51 measurements) pertinent to the adoption of specific policies. These features are classified into three main categories: citation authority, citation proximity, and citation continuity. Utilizing large-scale information and communications technology (ICT) policies in China as empirical data, we conduct a series of logistic regressions and Random Forest-based classification experiments to quantitatively evaluate the importance of each constructed citation feature on policymakers' adoption decisions. Our empirical results reveal that policymakers' adoption of specific policies is predominantly influenced by citation proximity, followed by citation authority and citation continuity. Notably, central and local policymakers exhibit distinct adoption patterns; the former tends to prioritize policy continuity in their decision-making, whereas the latter lean towards adopting high-impact policies and learning from policy adoption pioneers. Moreover, the impact of policies is intricately entwined with their citation patterns, with high-cited policies often spearheading policy innovations, while low-cited policies tend to follow and imitate.

{"title":"Multidimensional policy citation features: Insights into policymakers' policy adoption decision-making","authors":"Zhichao Ba , Leilei Liu , Yikun Xia","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102004","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.102004","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholarly citation has been extensively utilized to explore scholars' citation behaviors and elucidate their citation decision-making during academic writing. Likewise, policy citation serves as an invaluable instrument for scrutinizing policymakers' policy adoption decisions during policy formulation. This study offers a fine-grained portrayal and measurement of policy citation features, providing insights into policy adoption decisions from a novel perspective of citation choice. Specifically, each policy citation is conceptualized as a multidimensional feature collection consisting of 26 interpretable citation features (comprising 51 measurements) pertinent to the adoption of specific policies. These features are classified into three main categories: citation authority, citation proximity, and citation continuity. Utilizing large-scale information and communications technology (ICT) policies in China as empirical data, we conduct a series of logistic regressions and Random Forest-based classification experiments to quantitatively evaluate the importance of each constructed citation feature on policymakers' adoption decisions. Our empirical results reveal that policymakers' adoption of specific policies is predominantly influenced by citation proximity, followed by citation authority and citation continuity. Notably, central and local policymakers exhibit distinct adoption patterns; the former tends to prioritize policy continuity in their decision-making, whereas the latter lean towards adopting high-impact policies and learning from policy adoption pioneers. Moreover, the impact of policies is intricately entwined with their citation patterns, with high-cited policies often spearheading policy innovations, while low-cited policies tend to follow and imitate.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102004"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Government Information Quarterly

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀