Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do-it-yourself services and work-like chores: on civic duties and digital public services

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Doing civic duties is neither paid work nor leisure: it is a private, work-like activity. Digital services enrol customers in doing work tasks. Also digital public services delegate work to citizens, but there are important differences between automation for citizens doing their civic duties and services that customers choose to use. In this paper, we discuss how digitally automated services remove some tasks but also introduce new work tasks for citizens and how citizens handle these. We present a study of citizens’ calls to a public service provider (the tax authorities) requesting help carrying out their civic duties. The analysis of citizens’ problems with doing their taxes is a basis for suggesting an alternative design of digital tax services that can increase citizens’ mastery and autonomy when doing their taxes. We suggest an approach for designing coherent tasks for the citizen, and how doing one’s civic duties can be seen as work—and as a part of life. We argue that designing for automated public services need to apply a citizen-centric perspective in order to maintain a basis for citizens to participate in democratic processes in society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All names are pseudonyms.

  2. The Norwegian all-in-one public services portal for citizens.

  3. Automation also introduces new technical and managerial tasks for the Tax Administration: the work to make technology work [42], which is not discussed here. In this paper, the perspective is with the citizens.

References

  1. Schmidt K (2011) The concept of `work’ in CSCW. Comput Support Coop Work 20(4–5):341–401. doi:10.1007/s10606-011-9146-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Urmson JO (1970) Polymorphous concepts. In: Wood OP, Pitcher G (eds) Ryle: a collection of critical essays. Macmillan, Doubleday, Garden City, pp 249–266

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidt K (2014) The concept of ‘practice’: What’s the point? In: Rossitto C, Ciolfi L, Martin D, Conein B (eds) COOP 2014—proceedings of the 11th international conference on the design of cooperative systems, Nice (France). Springer International Publishing, 27–30 May 2014, pp 427–444. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06498-7_26

  4. Strauss A, Fagerhaug S, Suczek B, Wiener C (1985) Social organization of medical work. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  5. Corbin J, Strauss A (1985) Managing chronic illness at home: three lines of work. Qual Sociol 8(3):224–247. doi:10.1007/BF00989485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human–computer interaction: changing roles. Oslo

  7. Bannon L (1991) From human factors to human actors. The role of psychology and human–computer interaction studies in systems design. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at work: cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 25–44

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harrison S, Tatar D, Sengers P (2007) The three paradigms of HCI. Paper presented at the alt.chi (2007). Citeulike:1533239

  9. Sengers P (2004) The engineering of experience. In: Blythe M, Overbeeke K, Monk AF (eds) Funology: from usability to enjoyment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 19–29

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown B, Barkhuus L (2007) Leisure and CSCW: introduction to special edition. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 16(1–2):1–10. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9043-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Crabtree A, Rodden T, Benford S (2005) Moving with the times: IT research and the boundaries of CSCW. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 14(3):217–251. doi:10.1007/s10606-005-3642-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1999) 10th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

  13. Ciolfi L, de Carvalho A (2014) Work practices, nomadicity and the mediational role of technology. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 23(2):119–136. doi:10.1007/s10606-014-9201-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kristoffersen S, Ljungberg F (1999) Making place to make IT work: empirical explorations of HCI for mobile CSCW. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Phoenix, Arizona

  15. Bellotti V, Bly S (1996) Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Boston

  16. Luff P, Heath C (1998) Mobility in collaboration. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Seattle

  17. Bratteteig T, Wagner I (2013) Moving healthcare to the home: the work to make homecare work. In: Paper presented at the eCSCW 2013, Paphos, 21–25 Sep

  18. Aarhus R, Ballegaard S (2010) Negotiating boundaries: managing disease at home. In: CHI ‘10: proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Atlanta, pp 1223–1232. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753509

  19. Axelrod L, Fitzpatrick G, Burridge J, Mawson S, Smith P, Rodden T, Ricketts I (2009) The reality of homes fit for heroes: design challenges for rehabilitation technology at home. J Assist Technol 3(2):35–43. doi:10.1108/17549450200900014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Polaine A, Løvlie L, Reason B (2013) Service design: from insight to implementation. Rosenfeld Media, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kahnemann D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Breit E, Salomon R (2014) Making the technological transition—citizens’ encounters with digital pension services. Soc Policy Adm. doi:10.1111/spol.12093

    Google Scholar 

  23. Williamson OE (1981) The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am J Sociol 87(3):548–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cavanagh TB (2008) Prosthetic gods: the posthuman threat of self-service technology. Interact Stud 9(3):458–480. doi:10.1075/is.9.3.06cav

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6):775–779. doi:10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cummings ML (2004) Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In: AIAA 3rd intelligent systems conference. AIAA

  27. Verne G (2015) The winners are those who have used the old paper form. On citizens and automated public services. University of Oslo. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-50321

  28. Barad K (2003) Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs J Women Cult Soc 28(3):801–831. doi:10.1086/345321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Orlikowski WJ (2010) The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge J Econ 34:125–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pickering A (1995) The mangle of practice: time, agency, and science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. MacKenzie D, Muniesa F, Siu L (2007) Do economists make markets? on the performativity of economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  32. Thaler R, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  33. Myers MD, Klein HK (2011) A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MISQ 35(1):17–36

    Google Scholar 

  34. Myers MD (Living version) Qualitative research in information systems. Originally published in MISQ discovery, June 1997. http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/

  35. Crang M, Cook I (2007) Doing ethnographies. SAGE Publications Ltd, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Ottenberg S (1990) Thirty years of fieldnotes: changing relationships to the text. In: Sanjek R (ed) Fieldnotes. The makings of anthropology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 139–160

    Google Scholar 

  37. FAD (2007) Eit informasjonssamfunn for alle (An Information Society for All, in Norwegian) vol 2006–2007. Oslo

  38. Bowker GC, Star SL (1999) Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bratteteig T, Verne G (2012) Conditions for autonomy in the information society: disentangling as a public service. Scand J Inf Syst 24(2):51–72

    Google Scholar 

  40. Verne G (2014) Two faces of autonomy. Learning from non-users of an e-service. Syst Signs Actions 8(1):6–24

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shipman F III, Marshall C (1999) Formality considered harmful: experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in interactive systems. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 8(4):333–352. doi:10.1023/A:1008716330212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bowers J (1994) The work to make a network work: studying CSCW in action. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Chapel Hill

  43. Lipsky M (2010) Street-level bureacracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schmidt K (2002) The problem with `awareness’: introductory remarks on `awareness in CSCW’. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 11(3–4):285–298. doi:10.1023/A:1021272909573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Watson M, Shove E (2008) Product, competence, project and practice: DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption. J Consum Cult 8(1):69–89. doi:10.1177/1469540507085726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Watson M, Shove E (2005) Doing it yourself? Products, competence and meaning in the practices of (DIY). In: European sociological association conference, Torun

  47. Gelber SM (1997) Do-it-yourself: constructing, repairing and maintaining domestic masculinity. Am Q 49(1):66–112. doi:10.2307/30041567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ruland CM, White T, Stevens M, Fanciullo G, Khilani SM (2003) Effects of a computerized system to support shared decision making in symptom management of cancer patients: preliminary results. J Am Med Inf Assoc JAMIA 10(6):573–579. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ruland CM, Slaughter L, Starren J, Vatne TM, Moe EY (2007) Children’s contributions to designing a communication tool for children with cancer. Stud Health Technol Inf 129(Pt 2):977–982

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bratteteig T, Wagner I (2012) Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 12th participatory design conference: research papers, vol 1. Roskilde

  51. Grudin J (1994) Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Commun ACM 37(1):92–105. doi:10.1145/175222.175230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Borchorst NG, Bødker S (2011) You probably shouldn’t give them too much information—Supporting Citizen-Government Collaboration. In: Bødker S, Bouvin NO, Lutters W, Wulf V, Ciolfi L (eds) ECSCW 2011: proceedings of the 12th European conference on computer supported cooperative work, Springer

  53. Schultze U, Orlikowski WJ (2004) A practice perspective on technology-mediated network relations: the use of internet-based self-serve technologies. Inf Syst Res 15(1):87–106. doi:10.1287/isre.1030.0016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rothstein B (2015) Human well-being and the lost relevance of political science. In: Stoker G, Peters BG, Pierre J (eds) The relevance of political science. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided for by the Research Council of Norway. The research is part of the “Automation and Autonomy” project at the University of Oslo where an overarching ambition has been to study how automated public services of various kinds influence human autonomy, and how better service and technology design can improve it. We thank the call centre for letting us in and the anonymous reviewers for constructive suggestions for improving this paper. A special thank goes to the workshop on “CSCW at the boundary of work and life” at ECSCW 2013 for an interesting discussion and constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, PO. Box 1080, Blindern, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    Guri Verne & Tone Bratteteig

Authors
  1. Guri Verne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tone Bratteteig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guri Verne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verne, G., Bratteteig, T. Do-it-yourself services and work-like chores: on civic duties and digital public services. Pers Ubiquit Comput 20, 517–532 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0936-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0936-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation