Pub Date : 2025-03-06DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102019
Hui Liu, Qingshan Zhou, Shuang Liang
Ensuring access to digital public services for vulnerable groups is a critical issue in digital government and digital inclusion research. Mapping the research trajectory in this domain is essential for fostering a systematic understanding among scholars and policymakers. Guided by the updated 2020 PRISMA statement, this study conducts a systematic literature review following five steps: database identification, search strategy development, article selection, data extraction, and synthesis and analysis. Three databases including Web of Science, Scopus and DGRL are searched for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from 2014 or later. Using the Public Service Ecosystem theory as a theoretical lens, this study makes two key contributions: analyzing the distribution of research themes and developing a goal-action framework. This framework not only refines the concept of digital inclusion in public services but also serves as a practical guide for stakeholders.
确保弱势群体获得数字公共服务是数字政府和数字包容研究中的一个关键问题。绘制这一领域的研究轨迹对于促进学者和政策制定者之间的系统理解至关重要。本研究以更新的2020 PRISMA声明为指导，通过数据库识别、搜索策略制定、文章选择、数据提取、综合分析五个步骤进行系统的文献综述。在Web of Science、Scopus和DGRL三个数据库中检索2014年及以后发表的同行评议的实证研究。本研究以公共服务生态系统理论为理论视角，分析了研究主题的分布，构建了目标-行动框架。该框架不仅完善了公共服务中数字包容的概念，而且为利益相关者提供了实用指南。
{"title":"Digital inclusion in public services for vulnerable groups: A systematic review for research themes and goal-action framework from the lens of public service ecosystem theory","authors":"Hui Liu, Qingshan Zhou, Shuang Liang","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102019","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102019","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Ensuring access to digital public services for vulnerable groups is a critical issue in digital government and digital inclusion research. Mapping the research trajectory in this domain is essential for fostering a systematic understanding among scholars and policymakers. Guided by the updated 2020 PRISMA statement, this study conducts a systematic literature review following five steps: database identification, search strategy development, article selection, data extraction, and synthesis and analysis. Three databases including Web of Science, Scopus and DGRL are searched for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from 2014 or later. Using the Public Service Ecosystem theory as a theoretical lens, this study makes two key contributions: analyzing the distribution of research themes and developing a goal-action framework. This framework not only refines the concept of digital inclusion in public services but also serves as a practical guide for stakeholders.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 2","pages":"Article 102019"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143550569","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}
Pub Date : 2025-02-08DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102010
Hyacinth Balediata Bangero
Although Facebook is seen as a powerful and low-cost tool, insufficient manpower, time, budget, and technical skills hinder effective local government use. Citizens value government pronouncements directly affecting them, especially during uncertain times when guidelines keep changing and are unique per locality. Thus, the study sought the social media use of the 25 most successful cities' official Facebook pages to reveal best practices in e-Government communication for practitioners to learn how to use the relatively new tool efficiently. Using content analysis and anchoring on network analysis theory, the study revealed best practices in posting frequency, post type, shape, length, and topics based on the constructed week sample. Overall, city governments led by younger mayors achieve higher communication success rates. Communication success was also found to be related to the frequency of posting and professionalization. Findings and implications are discussed to help practitioners improve the government's social media utilization.
{"title":"Best practices in e-government communication: Lessons from the local Governments' use of official facebook pages","authors":"Hyacinth Balediata Bangero","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102010","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102010","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although Facebook is seen as a powerful and low-cost tool, insufficient manpower, time, budget, and technical skills hinder effective local government use. Citizens value government pronouncements directly affecting them, especially during uncertain times when guidelines keep changing and are unique per locality. Thus, the study sought the social media use of the 25 most successful cities' official Facebook pages to reveal best practices in e-Government communication for practitioners to learn how to use the relatively new tool efficiently. Using content analysis and anchoring on network analysis theory, the study revealed best practices in posting frequency, post type, shape, length, and topics based on the constructed week sample. Overall, city governments led by younger mayors achieve higher communication success rates. Communication success was also found to be related to the frequency of posting and professionalization. Findings and implications are discussed to help practitioners improve the government's social media utilization.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102010"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143350163","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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-27DOI: 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.
随着公民生活转移到网上，学者们质疑这是否会加剧由于获取技术的不同而导致的政治不平等。然而，这种担忧通常假设不平等的参与不可避免地导致不平等的结果：如果在线参与者不具有人口代表性，那么参与的结果将使参与的群体受益，而不参与的群体则处于不利地位。在本文中，我们结合了之前八项研究的结果和新的分析，追踪了数字不平等的过程，从数字鸿沟到四种不同形式的在线参与的政策结果：巴西参与式预算的在线投票，英国通过Fix My Street的在线地方问题报告，冰岛的众包宪法起草，以及在change.org上进行的132个国家的在线请愿。在每一个案例中，从1)数字鸿沟到2)在线参与的不平等，再到3)通过平台提出的要求的不平等，再到4)参与结果的不平等，都是链条上的假设环节。在每一个案例中，由于平台的制度特征和周围的政治进程，这种联系都破裂了。这些结果表明，有必要检查在线参与的所有步骤及其转化为政策，以了解不平等是如何产生的。关于参与方面的不平等总会转化为结果上的不平等的简单假设，在实践中并没有得到证实。
{"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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-23DOI: 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.
{"title":"Unveiling civil servants' preferences: Human-machine matching vs. regulating algorithms in algorithmic decision-making——Insights from a survey experiment","authors":"Huanhuan Li , Zongfeng Sun , Jiacheng Xi","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.giq.2025.102009","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":"Article 102009"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143136059","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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-20DOI: 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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-16DOI: 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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-16DOI: 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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-14DOI: 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, (Npilot = 232; Nmain 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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-10DOI: 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}
Pub Date : 2025-01-08DOI: 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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号