E-government intermediaries and the challenges of access and trust

In this article, we present the results of a study examining challenges related to access and trust for nutrition assistance outreach workers and suggest design implications for these challenges. Outreach workers are e-government intermediaries who assist clients with accessing and using e-government online applications, systems, and services. E-government intermediaries are not typical end users; they use e-government systems on behalf of clients, and as such their challenges differ from those of primary users. We detail social and technical aspects of these challenges to develop a nuanced understanding of access and trust in the ecosystems surrounding e-government systems. First, we describe how the practical accomplishment of access involves multiple stakeholders, actors, and practices. Second, we highlight how trust emerges through the e-government intermediaries’ work to project themselves as professional and competent through their technical practice. Last, we propose design implications sensitive to both the social and technical aspects of these challenges.

[1]  Rose O'Neill,et al.  The Transformative Impact of E-Government on Public Governance in New Zealand , 2009 .

[2]  Tanja Hueber,et al.  Better Together Restoring The American Community , 2016 .

[3]  Jan van Dijk,et al.  Channel choice determinants; an exploration of the factors that determine the choice of a service channel in citizen initiated contacts , 2007, DG.O.

[4]  Taewoo Nam,et al.  Who uses e-government?: examining the digital divide in e-government use , 2011, ICEGOV '11.

[5]  France Bélanger,et al.  The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors * , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[6]  Ying Liu,et al.  Designing for emerging rural users: experiences from China , 2011, CHI.

[7]  E. Brink,et al.  Constructing grounded theory : A practical guide through qualitative analysis , 2006 .

[8]  Yan Li,et al.  Senior Citizens' Adoption of E-Government: In Quest of the Antecedents of Perceived Usefulness , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[9]  Kentaro Toyama,et al.  Intermediated technology use in developing communities , 2010, CHI.

[10]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Computerized Data-Based Systems and Productivity among Professional Workers: The Case of Detectives , 1985 .

[11]  Vishanth Weerakkody,et al.  E-government adoption: A cultural comparison , 2008, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[12]  Shefali S. Dash,et al.  Community information centers: e-governance at subdistrict level: a case study , 2007, ICEGOV '07.

[13]  Mete Yildiz,et al.  E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[14]  Vicente Pina,et al.  E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms? , 2005, Online Inf. Rev..

[15]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Technology-mediated social arrangements to resolve breakdowns in infrastructure during ongoing disruption , 2011, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[16]  France Bélanger,et al.  The impact of the digital divide on e-government use , 2009, CACM.

[17]  France Bélanger,et al.  The Effects of the Digital Divide on E-Government: An Emperical Evaluation , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[18]  S. Tefft.  Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide , 2002 .

[19]  France Bélanger,et al.  Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes , 2002, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[20]  D. Ellwood.  Poor Support: Poverty In The American Family , 1989 .

[21]  Jyoti,et al.  A SURVEY OF CITIZENS ’ AWARENESS AND ADOPTION OF E-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES , THE ‘ GOVERNMENT GATEWAY ’ : A UNITED KINGDOM PERSPECTIVE , 2005 .

[22]  D. McLaughlin.  Those Who Work, Those Who Don’t: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America , 2011 .

[23]  Shin-Yuan Hung,et al.  Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system , 2006, Gov. Inf. Q..

[24]  Lynn Dombrowski,et al.  The labor practices of service mediation: a study of the work practices of food assistance outreach , 2012, CHI.

[25]  J. C. Thomas,et al.  The New Face of Government: Citizen-Initiated Contacts in the Era of E-Government , 2003 .

[26]  Annette Mills,et al.  Conceptualizing Public Service Value in E-government Services , 2010, AMCIS.

[27]  Sang M. Lee,et al.  Current practices of leading e-government countries , 2005, Commun. ACM.

[28]  E. Hargittai,et al.  Digital Distinction: Status-Specific Types of Internet Usage , 2009 .

[29]  Hussein Al-Yaseen,et al.  Evaluation of Awareness and Acceptability of Using e-Government Services in Developing Countries : the Case of Jordan , 2010 .

[30]  Simon Hakim,et al.  Innovations in E-government : the thoughts of governors and mayors , 2005 .

[31]  M. Nord,et al.  Household Food Security in the United States, 2008 , 2009 .

[32]  Kholekile L. Gwebu,et al.  A Critical Analysis of Current Indexes for Digital Divide Measurement , 2011, Inf. Soc..

[33]  Sarah Cotterill,et al.  Transformational Government? The role of information technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services , 2007 .

[34]  K. Gegenfurtner,et al.  Design Issues in Gaze Guidance Under review with ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction , 2009 .

[35]  Moaman Al-Busaidy,et al.  The Roles of Intermediaries in the Diffusion and Adoption of E-Government Services , 2010, AMCIS.

[36]  Laura A. Castner,et al.  Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates in 2009-2011 for All Eligible People and the Working Poor , 2014 .

[37]  Karen Mossberger,et al.  Toward digital citizenship: Addressing inequality in the information age , 2008 .

[38]  S. Hunt,et al.  The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing , 1994 .

[39]  M. J. Moon.  The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? , 2002 .

[40]  E. R. Adagunodo,et al.  Assessment of e-governance resource use in south-western Nigeria , 2008, ICEGOV '08.

[41]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Intermediated technology interaction in rural contexts , 2009, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[42]  Janice C. Sipior,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of E-Government Inclusion Among the Digitally Disadvantaged in the United States , 2010, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[43]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[44]  William David Tucker,et al.  The role of Outcome Mapping in developing a rural telemedicine system , 2008 .

[45]  T. Heintze,et al.  Information Technology and Restructuring in Public Organizations: Does Adoption of Information Technology Affect Organizational Structures, Communications, and Decision Making? , 2000 .

[46]  Savita Bailur,et al.  The liminal role of the information intermediary in community multimedia centres , 2010, ICTD.

[47]  Thad E. Hall,et al.  The digital divide and e-government services , 2011, ICEGOV '11.

[48]  Wallace Koehler,et al.  Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[49]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[50]  Frederick J. Riggins,et al.  The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Kentaro Toyama,et al.  Human-Computer Interaction and Global Development , 2010, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[52]  S. E. Colesca,et al.  Adoption and use of E-Government services: The case of Romania , 2008 .

[53]  Donald F. Norris,et al.  Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e‐government at the municipal level * , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[54]  Tapan S. Parikh,et al.  Understanding and designing for intermediated information tasks in India , 2006, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[55]  Caroline J. Tolbert,et al.  Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[56]  Frank Bannister,et al.  Deep E-Government: Beneath the Carapace , 2015 .

[57]  Ban Al-Ani,et al.  Resilience through technology adoption: merging the old and the new in Iraq , 2009, CHI.

[58]  Daniela V. Dimitrova,et al.  Profiling the Adopters of E-Government Information and Services , 2006 .

[59]  Vishanth Weerakkody,et al.  The Relative Importance of Intermediaries in eGovernment Adoption: A Study of Saudi Arabia , 2011, EGOV.

[60]  Jennifer Ann Job,et al.  How is trust in government created? It begins at home, but ends in the parliament , 2005 .

[61]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will E-Government Be Different? , 2006, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..