Advertisement

The Role of Domain-Skills in Bureaucratic Service Encounters

Conference paper
  • 794 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12219)

Abstract

Citizens are increasingly expected and even required to go online for much of their interaction with government, making the skills citizens bring to these encounters particularly important. Several skillsets for the use of online resources have been proposed in the general e-government literature. However, few empirical studies explore the experiences and strategies of citizens themselves related to the role of skills in their interaction with government. Consequently, there is a gap in the knowledge regarding which skills are specifically relevant when dealing with government online. To explore this gap, this paper presents a qualitative analysis of interviews with citizens in Danish municipal service centres. The analysis takes its departure in a review of the literature that addresses aspects of skills relevant for the (digital) citizen-government encounter. The paper contributes to the e-government literature, by introducing the concept of domain-skills as a central skill set for citizen self-service. Domain-skills constitute a scaffolding citizens can build on, when looking for and interpreting information and contextualizing it to their situation, making it easier for them to act on their own, with confidence.

Keywords

Citizen e-government Skills 

References

  1. 1.
    Allina-Pisano, J.: How to Tell an Axe Murderer: an essay on ethnography, truths and lies. In: Schatz, E. (ed.) Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvesson, M.: At home ethnography. In: Ybema, S., et al. (eds.) Organizational Ethnography. Sage, London (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersson, A., Grönlund, Å.: e-Society accessibility: identifying research gaps. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) EGOV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2739, pp. 15–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/10929179_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnard, E., Cloete, L., Patel, H.: Language and technology literacy barriers to accessing government services. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) EGOV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2739, pp. 37–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/10929179_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belanger, F., Carter, L.: The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Commun. ACM 52, 132–135 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T.: The e-government paradox: better customer service does not necessarily cost less. Government Inf. Q. 25(2), 149–154 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Byström, K., Järvelin, K.: Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Inf. Process. Manage. 31(2), 191–213 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casacuberta, D.: Informational literacy. In: Anttiroiko, A.-V., Malkia, M. (eds.) The Encyclopaedia of Digital Government, pp. 1083–1088. IGI, London (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications, London (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13(1), 3–21 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czarniawska, B.: Exploring Complex Organizations: A Cultural Perspective. SAGE, London (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E.: From the “Digital Divide” to “Digital Inequality”: studying internet use as penetration increases. In: Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University. Working Paper Series 15 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ebbers, W.E., Jansen, M.G., van Deursen, A.J.: Impact of the digital divide on e-government: expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Gov. Inf. Q. 33(4), 685–692 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evans, V., Green, M.: Cognitive Linguistics – An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fairclough, N.: Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flybjerg, B.: Fem misforståelser om casestudiet. In: Brinkmann, Svend & Tanggaard, Lene (red.): Kvalitative metoder - en Grundbog. København, Hans Reitzels Forlag (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gee, J.P.: The narrativization of experience in the oral style. J. Educ. 167(1), 9–35 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, L.K.: Bureaucratic competence and success in dealing with public bureaucracies. Soc. Probl. 23(2), 197–208 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grönlund, Å., Hatakka, M., Ask, A.: Inclusion in the e-service society – investigating administrative literacy requirements for using e-services. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 216–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heeks, R., Bailur, S.: Analysing eGoverment research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practices. In: E-government Working paper Series. Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helbig, N., Gil-Garcia, R.J., Ferro, E.: Understanding the complexity of electronic government: implications from the digital divide literature. Gov. Inf. Q. 26, 89–97 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katz, D., Gutek, B., Kahn, R.L. Barton, E.: Bureaucratic Encounters. University of Michigan Survey Research Centre, Ann Arbor (1975) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klaassen, R., Karreman, J., van der Geest, T.: Designing government portal navigation around citizens’ needs. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, K.V. (eds.) EGOV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4084, pp. 162–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11823100_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolsaker, A., Lee-Kelley, L.: Citizen-centric e-government: a critique of the UK model. Electron. Gov. 3(2), 127–138 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kvale, S.: Interview. En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview. København, Hans Reitzels Forlag (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Layder, D.: Sociological Practice - Linking Theory and Social Research. Sage Publications, London (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindgren, I., Madsen, C.Ø., Hofmann, S., Melin, U.: Close encounters of the digital kind: a research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Gov. Inf. Q. 36(3), 427–436 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Madsen, C.Ø., Christensen, L.R.: Integrated and seamless? Single Parents’ experiences of cross-organizational interaction. In: Selected Papers of the IRIS, Issue Nr 9 (2019)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Madsen, C.Ø., Kræmmergaard, P.: The efficiency of freedom. Single parents’ domestication of mandatory e-government. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(4), 380–388 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Madsen, C.Ø., Kræmmergaard, P.: Warm experts in the age of mandatory e-application for public benefits. Electron. J. e-Gov. 14(1), 87–98 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Madsen, C.Ø., Hofmann, S., Pieterson, W.: Channel choice complications. In: Lindgren, I., Janssen, M., Lee, H., Polini, A., Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Scholl, H.J., Tambouris, E. (eds.) EGOV 2019. LNCS, vol. 11685, pp. 139–151. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27325-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., Chin, W.: Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources. Data Base 32, 86–112 (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maynard-Moddi, S., Musheno, M.: Cops, Teachers, Counsellors - Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. University of Michigan Press (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morgenson, F.V., Van Maburg, D., Mithas, S.: Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of the e-government-citizen trust relationship. J. Admin. Res. Theory Adv. Access (2010) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J., Stansbury, M.: Virtual Inequality - Beyond the Digital Divide. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Münscher, R., Kühlmann, T.M.: Using critical incident technique in trust research. In: Lyon, F., Mollering, G., Saunders, M.N.K. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods on Trust. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Norris, P.: Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pieterson, W.: Channel Choice – Citizens Channel Behaviour and Public Service Channel Strategy. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reddick, C.G.: Citizen initiated contacts with government comparing phones and websites. J. E-Gov. 2(1), 27–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schwartz-Shea, P.: Judging quality – evaluative criteria and epistemic communities. In: Yanow, D., Schwartz-Shea, P. (eds.) Interpretation and Method, pp 91–109. M.E. Sharp, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scott, M., DeLone, W.H. Golden, W.: IT quality and eGovernment Net benefits: a citizen’s perspective. In: 31st International Conference on Information Systems, St. Louis (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Skaarup, S.: The Mediation of Authority - How citizens perceive and engage the mediations of the Bureaucratic Service Encounter and changes in its mediation matrix. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southern Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Small, M.L.: “How many cases do I need?”: on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10(1), 5–38 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Technological Institute: Analyse af Danskernes IKT færdigheder. Taastrup, Teknologisk Institut (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., van Dijk, J.A.G.M.: Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media Soc. 13(6), 893–911 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., Helsper, E.J., Eynon, R.: Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Inf. Commun. Soc. 19(6), 804–823 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wedeen, L.: Ethnography as interpretive enterprise. In: Schatz, E. (ed.) political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Danmarks Statistik 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations