Weigl, Roth, Amard, Zavolokina - When public values and user-centricity in e-government collide – A systematic review.pdf
Postprint Éditeur (1.48 MB)
For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to any author accepted manuscript version arising from this submission.
User-centricity; Citizen-centricity; Public values; E-government; Literature review
Résumé :
[en] 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 usercentric 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.
Centre de recherche :
Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT) > FINATRAX - Digital Financial Services and Cross-organizational Digital Transformations
Disciplines :
Sciences informatiques Gestion des systèmes d’information
Auteur, co-auteur :
WEIGL, Linda ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust > FINATRAX > Team Gilbert FRIDGEN ; Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
ROTH, Tamara ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust > FINATRAX > Team Gilbert FRIDGEN ; Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, United States of America
AMARD, Alexandre ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > FINATRAX
ZAVOLOKINA, Liudmila ; University of Luxembourg ; Digital Society Initiative, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland ; Department of Information Systems (DESI), HEC Lausanne, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
When public values and user-centricity in e-government collide - A systematic review
Date de publication/diffusion :
28 juin 2024
Titre du périodique :
Government Information Quarterly
ISSN :
0740-624X
eISSN :
1872-9517
Maison d'édition :
Elsevier, London, Royaume-Uni
Peer reviewed :
Peer reviewed vérifié par ORBi
Objectif de développement durable (ODD) :
9. Industrie, innovation et infrastructure 10. Inégalités réduites 16. Paix, justice et institutions efficaces
Projet FnR :
FNR13342933 - Paypal-fnr Pearl Chair In Digital Financial Services, 2019 (01/01/2020-31/12/2024) - Gilbert Fridgen
Organisme subsidiant :
FNR - Fonds National de la Recherche PayPal DIZH
N° du Fonds :
FNR13342933
Subventionnement (détails) :
For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to any author accepted manuscript version arising from this submission.
Al-Hujran, O., Al-Debei, M., Chatfield, A., Migdadu, M., The imperative of influencing citizen attitude toward e-government adoption and use. Computers in Human Behavior 53 (2015), 189–203, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.025.
Alomari, M.K., Sandhu, K., Woods, P., Exploring citizen perceptions of barriers to e-government adoption in a developing country. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 8:1 (2014), 131–150, 10.1108/TG-05-2013-0013.
Alzahrani, L., Al-Karaghouli, W., Weerakkody, V., Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review 26:1 (2017), 164–175 Scopus https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.06.004.
Andersen, L.B., Jørgensen, T.B., Kjeldsen, A.M., Pedersen, L.H., Vrangbæk, K., Public values and public service motivation: Conceptual and empirical relationships. The American Review of Public Administration 43:3 (2013), 292–311, 10.1177/0275074012440031.
Aschhoff, N., Vogel, R., Value conflicts in co-production: Governing public values in multi-actor settings. International Journal of Public Sector Management 31:7 (2018), 775–793, 10.1108/IJPSM-08-2017-0222.
Avgerou, C., Recognising alternative rationalities in the deployment of information systems. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 3:1 (2000), 1–15, 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2000.tb00021.x.
Bannister, F., Connolly, R., ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly 31:1 (2014), 119–128, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002.
Bär, F., Tackling knowledge gaps in digital service delivery. 2017.
Bason, C., Austin, R.D., Design in the public sector: Toward a human centred model of public governance. Public Management Review 24:11 (2022), 1727–1757, 10.1080/14719037.2021.1919186.
Berg, J., Lindholm, J., Högväg, J., How do we know that it works? Designing a digital democratic innovation with the help of user-centered design. Information Polity 26:3 (2021), 221–235, 10.3233/IP-200282.
Bhargav-Spantzel, A., Camenisch, J., Gross, T., Sommer, D., User centricity: A taxonomy and open issues. Proceedings of the Second ACM Workshop on Digital Identity Management, 1–10, 2006, 10.1145/1179529.1179531.
Bharosa, N., The rise of GovTech: Trojan horse or blessing in disguise? A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 39, 2022, 101692, 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101692.
Boell, S., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews in IS. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 2015, 10.1057/jit.2014.26.
Bokayev, B., Davletbayeva, Z., Amirova, A., Rysbekova, Z., Torebekova, Z., Jussupova, G., Transforming E-government in Kazakhstan: A Citizen-Centric Approach. 26, 2021.
Brown, P.R., Public value measurement vs. public value creating imagination – The constraining influence of old and new public management paradigms. International Journal of Public Administration 44:10 (2021), 808–817, 10.1080/01900692.2021.1903498.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., Bloomberg, L., Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review 74:4 (2014), 445–456, 10.1111/puar.12238.
Canato, A., Ravasi, D., Phillips, N., Coerced practice implementation in cases of low cultural fit: Cultural change and practice adaptation during the implementation of six sigma at 3M. The Academy of Management Journal., 2013, 10.5465/amj.2011.0093.
Choudhary, H., Bansal, N., Addressing digital divide through digital literacy training programs: A systematic literature review. Digital Education Review 41 (2022), 224–248, 10.1344/der.2022.41.224-248.
Clark, J.K., Public values and public participation: A case of collaborative governance of a planning process. The American Review of Public Administration 51:3 (2021), 199–212, 10.1177/0275074020956397.
Codagnone, C., Misuraca, G., Gineikyte, V., Barcevicius, E., Exploring digital government transformation: A literature review. ICEGOV 2020: 13th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, 2020, Scopus, 502–509, 10.1145/3428502.3428578.
Cordella, A., Bonina, C.M., A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly 29:4 (2012), 512–520, 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004.
Costa, A., Caldas, J.C., Coelho, R., de Ferreiro, M.F., Gonçalves, V., The building of a dam: Value conflicts in public decision-making. Environmental Values 25:2 (2016), 215–234, 10.3197/096327116X14552114338909.
David, N., Democratizing government: What we know about E-government and civic engagement. International E-government development: Policy, implementation and best practice, 2018, 73–96, 10.1007/978-3-319-63284-1_4.
Dawes, S.S., Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly 26:2 (2009), 257–264, 10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.003.
Dawes, S.S., Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly 27:4 (2010), 377–383, 10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.001.
Dobel, J.P., Public management as ethics. Ferlie, I.E., Lynn, L.E., Pollitt, C., (eds.) The Oxford handbook of public management, 2007, Oxford University Press, 156–181.
Dunleavy, P., New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:3 (2005), 467–494, 10.1093/jopart/mui057.
Dwivedi, Y., Williams, M., Mitra, A., Niranjan, S., Weerakkody, V., Understanding advances in web technologies: Evolution from WEB 2.0 to WEB 3.0. 19th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2011, 2011.
European Commission, eGovernment benchmark 2023 insight report—Connecting digital governments. 2023, Publications Office of the European Union.
Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., The new public Management in Action. 1996, Oxford University Press.
Friedman, B., Hendry, D.G., Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. 2019, MIT Press.
Fung, A., Putting the public Back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review 75:4 (2015), 513–522, 10.1111/puar.12361.
Ghosh Roy, S., Upadhyay, P., Does e-readiness of citizens ensure better adoption of government's digital initiatives? A case based study. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 30 (2017), 65–81, 10.1108/JEIM-01-2016-0001.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16:1 (2012), 15–31, 10.1177/1094428112452151.
Government Digital Service, User-centred design: Training and events. 2020, Uk, Gov https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/design/user-centred-design-training-and-events.
Government Digital Service, Design—Service manual. 2023, Uk, Gov https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/design.
de Graaf, G., Huberts, L., Smulders, R., Coping with public value conflicts. Administration and Society 48:9 (2014), 1101–1127, 10.1177/0095399714532273.
Grube, D., In search of society? The limitations of citizen-Centred governance. The Political Quarterly, 84, 2013, 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2013.12024.x.
Gupta, K., Bhaskar, P., Singh, S., Critical factors influencing E-government adoption in India: An investigation of the citizens’ perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Research 9 (2016), 28–44, 10.4018/JITR.2016100103.
Gupta, K., Singh, S., Bhaskar, P., Citizen adoption of e-government: A literature review and conceptual framework. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 12, 2016, 160, 10.1504/EG.2016.076134.
Gupta, K., Singh, S., Bhaskar, P., Citizens’ perceptions on benefits of e-governance services. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 10, 2018, 24, 10.1504/IJEG.2018.091261.
Hood, C., The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20:2 (1995), 93–109, 10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W.
Iivari, J., Iivari, N., Varieties of user-centredness: An analysis of four systems development methods. Information Systems Journal 21:2 (2011), 125–153, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00351.x.
Ingrams, A., Public values in the age of big data: A public information perspective. Policy & Internet 11:2 (2019), 128–148, 10.1002/poi3.193.
Jansen, A., Tranvik, T., The state of IT governance: Patterns of variation at the central government level in Norway. 2011, 6846, 10.1007/978-3-642-22878-0_14.
Jarke, J., Co-creating digital public services. Jarke, J., (eds.) Co-creating digital public Services for an Ageing Society: Evidence for user-centric design, 2021, Springer International Publishing, 15–52, 10.1007/978-3-030-52873-7_3.
Jørgensen, T.B., Bozeman, B., Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society, 39(3), 2007, 10.1177/0095399707300.
Kassen, M., Understanding decentralized civic engagement: Focus on peer-to-peer and blockchain-driven perspectives on e-participation. Technology in Society, 66, 2021, 101650, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101650.
Kitchenham, B., Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33 (2004), 1–26.
König, P.D., Citizen-centered data governance in the smart city: From ethics to accountability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 2021, 103308, 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103308.
Kotamraju, N.P., van der Geest, T.M., The tension between user-centred design and e-government services. Behaviour & Information Technology 31:3 (2012), 261–273, 10.1080/0144929X.2011.563797.
Kujala, S., User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology 22:1 (2003), 1–16, 10.1080/01449290301782.
Kurdi, H., Li, M., Al-Raweshidy, H.S., Taxonomy of grid systems. Handbook of research on P2P and grid Systems for Service-Oriented Computing: Models, methodologies and applications, 2010, IGI Global, 20–43, 10.4018/978-1-61520-686-5.ch002.
Kyakulumbye, S., Pather, S., Jantjies, M., Towards design of citizen centric e-government projects in developing country context: The design-reality gap in Uganda. 2019, 55–73, 10.12821/ijispm070403.
Larsson, K., Digitization or equality: When government automation covers some, but not all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 38, 2020, 101547, 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101547.
Lee, C., Technology and aging: The jigsaw puzzle of design, development and distribution. Nature Aging, 2(12), 2022, 10.1038/s43587-022-00325-6 Article 12.
Leidner, D., Kayworth, T., Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly 30 (2006), 357–399, 10.2307/25148735.
Lukes, S., Making sense of moral conflict. Rosenblum, N.L., (eds.) Liberalism and the moral life, 1989, 127–142.
Madan, R., Ashok, M., AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 40, 2022, 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774.
Mariën, I., Amon Prodnik, J., Digital inclusion and user (dis)empowerment: A critical perspective. Info 16 (2014), 35–47, 10.1108/info-07-2014-0030.
Mayring, P., Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation. 2014, Basic Procedures and Software Solution, Open Access Repository.
Méndez-Domínguez, P., Carbonero Muñoz, D., Raya Díez, E., Castillo De Mesa, J., Digital inclusion for social inclusion. Case study on digital literacy. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 2023, 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1191995.
Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83:2 (1977), 340–363, 10.1086/226550.
Mignerat, M., Rivard, S., Positioning the institutional perspective in information systems research. Willcocks, L.P., Sauer, C., Lacity, M.C., (eds.) Formulating research methods for information systems, Vol. 2, 2015, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 79–126, 10.1057/9781137509888_4.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldaña, J., Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd ed., 2014, SAGE Publications, Inc.
Miniaoui, S., Hashim, K., Atalla, S., Hashim, N.L., Ismail, S., Citizen Readiness to Adopt the New Emerging Technologies in Dubai Smart Government Services. 2020, 10.1109/ICSITech49800.2020.9392071.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., for the PRISMA Group, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. 2009, 10.1136/bmj.b2535.
Moore, M.H., Creating public value: Strategic management in government. 1995, Harvard University Press.
Morales Rodriguez, M., Casper, G., Brennan, P.F., Patient-centered design. The potential of user-centered design in personal health records. Journal of AHIMA 78:4 (2007), 44–46 quiz 49–50.
Mossey, S., Manoharan, A., Bennett, L., Exploring citizen-centric E-government using a democratic theories framework. 2018, 1–32, 10.4018/978-1-5225-5999-3.ch001.
Nabatchi, T., Putting the “public” Back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review 72:5 (2012), 699–708, 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x.
Nabatchi, T., Public values frames in administration and governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1, 2017, 10.1093/ppmgov/gvx009.
Niglia, F., Tangi, L., Measuring user-centricity in AI-enabled European public services: A proposal for enabling maturity models. Research handbook on public management and artificial intelligence, 2024, Edward Elgar Publishing, 97–117 https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781802207347/book-part-9781802207347-15.xml.
OECD, Rethinking e-government services: User-Centred approaches. 2009, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/rethinking-e-government-services_9789264059412-en.
OECD, OECD Guidelines for citizen participation processes. https://www.oecd.org/gov/oecd-guidelines-for-citizen-participation-processes-highlights.pdf, 2022.
OECD & Asian Development Bank, Government at a glance Southeast Asia 2019. 2019, OECD, 10.1787/9789264305915-en.
Ølnes, S., Ubacht, J., Janssen, M., Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing. Government Information Quarterly 34:3 (2017), 355–364, 10.1016/j.giq.2017.09.007.
Orlikowski, W.J., Barley, S.R., Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?. MIS Quarterly 25:2 (2001), 145–165, 10.2307/3250927.
Othman, M.H., Razali, R., Nasrudin, M., Key factors for E-government towards sustainable development goals. 29, 2020, 2864–2876.
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., Kitsiou, S., Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management 52:2 (2015), 183–199, 10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008.
Park, S., Humphry, J., Exclusion by design: Intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Information, Communication & Society 22:7 (2019), 934–953, 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606266.
Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G., Public management reform: A comparative analysis - into the age of austerity. 2017, Oxford University Press.
Porumbescu, G.A., Linking public sector social media and e-government website use to trust in government. Government Information Quarterly 33:2 (2016), 291–304, 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.006.
Pozzebon, M., Cunha, M.A., Coelho, T.R., Making sense to decreasing citizen eParticipation through a social representation lens. Information and Organization 26:3 (2016), 84–99, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.07.002.
Rädiker, S., Kuckartz, U., Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA: Text, audio und video. 1. Aufl. 2019 ed., 2018, Springer VS.
Rana, Williams, Dwivedi, Williams, Theories and theoretical models for examining the adoption of E-government services. E-Service Journal, 8(2), 2012, 26, 10.2979/eservicej.8.2.26.
Reddick, C., Anthopoulos, L., Interactions with e-government, new digital media and traditional channel choices: Citizen-initiated factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 8:3 (2014), 398–419 Scopus https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2014-0001.
Robinson, J.P., Dimaggio, P., Hargittai, E., New social survey perspectives on the digital divide. IT & Society, 1(5), 2003, 22.
Rose, J., Persson, J.S., Heeager, L.T., Irani, Z., Managing e-government: Value positions and relationships. Information Systems Journal 25:5 (2015), 531–571, 10.1111/isj.12052.
Saldaña, J., The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers., 2021, 1–440.
Scott, M., DeLone, W., Golden, W., Measuring eGovernment success: A public value approach. European Journal of Information Systems 25:3 (2016), 187–208, 10.1057/ejis.2015.11.
Sevaldson, B., Beyond user-centric design. Relating systems thinking and design symposium, 2018 https://rsdsymposium.org/beyond-user-centric-design/.
Shenglin, B., Simonelli, F., Ruidong, Z., Bosc, R., Wenwei, L., Digital infrastructure: Overcoming digital divide in emerging economies. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a513/de546a8c8ceda79fb4e8492c15cd84c7f983.pdf, 2017.
Sigwejo, A., Pather, S., A citizen-centric framework for assessing E-government effectiveness. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 74:1 (2016), 1–27, 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2016.tb00542.x.
Sorn-in, K., Tuamsuk, K., Chaopanon, W., Factors affecting the development of e-government using a citizen-centric approach. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 6 (2015), 206–222, 10.1108/JSTPM-05-2014-0027.
Spicer, M.W., Value pluralism and its implications for American public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis 23:4 (2001), 507–528.
Spurlock, B., O'Neil, J., Designing an employee-centered intranet and measuring its impact on employee voice and satisfaction. The Public Relations Journal 3:2 (2009), 1–20.
Stoker, G., Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 2006, 10.1177/0275074005282583 Article 1.
Suchowerska, R., McCosker, A., Governance networks that strengthen older adults’ digital inclusion: The challenges of metagovernance. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 2022, 101649, 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101649.
Templier, M., Pare, G., Transparency in literature reviews: An assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems 27 (2018), 503–550, 10.1080/0960085X.2017.1398880.
Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K., Benbasat, I., Predicting intention to adopt Interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly 27:1 (2003), 19–49, 10.2307/30036518.
Thacher, D., Rein, M., Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 17(4), 2004, 10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00254.x.
Timmermans, S., Tavory, I., Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 2012.
Tingling, P., Parent, M., Mimetic isomorphism and TechnologyEvaluation: Does imitation TranscendJudgment?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3(1), 2002, 10.17705/1jais.00025.
Tõnurist, P., Kattel, R., Lember, V., Innovation labs in the public sector: What they are and what they do?. Public Management Review, 19, 2017, 10.1080/14719037.2017.1287939.
U. S. General Services Administration, A collection of tools to bring human-centered design into your project. 2023, 18F https://methods.18f.govhttps://methods.18f.gov/.
Van Velsen, L., Van der Geest, T., Klaassen, R., Steehouder, M., User-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: A literature review. The Knowledge Engineering Review 23:3 (2008), 261–281.
van Velsen, L., van der Geest, T., ter Hedde, M., Derks, W., Requirements engineering for e-government services: A citizen-centric approach and case study. Government Information Quarterly 26:3 (2009), 477–486, 10.1016/j.giq.2009.02.007.
van Velsen, L., van der Geest, T., ter Hedde, M., Derks, W., Requirements engineering for e-government services: A citizen-centric approach and case study. Government Information Quarterly 26:3 (2009), 477–486, 10.1016/j.giq.2009.02.007.
Ventriss, C., Perry, J.L., Nabatchi, T., Milward, H.B., Johnston, J.M., Democracy, public administration, and public values in an era of estrangement. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 2:4 (2019), 275–282, 10.1093/ppmgov/gvz013.
Vesnic-Alujevic, L., Stoermer, E., Rudkin, J.-E., Scapolo, F., Kimbell, L., The future of government 2030+. Publications Office of the European Union, 2019, 10.2760/145751.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review 62 (2002), 527–540, 10.1111/1540-6210.00235.
van der Wal, Z., van Hout, E.T.J., Is public value pluralism paramount? The intrinsic multiplicity and hybridity of public values. International Journal of Public Administration 32:3–4 (2009), 220–231, 10.1080/01900690902732681.
Webster, J., Watson, R.T., Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26(2), 2002, 12.
Weigl, L., Amard, A., Marxen, H., Roth, T., Zavolokina, L., User-centricity and public values in E-government: Friend or foe?. 30th European conference on information systems, 18, 2022.
Welby, B., The impact of digital government on citizen well-being (32; OECD working papers on public governance). 2019, 10.1787/24bac82f-en.
Wiredu, G., Information systems innovation in public organisations: An institutional perspective. Information Technology & People 25 (2012), 188–206, 10.1108/09593841211232703.
Yang, K., Pandey, S.K., Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement Lead to good outcomes?. Public Administration Review 71:6 (2011), 880–892, 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x.
Zavolokina, L., Sprenkamp, K., Schenk, B., Citizens' expectations about achieving public value and the role of digital technologies: It takes three to tango!. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/102873, 2023.
Zucker, L.G., The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review 42:5 (1977), 726–743, 10.2307/2094862.
