Burcu Demirdoven
ABSTRACT
As information and communication technologies (ICTs) have diffused throughout the customary forms of works and services, various models, theories and approaches have emerged and been developed to measure how and to what extent people accept technologically transformed products and services in the e-government domain. Despite the existence of applicable models regarding the acceptance and diffusion of e-government and e-participation, the current literature has failed to fully cover citizens' expectations due to factors affecting complex and organic bonds between states and citizens (i.e. trust). This study aims to discuss whether and how trust serves as an intermediary function with regard to technology acceptance models on e-government in general but e-participation in particular. This review finds (1) that it is necessary to develop a comprehensive approach for a trust-building environment regarding e-participation and (2) that trust in e-participation can be consolidated through interrelation among and within parties.
- Blaine G. Robbins. 2016. What is Trust? A Multidisciplinary Review, Critique, and Synthesis. Sociology Compass, 10, 10, 972--986.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Sabrina Scherer and Maria A. Wimmer. 2014. Trust in E-Participation: Literature Review and Emerging Research Needs. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2014), ACM Press, New York, NY, 61--70.Google Scholar
- Panagiota Papadopoulou, Maria Nikolaidou, & Drakoulis Martakos. 2010. What is Trust in E-Government? A Proposed Typology. In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 1--10.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Icek Ajzen. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 2, 179--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harry C. Triandis. 1978. Some Universals of Social Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 1, 1--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319--340.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eric Maillet, Luc Mathieu, & Claude Sicotte. 2015. Modeling Factors Explaining the Acceptance, Actual Use and Satisfaction of Nurses Using an Electronic Patient Record in Acute Care Settings: An Extension of the UTAUT. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84, 1, 36--47.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Magid Igbaria, Stephen J. Schiffmann, & Thomas J. Wieckowski. 1994. The Respective Roles of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Fun in the Acceptance of Microcomputer Technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 13, 6, 349--361.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Albert Bandura. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- Everett M. Rogers. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). The Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Mumtaz A. Hameed, Steve Counsell, & Stephen Swift. 2012. A Conceptual Model for the Process of IT Innovation Adoption in Organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29, 3, 358--390.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, & Paul R. Warshaw. 1992. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 14, 1111--1132.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas E. Ruggiero. 2000. Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 1, 3--37.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ronald L. Thompson, Christopher A. Higgins, & Jane M. Howell. 1991. Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15, 1, 125--143.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Viswanath Venkatesh, Micheal G. Morris, & Gordon B. Davis. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 425--478.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamed Taherdoost. 2017. A Review of Technology Acceptance and Adoption Models and Theories. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, 960--967.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Evan T. Straub. 2009. Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 2, 625--649.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. D. Manoja N. Samaradiwakara and Chandra Gunawardena. 2014. Comparison of Existing Technology Acceptance Models Theories and Models to Suggest a Well Improved Theory/Model. International Technical Sciences Journal, 1, 1, 21--36.Google Scholar
- PC Lai. 2017. The literature Review of Technology Adoption Models and Theories For the Novelty Technology. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 14, 1, 21--38.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Russell Hardin. 2002. Trust & Trustworthiness (1st ed.). Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Eric M. Uslaner. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Ivana Damnjanović. 2018. Democratic Innovations in Serbia: a Misplaced Trust. Contemporary Politics, 25, 1, 1--17.Google Scholar
- Eric Gordon and Jessica Baldwin-Philippi. 2014. Playful Civic Learning: Enabling Reflection and Lateral Trust in Game-based Public Participation. International Journal of Communication, 8, 759--786.Google Scholar
- Soonhee Kim, & Jooho Lee. 2012. E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Government. Public Administration Review, 72, 6, 1--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lois Evans, Patricia Franks, & Hsuanwei M. Chen. 2018. Voices in the Cloud: Social Media and Trust in Canadian and US Local Government. Records Management Journal, 28, 1, 18--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Scott. 2017. Social Network Analysis (4th ed.). SAGE, London.Google Scholar
- Gerry Stoker. 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50, 155, 17--28.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert B. Denhardt, & Janet V. Denhardt. (2003). The New Public Service: An Approach to Reform. International Review of Public Administration, 8, 1, 3--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janet V. Denhardt, & Robert B. Denhardt. (2015). The New Public Service Revisited. Public Administration Review, 75, 5, 664--672.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Shaw. 2013. Another Size Fits all? Public Value Management and Challenges for Institutional Design, Public Management Review, 15, 4, 477--500.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Gerry Stoker. (2006). Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?, The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 1, 41--57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kenneth Hanf, & Fritz W. Scharpf (eds.). 1978. Interorganizational policymaking: limits to coordination and central control. SAGE Modern politics series, London, UK.Google Scholar
- Eran Vigoda. 2002. From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 62, 5, 527--540.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Polya Katsamunska. 2012. Classical and Modern Approaches to Public Administration. Economic Alternatives, 1, 74--81.Google Scholar
- Yvonne Rydin, & Mark Pennington. 2000. Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 5, 2, 153--169.Google Scholar
- .Deirdre Curtin, & Albert J. Meijer. 2006. Does transparency strengthen legitimacy?. Information Polity, 11, 2, 109--122.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julia Abelson, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, John Eyles, Patricia Smith, Elisabeth Martin, & Francois-Pierre Gauvin. 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2, 239--251.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mete Yildiz. 2007. E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 3, 646--665.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Babita Gupta, Subhasish Dasgupta, & Atul Gupta. 2008. Adoption of ICT in a government organization in a developing country: An empirical study. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 2, 140--154.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Shamsul Haque. 2002. E-governance in India: its impacts on relations among citizens, politicians and public servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68, 2, 231--250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ignace Snellen. 2002. Electronic Governance: Implications for Citizens, Politicians and Public Servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68, 2, 183--198.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexander Schellong. 2009. Citizen Government Interaction: The Promise of the E-Channel, In A. Meijer et al. (eds.), ICTs, Citizens and Governance: After the Hype!, 13--20, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Ailsa Kolsaker, & Liz Lee-Kelley. 2008. Citizens' attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21, 7, 723--738.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eric W. Welch, Charles C. Hinnant, & M. Jae Moon. 2005. Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 3, 371--391.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Luca Buccoliero, & Elena Bellio. 2010. Citizens Web Empowerment in European Municipalities. Journal of E-Governance, 33, 225--236.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, Mutaz M. Al-Debei, Guy Fitzgerald, Tony Elliman. 2012. A business model perspective for ICTs in public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 2, 192--202.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kim V. Andersen, & Helle Z. Henriksen. 2006. E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly 23, 2, 236--248.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wisdom J. Tettey. 2002. ICT, Local Government Capacity Building, and Civic Engagement: An Evaluation of the Sample Initiative in Ghana. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 1, 2, 165--192.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacqueline M. Klopp, Elizabeth M. Marcello, George Kirui, & Henry Mwangi. 2013. Negotiating e-politics: Initiating e-government in a municipal council in Kenya. Information Polity 18, 1, 21--42.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher G. Reddick. 2005. Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers?. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 1, 38--57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Karl Rethemeyer. 2007. Policymaking in the Age of Internet: Is the Internet Tending to Make Policy Networks More or Less Inclusive?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 2, 259--284.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas Webler. 1999. The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 1, 55--71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Euripidis Loukis, Yannis Charalabidis, & Jeremy Millard. 2012. From the Special Issue Editors: European Research on Electronic Citizen Participation and Engagement in Public Policy Making, Information Systems Management, 29, 4, 255--257.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Vishanth Weerakkody, and Marijn Janssen. 2012. Moving towards maturity: challenges to successful e-government implementation and diffusion. SIGMIS Database 42, 4, 11--22.Google ScholarDigital Library
- .Joel Fredericks, & Marcus Foth. 2013. Augmenting public participation: enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0, Australian Planner, 50, 3, 244--256.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria A.V.C. Cunha, Taiane R. Coelho, & Marlei Pozzebon. 2013. The Use of ICT in Public Decision-Making Participation. ECIS 2013 Complete Research Paper 20, http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr/20.Google Scholar
- J. Norman Baldwin, Robin Gauld, & Shaun Goldfinch. 2012. What Public Servants Really Think of E-Government. Public Management Review, 14, 1, 105--127.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hossana Twinomurinzia, Jackie Phahlamohlaka, & Elaine Byrne. 2012. The small group subtlety of using ICT for participatory governance: A South African experience. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 2, 203--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ralf Lindner, & Ulrich Riehm. 2009. Electronic Petitions and Institutional Modernization International Parliamentary E-Petition Systems in Comparative Perspective, JeDEM - EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government, 1, 1, 1--11.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andreas Jungherr, & Pascal Jürgens. 2010. The Political Click: Political Participation through E-Petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, 2, 4, 131--165.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Taher., Willem-Jan van den Heuvel, S. Koussouris, & C. Georgousopoulos. 2010. Empowering Citizens in Public Service Design and Delivery: A Reference Model and Methodology. In M. Cezon and Y. Wolfsthal (Eds.), ServiceWave 2010 Workshops LNCS 6569, 129--136, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg Berlin.Google Scholar
- Øystein Sæbø, Jeremy Rose, Leif Skiftenes Flak. 2008. The Shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an Emerging Research Area. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 400--428.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henning S. Hansen, & David C. Prosperi. 2005. Citizen Participation and Internet GIS - Some Recent Advances. (Editorial). Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29, 6, 617--629.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul T. Jaeger, & John C. Bertot. 2010. Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 4, 371--376.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catherine Bochel. 2013. Petitions Systems: Contributing to Representative Democracy?. Parliamentary Affairs, 66, 4, 798--815.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Satish Krishnan, & Thompson S. H. Teo. 2012. Moderating Effects of Governance on Information Infrastructure and E-Government Development. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 10, 1929--1946.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tina Nabatchi. 2010. Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: The Potential of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 4, 376--399.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eileen M. Searson, & Melissa A. Johnson. 2010. Transparency laws and interactive public relations: An analysis of Latin American government Web sites. Public Relations Review, 36, 2, 120--126.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Deborah Oughton. 2008. Public participation - potential and pitfalls. Energy & Environment, 19, 3--4, 485--496.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Renée A. Irvin, & John Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?. Public Administration Review, 64, 1, 55--65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sukumar Ganapati. 2011. Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Applications in E-Government. Public Administration Review, 71, 3, 425--434.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rizqa Nulhusna, Puspa Sandhyaduhita, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto & Kongkiti Phusavat. 2017. The relation of e-government quality on public trust and its impact towards public participation, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11, 3, 393--418.Google ScholarCross Ref
- .Sabrina Scherer & Maria Wimmer. 2014. Conceptualising Trust in E-Participation Contexts, 6th International Conference on Electronic Participation (ePart), Dublin, Ireland, pp. 64--77.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic literature review to propose a model
Recommendations
Trust in e-participation: literature review and emerging research needs
ICEGOV '14: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceTrust plays a significant role along the life-cycle of (electronic) participation initiatives. Based on causal roles that trust may have according to Rousseau et al. [31, p. 396] - (1) trust as condition for participation, (2) trust during participation,...
Electronic Citizens Participation: Systematic Review
ICEGOV '15-16: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceCitizen participation is considered as one of the core elements of transparency of Governments with regard to their citizens. In these participations, Governments generally ask people to give their opinions with regard to particular subjects. ...
Trust in e-participation: an empirical research on the influencing factors
dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data AgeE-participation provides a means to involve citizens in e-government decision-making. The ease of access to e-participation processes has raised the issue of trustworthiness of both the institutions promoting processes and the citizens participating in ...
Comments