Skip to main content

The Subject Matter of Process Automation Practices: Through the Lenses of Research Questions

  • 170 Accesses

Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

When inquiring process automation in the public sector, there is a need for clear conceptualizations of pivotal researched phenomena. This presented meta-inquiry investigates the research questions of five research projects on process automation. The addressed phenomena, as enounced in the research questions, are ontologically analyzed based on a practice-theory view following the “practice turn.” The projects’ research questions presume different sub-practices of process automation. Such sub-practices are identified and made explicit. The ontological analyses of the research questions are also based on a linguistic analysis of key concepts, such as automatic, automaton, automate, automated, and automation. This analysis follows the “linguistic turn.” The chapter is summarized through a concerted and synthesized description of the subject matter of process automation based on the linguistic and practice-ontological analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-92644-1_2
  • Chapter length: 21 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-92644-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Abbott, A. (1992). From causes to events. Notes on narrative positivism. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(4), 428–455.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Åkesson, M., & Thomsen, M. (2020). RPA in service of bureaucracy – When bots are colleagues in everyday public administration. In The 17th Scandinavian Workshop on E-Government (SWEG-2020), Göteborg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research. Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136–158.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, A., Hedström, K., & Wihlborg, E. (2018). Automated decision-making and legitimacy in public administration. In The 15th Scandinavian Workshop on E-Government (SWEG-2018), Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J. (1994). Oxford guide to English grammar. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1984). A tool perspective on the design of interactive computer support for skilled workers. In M. Sääksjärvi (Ed.), Report of the Seventh Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering. Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2002). Anchoring scientific abstractions – Ontological and linguistic determination following socio-instrumental pragmatism. In Proceedings of European Conference on Research Methods in Business. Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2005). Socio-instrumental pragmatism: A theoretical synthesis for pragmatic conceptualisation in information systems. In Proceedings ALOIS-2005. University of Limerick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2019). The generation of qualitative data in information systems research: The diversity of empirical research methods. Communications of AIS, 44, Article 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (2006). Context in focus: Transaction and infrastructure in workpractices. In Proceedings ALOIS-2006. Borås.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güner, E., Han, S., & Juell-Skielse, G. (2020). Robotic process automation as routine capability: A literature review. In Proceedings ECIS-2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houy, C., Hamberg, M., & Fettke, P. (2019). Robotic process automation in public administrations. In M. Räckers et al. (Eds.), Digitalisierung von Staat und Verwaltung, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI). Gesellschaft für Informatik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M., & Willcocks, L. (2016). Robotic process automation at Telefónica O2. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(1), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, I. (2020). Exploring the use of robotic process automation in local government. In EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, I., Toll, D., & Melin, U. (2021). Automation as a driver of digital transformation in local government. In Proceedings Digital government 2021. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney. (2005). The histories of computing(s). Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 30(2), 119–135.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, & organization. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M., & Lucas, H. (1982). The impact of office automation on the organization: Some implications for research and practice. Communications of ACM, 25(11), 838–847.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2019). Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4)., Article 101377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2020). Digital discretion: Unpacking human and technological agency in automated decision making in Sweden’s social services. Social Science Computer Review, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wihlborg, E., Larsson, H., & Hedström, K. (2016). “The Computer Says No!” – A case study on automated decision-making in public authorities. In HICSS-2016. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am most grateful to the researchers responsible for the inquired research projects: Ida Lindgren (Linköping), Agneta Ranerup (Göteborg), Karin Hedström (Örebro), Maria Åkesson and Michel Thomsen (Halmstad), and Gustaf Juell-Skielse (Stockholm). I have received useful knowledge through interviews and written descriptions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Göran Goldkuhl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Goldkuhl, G. (2022). The Subject Matter of Process Automation Practices: Through the Lenses of Research Questions. In: Juell-Skielse, G., Lindgren, I., Åkesson, M. (eds) Service Automation in the Public Sector. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92644-1_2

Download citation