Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization T
of public services
⁎
Ida Lindgrena, , Christian Østergaard Madsenb, Sara Hofmannc, Ulf Melina
a
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Sweden
b
IT University Copenhagen, Department of Computer Science, Denmark
c
University of Agder, Department of Information Systems, Norway

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper contributes to e-government research by presenting a review and discussion on how digitalization of
Citizen–government interaction public services has affected the interaction between citizens and government. We argue for a conceptualization
Digitalization and critical reflection on the nature of the underlying interaction between citizens and public officials - the public
Theory-building encounter - that digital public services are developed to support. We apply a qualitative and hermeneutic ap-
Public service
proach and illustrate that digital public services change public encounters concerning when, where, and how
interactions occur, what each actor does, and the skills required of them. By relating these changes to emerging
digital technologies (e.g. data mining, machine learning, sensor technology, and service automation), we il-
lustrate that while these new technologies carry the potential to further digitalize service provision and fulfill the
democratic goals of digital government, authorities can apply the same technology to restrict, control, and
surveil citizens. Based on a critical discussion on what digitalization might entail for society, we identify problem
areas arising from this development and propose a research agenda for understanding this phenomenon further.
We raise questions and ethical concerns regarding accountability and reskilling of citizens and public officials as
public service provision becomes citizen self-service.

1. Introduction and background choice (Ebbers, Pieterson, & Noordman, 2008), the digital divide
(Ebbers, Janssen, & Van Deursen, 2016; Helbig, Gil-García, & Ferro,
Public organizations worldwide are adopting digital technologies to 2009), and value creation (Nielsen & Persson, 2017). However, few
support the public encounter; the interaction between citizens and public researchers have addressed the consequences of digitalization for one of
officials (Goodsell, 1981). New opportunities for digitalization of public the core activities at hand—the interaction between citizens and public
service provision associated with data mining, machine learning, sensor officials. This gap has been observed both at the empirical and theo-
technology, and service automation have been discussed with great retical level. Numerous empirical studies have been conducted on e-
curiosity and optimism by scholars and policymakers alike (Matheus, government diffusion among government organizations (West, 2004;
Janssen, & Maheshwari, 2018; European Commission, 2016). These Norris & Reddick, 2013) and citizens' willingness to adopt e-govern-
emerging digital technologies may fulfill the primary goals for digital ment services (Hofmann, Räckers, & Becker, 2012). However, such
government, which include improving efficiency and service quality by adoption studies often treat digital public services either as hypothetic
reducing service lead times, increasing transparency, and offering or generic phenomena, thereby ignoring the context and diversity of e-
seamless service provision across organizations (cf. Layne & Lee, 2001). services and their importance for citizens (Hofmann et al., 2012;
Rapid technological development and the drive of policy makers to- Madsen, Berger, & Phythian, 2014). Furthermore, scholars rarely go
wards automatization and digital self-service make it imperative for e- beyond the point of adoption, mostly studying e-services from either
government scholars to understand how digitalization influences the the organizational or citizen perspective rather than analyzing the in-
interaction between citizens and public authorities in the context of teraction occurring directly between governments and citizens (Madsen
public service provision. & Kræmmergaard, 2015a). Additionally, literature reviews have re-
Within e-government, the digitalization of public services has been peatedly called for more native theory development within e-govern-
studied in areas such as design (Grimsley & Meehan, 2007), channel ment (Bannister & Connolly, 2015; Heeks & Bailur, 2007) and holistic

⁎
Corresponding author at: Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: ida.lindgren@liu.se (I. Lindgren), chrm@itu.dk (C.Ø. Madsen), sara.hofmann@uia.no (S. Hofmann), ulf.melin@liu.se (U. Melin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
Received 31 August 2018; Received in revised form 1 March 2019; Accepted 1 March 2019
Available online 12 March 2019
0740-624X/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

studies of the interplay between systems and individuals (Meijer & This approach acknowledges that the researcher has accumulated
Bekkers, 2015). knowledge and experience that can be used as a starting point for the
Hence, both empirical and theoretical gaps exist in the e-govern- review process. By reading (1) scientific papers on the chosen topic in a
ment literature concerning how digitalization influences public ser- systematic and analytical manner, the researcher can classify relevant
vices. The present study addresses this gap by analyzing the interaction ideas, findings, and contributions within a body of literature. There-
between citizens and public authorities in relation to digital public ser- after, classification and mapping (2) can be performed using various
vices; i.e., public services provided or mediated through internet-based types of analytical tools. In our case, we used the framework presented
technology (Jansen & Ølnes, 2016; Lindgren & Jansson, 2013). In order by Goodsell (1981) as a conceptual framework guiding the analysis (we
to advance our understanding of the interaction between citizens and motivate our choice of framework below). The following step involves a
public organizations, this paper departs from the notion of the public critical assessment (3) and evaluation of the state of knowledge in re-
encounter defined by Goodsell (1981, p. 4) as “the interaction of citizen lation to the studied topic. Building on this assessment, problems in the
and official as they communicate to conduct business”. We claim that established knowledge are identified and arguments (4) for a research
digitalization has altered the underlying conditions for public en- gap are developed. These arguments, in turn, can be formulated in re-
counters and call for the analysis and conceptualization of how the search questions or problem areas (5) for further study. Intertwined
digitalization of public services has affected, and continues to affect, the with these steps is the continuous search (6) for additional literature
interaction between citizens and public authorities. For this purpose, that can inform the analysis and understanding of the phenomenon at
the aim of this paper is to discuss the possible consequences of digital hand.
public services for the public encounter and propose a research agenda In line with Boell and Cecez- Kecmanovic (2014), we read and
for studying this phenomenon further. The research questions guiding searched for work on the digitalization of public services and the public
our work are: (1) How has digitalization of public services affected the encounter in an iterative and reflexive manner (Alvesson & Sköldberg,
public encounter? (2) What are the unaddressed research areas con- 2009). The search for literature was inherently intertwined with its
cerning the digitalization of the public encounter? analysis and interpretation, and guided by our research questions. We
The present study is important for a number of reasons. First, we began our search in the e-government research field, and expanded the
contribute to e-government research by presenting a theoretical fra- search to public administration, and information systems—the fields
mework for understanding the public encounter and discussing how from which e-government research originated (Heeks & Bailur, 2007).
digital public services can affect the interactions between citizens and Concerning the classification and mapping of literature, we found
governments. We further contribute to a critical discussion on what several conceptualizations of potential interest to our study from the e-
digitalization of public services might entail for society by raising government and public administration field that could serve as analy-
questions and ethical concerns regarding the accountability and res- tical tools. These included the public encounter (Goodsell, 1981),
killing of citizens and public officials as digital public service provision evaluation and satisfaction with the bureaucratic encounter (Katz,
evolves. Gutek, Kahn, & Barton, 1975), the activities involved in ‘the processing
This paper is organized in the following manner. In the second of people’ (Hasenfeld, Rafferty, & Zald, 1987), the service encounter
section, we present our qualitative and hermeneutic research approach. (Giesbrecht, Schwabe, & Schenk, 2017), and established discussions of
In the third section, we describe the characteristics of the traditional street-level bureaucracy and discretion (Bovens & Zouridis, 2002; Busch
public encounter. In the fourth section, the results of our literature & Henriksen, 2018; Lipsky, 2010). We also identified studies of service
review are presented, relating the digitalization of public services to and consumer encounters in the private sector of e-commerce (Meuter,
four aspects of the public encounter: (1) its nature and purpose; (2) its Ostrom, Roundtree, & Bitner, 2000; Moody, Lowry, & Galletta, 2017;
communication forms and settings; (3) the central actors involved; and Pelet & Papadopoulou, 2012; Piccoli, 2016) discussing self-service, af-
(4) its initiation, duration, and scope. Based on these discussions, we fordance, trust, website design, and values. We chose Goodsell's (1981)
return to our research question in the fifth section and conclude with a conceptualization of the public encounter as the analytical tool for our
discussion on the main issues, summarizing these in a research agenda work because we found it to be the most suited to answer our first
for future research on this topic. In the sixth and last section, some final research question: How has digitalization of public services affected the
comments and limitations regarding this work are discussed. public encounter? Our interpretation of Goodsell's framework is pre-
sented in Section Three. While Goodsell's work is relatively unknown
2. Research approach within e-government research, it is often applied within the fields of
public administration and political science. Applying Goodsell's fra-
This paper is conceptually oriented and applies a qualitative and mework is applicable to this study for several reasons. Unlike the
hermeneutic research approach (Klein & Myers, 1999). As initially aforementioned scholars, Goodsell presents an explicit definition of the
stated, this paper rests on the underlying assumption that the ac- public encounter as a concept. Additionally, he presents four general
celerated digitalization of public services affects or even changes the dimensions of the public encounter. These are worthy of further in-
logic and nature of the public encounter. Digitalization can be under- vestigation and theory building as they represent a starting point that
stood as “a sociotechnical process of applying digitizing technologies to allows us to examine each dimension in relation to how it is affected by
broader social and institutional contexts”, where digitizing refers to “a digitization. Finally, Goodsell presented his definition of the public
technical process of converting analogue signals into a digital form” encounter in 1981, decades prior to digital self-service applications
(Tilson, Lyytinen, & Sørensen, 2010, p. 749). Hence, we perceive the being developed. This conceptualization of the traditional analogue
digital interaction between the citizen and the public official as being public encounter serves as a conceptually robust starting point for in-
part of a sociotechnical system (Trist, 1981), where digitalization re- vestigating and analyzing the public encounter ‘before’ and ‘after’ di-
quires particular prerequisites and enables outcomes in both technical gitalization. However, we do not claim that Goodsell (1981) represents
and social aspects of the system (Henman, 2010). all of the previous work related to the public encounter. The afore-
Following the hermeneutic methodology suggested by Boell and mentioned conceptualizations may—and have—been applied to study
Cecez- Kecmanovic (2014), we conducted a literature review based on other aspects of the encounter. However, they are not as useful for our
the principles of the hermeneutic circle for analysis and interpretation. research since they are concerned with particular aspects surrounding
This is a circular approach that involves the following iterative steps: the encounter rather than the encounter itself.
(1) reading; (2) mapping and classifying; (3) critical assessment; (4) Building on a critical assessment of the identified literature, we
argument development; (5) research problem/questions; and (6) strived to find coherent arguments and distill problems areas con-
searching (see Boell and Cecez- Kecmanovic (2014) for further details). cerning digitalization of public services as a means to answer our

428
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

second research question: What are the unaddressed research areas con- interaction. There is a sharp contrast between the two sides, where “the
cerning the digitalization of the public encounter? The synthesized outcome public official has authority and is vested with legal powers; the citizen
of our interpretation and analysis of the literature is presented in is a private individual standing alone before the sovereign state”
Section 4. In addition, identified problem areas are presented in Section (Goodsell, 1981, p. 5). Furthermore, for the citizen, the case addressed
4 and subsequently discussed in terms of a suggested research agenda in is likely to be of personal importance. Typically, it is a single case
Section 5. With this research agenda, we call for further work to expand wherein the citizen is inexperienced in the task at hand (“an amateur”;
our e-government research community's body of knowledge. Following Goodsell, 1981). In contrast, the official is a trained professional and
Gregor (2006), our arguments and proposed research agenda serves as expert on the task. For the public official, the interaction is just another
the core of a theory for analysis, explanation, and prediction of how and case among many. The official has legal powers, but is simultaneously
why the digitalization of public services has affected—and will con- constrained by formal directives and rules, as well as informal norms
tinue to affect—the public encounter. for behavior and even supervision (Goodsell, 1981). On the other hand,
the citizen has freedom of action in addressing the government in al-
3. Understanding the traditional public encounter most any way s/he wants. Similarly, Lenk (2002) argues that this
asymmetrical relationship between citizen and public official often is
We use the concept of public encounter, as conceptualized by very strong, particularly when the citizen depends on the outcome of
Goodsell (1981), as our point of departure. The public encounter serves the encounter for her/his livelihood. This asymmetrical relationship is
as a baseline for understanding the stereotypical traditional analogue highlighted as an important aspect of public service delivery and taps
public encounter, and thus provides a starting point for investigating into other related discussions on the nature of public services. Public
and analyzing the public encounter ‘before’ and ‘after’ digitalization. service provision does not occur in a free market where the citizen can
Goodsell (1981) defines the public encounter as “the interaction of ci- choose between service providers (Hirschman, 1970), and citizens have
tizen and official as they communicate to conduct business” (p. 4) and certain constitutional rights that must be ensured through the rule of
proceeds to outline and delimit four general aspects of the encounter: law and the fair distribution of social resources (cf. Fountain, 2001).
The fourth aspect, the encounter's initiation, duration, and scope, ac-
(1) the nature and purpose of the encounter; knowledges that both citizens and public officials can initiate an en-
(2) the communication form(s) and setting(s) in which the encounter counter. Goodsell (1981) applies the framework of Lefton and
occurs; Rosengren (1966) to discuss the lateral and longitudinal dimensions of
(3) the central actors involved; and public encounters. The lateral dimension, or scope, covers the extent to
(4) the encounters' initiation, duration, and scope. which the underlying public service influences the citizen's life. This
ranges from services only influencing limited aspects, such as renewing
We will briefly outline these four general aspects of the public en- a driver's license, to covering the citizen's total needs through “total
counter below. institutionalization” (e.g., being in a jail, hospital, or boarding school
Concerning the nature and purpose of the public encounter, the public (Goodsell, 1981, p. 6). The longitudinal dimension covers the time span
encounter covers the purposive and dyadic interpersonal interaction over which the encounter occurs. It can be brief or occur over a long
between a private citizen and a government official. This interaction period, as a singular event or as a sequence of repetitive events. Lefton
occurs to meet a specific end and is neither random nor accidental. The and Rosengren (1966) argue that organizations have different—even
“public” refers to the specific setting of the encounter, implying that contrasting—interests from their clients, making the lateral and long-
citizens are members of the “public” and that they interact with gov- itudinal dimensions important because they are likely to have “sig-
ernment officials (and not members of private organizations). Goodsell nificantly different impacts upon the internal structure and inter-
focuses on citizens' interactions with “executive or administrative per- personal processes of organizations, as well as upon extra-
sonnel” (Goodsell, 1981, p. 5) in relation to administrative services, organizational relationships” (pp. 805–806).
such as tax collection or public benefits. Areas pertaining to politics In summation, the public encounter refers to the purposive interac-
such as voting, lobbying, asking citizens for advice, and generally in- tion between the citizen and public official as they communicate to
teracting with elected officials are excluded, as is interaction with the transact matters of some mutual interest. While these interactions ty-
judicial system (judges). Goodsell (1981) divides the purpose of public pically concern the exchange of information or provision of public
encounters into three broad categories: services, they can also concern issues of control or constraint. The ac-
tors involved have scripted roles, and the relationship between them is
• The exchange of information, such as citizens inquiring about public asymmetrical; where public officials act as professionals with vested
services or government employees conducting census studies. powers, and citizens act on behalf of themselves standing before the
• The provision of public services, either by citizen request or through sovereign state. These interactions can occur through different media
outreach programs. and channels and take place in different settings. We will now turn to
• Control or constraint, which is typically initiated by government. This how the digitalization of public services changes the media and com-
category pertains to interactions intended to limit or restrict citizens' munication channels, setting, and consequently our understanding of
behavior (e.g., imposing penalties and tax collection). the public encounter itself.

The second aspect concerns the communication forms and settings of 4. Relating digital public services to the public encounter
the public encounter. Goodsell (1981) presents different types of media
and settings (or communication channels) where an encounter may In this section, we will attend to public encounters taking place in a
occur: face-to-face, letters, telephone, or a combination. While the en- digitalization context. We use the term digital public services to refer to
counter typically takes place in an official setting such as a government public services provided using internet-based technologies wherein a
agency, it can also occur in the citizen's home, or even out in public. citizen's interaction with a public organization is mediated partly or
Goodsell points out that the physical location of the encounter and how completely by an IT-system (Jansen & Ølnes, 2016; Lindgren & Jansson,
it is designed can affect the attitude and behavior of both the citizen 2013). One of the core ideas driving the digitalization of public services
and the public official. is self-service (Layne & Lee, 2001; Madsen & Kræmmergaard, 2015b).
The third aspect of the public encounter concerns the central actors Citizens should easily be able to access government data and services
involved, referring to the dyadic nature of the encounter and the specific from their homes (or elsewhere) using IT artefacts. The need to
roles taken by the citizen and the public official involved in the streamline internal processes in government organizations to improve

429
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

Table 1
Main characteristics of the traditional public encounter and the digital encounter.
Aspect Traditional public encounter Digital encounter

Nature and purpose of Exchange of information. Exchange of information.

encounter Service provision. Service provision.
Control or constraint. Control or constraint.
Communication form and Form: Letter, telephone call, office visit. Form: digital channels (e.g., websites, e-mail, IP telephony or video, chat, social
setting media, mobile apps, etc.).
Typical setting (place): in a citizen's home, a government Typical setting (place): anywhere with internet access.
office, or an institutional building.
Central actors involved Public official (executive or administrative personnel) and Self-service for citizens downplays the role of the public official. The public official
citizen. can be completely replaced by digital technology. Providers and designers of
technology are influential actors.
Initiation, duration, and scope Can be initiated by either actor (public official or citizen). Can be initiated by either actor (public official or citizen), though typically by the
citizen. Initiation may also be automated, without the involvement of human actors.
Typically restricted to office hours. Can differ along longitudinal and lateral dimensions (regarding e.g., frequency and
Can differ along longitudinal and lateral dimensions impact on citizen's life).
(regarding e.g., frequency and impact on citizen's life).

their efficiency is another driving force behind digitalization of public (face-to-face) meeting being required has somewhat changed, with di-
services. Hence, this development is fueled by the intent to create easier gitalization enabling services that were previously unthinkable. This is
encounters for citizens and more efficient encounters for government apparent in the growing number of digital medical consultations (the
organizations (Axelsson, Melin, & Lindgren, 2013). Thus, this concept Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, 2018), where the pa-
refers to a heterogeneous phenomenon that varies in complexity and tient can consult with medical staff through video-based conversations
can be used for different purposes. In practice and research, digital and receive prescriptions for medication. Not that long ago, it was
public services are associated with multiple different terms, including e- unthinkable for medical staff to prescribe medication without a phy-
government service, e-service, public e-service, digital service, e-public- sical meeting with the patient. Through applications with secure
service, and website channel (Lindgren & Jansson, 2013). Our appli- identification and video conferencing solutions, the entire service pro-
cation of the term ‘digital public service’ encompasses all of these terms. cess of consulting medical staff can be digitalized. In Scandinavia and
In the subsections below, we present the results of our hermeneutic beyond, the dawn of fully automated processes and systems is also
literature review following the four aforementioned aspects of the apparent, wherein the entire service is provided digitally without the
public encounter. An overview of the main characteristics of the tra- direct involvement of public officials (Wihlborg, Larsson, & Hedström,
ditional public encounter and the digital encounter is provided in 2016). With interconnected systems and better algorithms in place,
Table 1. automated digital public services have also been observed, wherein the
system makes a formal decision and immediately communicates the
decision to the user (Wihlborg et al., 2016). This development creates
4.1. Understanding the nature and purpose of the digital public encounter opportunities for more advanced uses of public service provision
through citizen self-service.
In the literature, we find empirical examples of how digital public Goodsell (1981) presents tax collection and imprisonment as ex-
services are used to serve all three purposes presented by Goodsell amples of the last purpose of public encounters; control and constraint.
(1981); either alone, or in combination. The degree of interactivity and Indeed, in Scandinavia and elsewhere, citizens declare their taxes
technical complexity of digital public services vary from clearly de- through digital services. Another example is online meetings between
limited and rather straightforward systems to large and highly complex public officials and citizens that receive various forms of government-
systems (Jansen & Ølnes, 2016; Lindgren & Melin, 2017). To date, most sponsored financial support, where the citizen might be required to
digital public services have been designed to mimic their analogue report job search activities to receive continued support. Moreover,
predecessors (e.g., digital versions of paper-based forms (Heeks, 2006)). electronic surveillance through bracelets is another example of digital
In fact, this is the most frequent purpose of digital public services services used for the control and constraint of citizens. The Chinese
(Eurostat, 2017). However, variation exists in the degree of human social credit system is a fourth example of digital public services being
involvement in digital public service provision. The service might ap- used to both control and constraint citizens' behavior (Liang, Das,
pear as being completely digital from the citizen's point of view, though Kostyuk, & Hussain, 2018). The type of social credit system im-
most types of digital public services retain public official involvement plemented in China is enabled through a combination of various in-
in the service process for preparing cases and making formal decisions terconnected technologies, where the ability to generate and analyze
on service eligibility. For this reason, digital public services have pre- large amounts of citizen data is one of the system's key components. In
viously been discussed in terms of being mere mediators of public ser- fact, new and upcoming opportunities for digitalization of public ser-
vices (Lindgren & Jansson, 2013), meaning that these systems provide vice provision associated with data mining, machine learning, sensor
citizens access to public services, though do not provide the actual technology, and service automation carry the potential to shorten the
service itself (Lindgren & Jansson, 2013). Using Goodsell's (1981) ca- lead time of services, increase transparency in their processes, and offer
tegories, this can be compared with the exchange of information. seamless service provision across organizations (European Commission,
However, with emergent digital technologies, digital public services 2016; Matheus et al., 2018). On one hand, by generating and analyzing
no longer merely exchange information. In other words, the purposes large amounts of citizen data, these emerging digital technologies can
for digitalization have shifted over time to include providing public ser- create public services in which citizens' interactions with public au-
vices. This implies that the entire service process is supplied through the thorities is simple, rapid, secure, and free from corruption. On the other
digital channel, with examples including online applications for certi- hand, the very same advancements in technology can be used for ra-
ficates and video-based meetings with public officials. In Scandinavia, dically different purposes, such as limiting access to public services,
health care is provided as a public service and digitalization has opened restricting and controlling citizens' behavior, and surveilling citizens'
up new venues for doctor-patient interactions. Interestingly, with the movements both offline and online (Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Madsen
increased use of digital services in general, the perception of a physical

430
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

et al., 2014). We claim that these emerging technologies are neither their government (Madsen & Kræmmergaard, 2015b).
good nor bad, but that public organizations' application of these tech- Pollitt (2012) states that changing technologies in public service
nologies can significantly affect citizens' lives, either positively or ne- provision changes the role and tasks for both the public official and the
gatively. We perceive this double nature of digital public services as a public service user. The public official, instead of having tasks revolving
problem area that our research community must study further. around face-to-face meetings, may be faced with tasks that involve
processing information at a computer, where the citizen served is dis-
4.2. Understanding the digital public encounter's communication form(s) tanced and anonymized. The public official can also become a support
and setting(s) function by teaching and helping citizens with self-service applications
(Pors, 2015). More importantly, the traditional case worker may be
According to Goodsell (1981), the public encounter can take place fully replaced by technology. The automation of administrative pro-
in different settings and through different communication forms. The cesses is increasingly perceived as a way to make public administrations
most obvious effect of digital public services on the public encounter is more effective and efficient. We have the technology in place to auto-
that internet-based technologies enable new channels for communica- mate digital public services to a larger extent than today, and the legal
tion. Prior to the introduction of digital public services, this interaction frameworks currently hindering these implementations are slowly
was primarily performed in person, by letter, or by telephone. Goodsell being rewritten in Scandinavia, and elsewhere, to enable further au-
(1981) treats computers and digital technology as a part of the internal tomation (Busch, 2018). Although automated public services can yield
administrative processes. Since the 1960s, public sector organizations benefits, previous research in this area also calls for caution. Automa-
have been keen to adopt new technology to organize their work in more tion of public services have been found to exclude groups of citizens
effective and efficient manners (Pieterson, Ebbers, & Madsen, 2017), from access to public service, and may ultimately undermine the le-
such as storing and retrieving citizen data in shared databases. Addi- gitimacy of the organization providing the service (Wihlborg et al.,
tional functionalities have been added over time, and today, internet- 2016). The primary concern regarding public service provision auto-
based technologies can facilitate communication and interaction mation concerns cases wherein case worker discretion (cf. Lipsky,
through various channels (e.g., digital post, e-mail, digital forms, chat, 2010) is used to prepare a case and make formal decisions on service
IP telephony, mobile applications, etc.). Moreover, citizens can submit eligibility. For example, for many social services, legal frameworks
information through online forms, resembling the exchange of physical must be interpreted in relation to each particular case in order to assess
letters by the mailing of written forms to a public organization. In- service eligibility. This implies that decision-making regarding service
formation on various public services is now accessible from most de- eligibility often involves some type of discretion on the part of public
vices with an internet connection, and citizens can search for in- officials (Lipsky, 2010). It remains unclear if this type of public service
formation without interacting with public officials or visiting a physical can and should be digitized. Some scholars warn that automation of this
location. Thus, digitalization of public service provision has changed type of service might create public services that are unnecessarily ex-
the forms of citizen and public official communication. What is inter- clusive for ‘atypical’ citizens (cf. Wihlborg et al., 2016); there is a risk
esting about digitized public services is that they also change the setting that these systems are designed in a way that implicitly reinforces the
of citizen and public official interaction. norms of some actors in society and excludes others. Automation is also
In the recent past, public service provision was very much asso- thought to lead to more interesting work content for case workers, and
ciated with visiting an office at a particular time to meet with a parti- there are examples of how automation is used for so-called “easy pro-
cular public official. E-government solutions in the form of digital cesses”, leaving the cases requiring more discretion to case workers
public services have changed the setting of the public encounter from a (Busch & Henriksen, 2018). However, this strategy can also backfire.
public official's office, to a technical device. For example, in For example, the automation of simple cases at one Swedish agency led
Scandinavia, applications for parental benefit can be made online. to higher stress levels among employees (Giritli Nygren, Axelsson, &
Typically, the assessment of service eligibility is made automatically by Melin, 2014). Due to automation of simple cases, some case workers
the digital system. Only in deviant cases are public officials involved in were laid off, while the remaining personnel were left to resolve deviant
the service process. For most parents in Scandinavia, the public service and difficult cases (Giritli Nygren et al., 2014).
of applying and being granted parents' allowance is completely auto- When attempting to understand digital public service provision, it is
mated and thus resembles internet banking. This type of change is important to observe that the public official is no longer only a human,
discussed by Pollitt (2012) in terms of digitalization changing the place but can also be an artefact. This aspect of digital public services is a
of public service provision; a change for which the consequences are potential problem area that requires further study. The public official
not well understood. What are the consequences of the interaction serving as a programmed system—as opposed to a human actor with
between citizens and their government being detached from the tradi- whom citizens can discuss and negotiate public services—calls for a
tional place of government and moving into citizens' homes and de- reinterpretation of the asymmetrical relationship between the citizen
vices? According to Pollitt (2012, p. 3), the privatization of public and the public official. If the citizen is interacting with automated
services—in combination with the virtualization of citizen-government systems, where algorithms make decisions, the asymmetrical power
relationships—has made the setting of citizens' interactions with the relationship might become even more asymmetrical. For the citizen, it
government unclear and “...very little thinking—academic or otherwi- can become difficult to know where to turn to obtain an explanation of
se—seems to have been addressed to this issue”. what a particular decision means, and it may be impossible to negotiate
the decision. Human public officials, who are part of the process, can
4.3. Understanding the actors involved in the digital public encounter (at best) help translate the situation. However, strictly programmed
systems can (again, at best) reduce inequalities by treating all citizens
The traditional public encounter is a dyadic interaction with clear equally.
and scripted roles played by the citizen and the public official Furthermore, new technologies change the public service user
(Goodsell, 1981). This division also holds true for most digital public (Pollitt, 2012). Indeed, digital public services have the potential to in-
services. However, the roles appear to change in relation to digital crease access to public services for citizens who have previously found
public services. For traditional public encounters, as described by it difficult to interact with the public. Citizens confined to their homes
Goodsell (1981), the public official is a human professional that the due to disability or illness can interact with the government by them-
citizen interacts with, either directly or indirectly. However, for the selves without representation by others when using digital services
most extreme and archetypical digital public service, citizens are ex- (Pollitt, 2012). However, others may be excluded from public service
pected to serve themselves using the digital channel for interacting with access by the very same technology (cf. the digital divide). Chiefly,

431
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

citizens can perform self-service through a digital public service if (1) automated systems for administrating road tolls have been im-
they know that the particular service exists; (2) they know how to plemented. Systems that can scan license plates have been placed in
search for it (this requires digital and administrative skills such as some of the larger cities, and when a car is driven by a particular sensor,
knowing the official name of the service); (3) they have a digital ID or a bill is automatically sent to the citizen registered as the car's owner.
other means to identify themselves; and (4) the 24/7 access works for This technology has required several government agencies to have in-
the online interaction and no offline support is needed. Thus, many terconnected their citizen registers. After implementation, little or no
skills are required of the citizen using these digital services (cf. action is required from public officials, and the citizen simply has to pay
Grönlund, Hatakka, & Ask, 2007), but not all citizens can or want to the arriving bill. The system has been well accepted, as the majority of
develop these skills. However, citizens equipped with such skills and citizens appreciate not having to stop their cars to pay the toll, though
resources are given new and more flexible ways of interacting with concerns have been raised concerning the surveillance and registration
public officials and the government. In line with this argument, Pors of citizen behavior.
(2015, p. 617) concludes that “managing and empowering citizens is The concepts of duration and scope, discussed by Goodsell (1981) as
the core task of frontline work, and how public administration is dis- the public encounter's longitudinal and lateral dimensions (based on
placed into the citizen's private sphere for the purpose of creating an Lefton & Rosengren, 1966), are particularly worthy of further in-
efficient, digitized society”. We view these potential shifts in skill sets vestigation. E-government studies have been criticized for ignoring the
required by citizens to orient themselves among public services as a nature of the service in question and treating these services as generic
potential problem area that our research community must investigate phenomena (Hofmann et al., 2012; Madsen et al., 2014). Scholars have
further. attempted to differentiate between different types of digital public
These role changes also motivate the introduction of another group service (e.g. Jansen & Ølnes, 2016; Lenk, 2002; Lindgren & Melin,
of actors that have not been previously discussed—the actors designing 2017), but have yet to fully capture the longitudinal and lateral di-
and providing the actual technology enabling digital public services. mensions of the public encounter. The longitudinal dimension—or
When digital public services mediate the interaction between citizens duration of the encounter—covers the time span over which the en-
and public organizations, and the IT artefact plays the role of the public counter occurs. This dimension has received considerable attention in
official, the provision and design of these systems become particularly our field in the context of digital public services reducing lead times,
important. Goodsell's (1981) framework focuses on citizens and public being one of the main drivers behind many public service digitalization
organizations, and not private service providers. Today, the boundary initiatives. Digitalization and new technologies have been said to
between what is private and public can be less distinct than implied by ‘shrink’ space and time, thereby making these factors less important for
Goodsell's framework; public services are now often provided in the our understanding of public services (Pollitt, 2012). According to Pol-
borderland between public and private (Janssen & Klievink, 2009). The litt, this perception is true in some respects, though far too simple since
organization of public services varies with regard to ownership, finan- the “impact of technological change varies with the particular activities
cing, and production—meaning that public services can be owned and under consideration, the institutional context and culture, legal rules
financed by a public organization but produced by a private organiza- and financial considerations, and many other factors” (2012, pp.
tion (Lindgren & Jansson, 2013). Similarly, the provision of technology 29–30). However, the overall expectations of when to obtain access to
used to create digital public services can vary along these three di- public services and how long you have to wait for a response seem to
mensions. For example, public service provision can be digitized and have changed with the introduction of digital public services. Another
automated by a private company, but owned and financed by a public relevant temporal dimension of digital public services is that the di-
organization. We have identified a potential problem area in the lit- viding line between working time and leisure/private times has become
erature concerning actor transparency and accountability related to the blurred in citizen-government interactions. Previously, citizens had to
digitalization and automation of public services. We lack the necessary take time off from work to meet a public official, while now they can
analytical tools to understand and assess the roles played by those in- conduct their governmental business in their private time. However,
volved in the design, development, procurement, and maintenance of citizens must sometimes still perform these self-service tasks during
these systems, among other factors. How are these actors affecting and office hours, since that is when support functions are accessible.
shaping citizens' access to public services and their interactions with The lateral dimension covers the extent to which an underlying
public organizations? public service influences a citizen's life. Digital public services range
from having a limited influence on a citizen's life to being of great
4.4. Understanding the initiation, duration, and scope of digital public importance to a citizen's economic situation and well-being. Notably,
encounters we identify a potential problem area in the e-government literature
concerning this aspect of digital public services. The notion that the
Upon reviewing the e-government research literature on digital degree of impact of a digital public service on a citizen's life can differ
public services, Goodsell's (1981) concepts of public encounter initia- remarkably is underdeveloped in our field; it is often mentioned, but
tion, duration and scope appear underdeveloped. To be fair, the in- not explicitly treated or investigated. This aspect is partly related
itiation of public services is frequently mentioned in terms of digital to—but is not fully covered—in the discussion on digital divide issues.
public services enabling citizens to initiate a service process anywhere Furthermore, apart from the literature on channel choice (cf. Reddick &
at any time, which implies that digitalization can make citizens' in- Turner, 2012), there remains little explicit discussion regarding the
itiation of these services easier. However, it is currently evident that type of public services that can and should be digitalized, and what
digital public services blur the start and endpoints of the public en- types of service processes citizens require or prefer human participation
counter and challenges our traditional perception of the interaction and support for. As such, the manner in which the digital interface is
between citizens and public authorities. Traditionally, one of the actors related to perceived importance of the service outcome is not easily
involved in a public encounter had to initiate the interaction. Now, understood. For example, recent research (Madsen & Kræmmergaard,
using automated systems with sophisticated data mining and analytics, 2016) illustrates how a digital service for applying for social bene-
where will the public encounter begin and end? Potentially, we can fits—for which the output is of substantial importance for citizens—can
build a technological infrastructure that entails constant data genera- be perceived very differently by individual citizens. In the study
tion that can be used for the purpose of automated public service (Madsen & Kræmmergaard, 2016), some citizens preferred the anon-
provision. With this type of technology, the government can provide ymity of applying for social benefits online and not being publicly ob-
services in a proactive way (Scholta, Mertens, Kowalkiewicz, & Becker, served in their ongoing life crisis, whereas other citizens preferred
2018). A small-scale and current example can be seen in Sweden, where personal contact with a case worker that could help and guide them

432
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

through the public service process. There is a clear gap in the e-gov- worker discretion, power asymmetries, re-skilling, and actor trans-
ernment literature on the lateral aspects of digital public service pro- parency in government decision-making. We also lack an explicit
vision. discussion on the role of the actors responsible for the design and
implementation of the technology used as well as their role in
4.5. How does digitalization of public services affect the public encounter? building and shaping a digital society.
• is a multifaceted phenomenon involving various services and technolo-
Returning to the first research question (How does digitization of gies. Notably, these services are often treated in a generic manner in
public services affect the public encounter?), the overall definition of the the literature. In particular, an explicit treatment and discussion of
public encounter presented by Goodsell (1981, p. 4) “the interaction of the lateral dimensions of these services, that acknowledges digital
citizen and official as they communicate to conduct business” remains public services potentially having various impacts on citizens' lives,
valid within the context of contemporary digitalization. The purposes of remains lacking. Moreover, the often-mentioned lateral dimension
the public encounter have largely remained the same since the in- of public services remains under-theorized in the e-government
troduction of digital public services (i.e., to exchange information, field.
provide public service, and/or control or constrain citizens). However,
the communication forms and settings have changed, and digitalization This summary serves in part as an answer to our second research
has created new and sometimes innovative forms and settings for public question; What are the unaddressed research areas concerning the digita-
encounters that are likely to continue to evolve over time. The changes lization of the public encounter? In this final section, continue to answer
in communication forms and settings have also changed the nature of this research question by presenting a research agenda in the shape of
the actors involved. The discussion presented in this paper concludes three research questions that we believe deserve attention from our
that digital public services changes the dyadic nature of the public community; (1) Man or machine—who is the better public official?; (2)
encounter by changing when, where, and how the interaction can What actors and skills are central for digital public encounters?; (3)
occur, which actors are involved, what each actor does, and the skills What are the actual consequences of digital public services for citizens'
required for all involved actors (see overview in Table 2). quality of life? In a humble manner, this is also our statement on how
we can create a better world (cf. Walsham, 2012) by addressing digi-
5. A research agenda for studies on the digitalization of public talization in relation to the public encounter in a more nuanced manner
services and the digital public encounter by moving beyond the techno-optimistic worldview of wanting to apply
technology and digitalize public service provision just because it is
Digital technologies can improve the quality of life for many people possible.
in our society. However, there is a risk that the aspiration to quickly
improve matters in public organizations through the use of technology 5.1. Man or machine—Who is the better public official?
drives technological developments whose consequences are not yet
properly analyzed. As such, we must be aware that citizens' interactions When attempting to understand the public encounter in a digital
with these digital artefacts will determine if they obtain access to the setting, it is important to acknowledge that the public official can no
right public services, which ultimately influences their views of public longer be understood as merely a human, as the public official can also
organizations. Ultimately, this affects the shaping of public organiza- be (represented by) an artefact (Pieterson et al., 2017). This calls for a
tions and the society as a whole. To sum up our discussion on identified reinterpretation of the relationship between the citizen and the public
problem areas, the digitalization of public services; official. We encourage scholars in our community to further investigate
what these changes in actors entail for the power balance between ci-
• can be designed to make citizens' lives easier by providing services tizens and the public, and, in turn, citizens' trust in their government
in a more convenient manner. They can also be designed for new (e.g., in terms of legitimacy and accountability (cf. Wihlborg et al.,
types of control and constraint over citizen behavior and movement 2016)). Furthermore, in relation to the digitalization of public services
(e.g., using technologies that can generate and analyze large bodies and particularly the automation of these services, we can see signs
of citizen data). This double nature of digital public services is not well of—and aim to caution against—a new and digital era of Taylorism
understood. The e-government research community again risks (Taylor, 2004). Office work can be broken down into parts, with each
being overly optimistic regarding the potential benefits of public part being divided and taken care of in the most efficient manner—-
service digitalization by omitting the potentially negative effects for either by a person or a machine (Ebbers et al., 2008). This ultimately
citizen integrity and privacy. leads us to the ongoing discussion on the qualities of man and machine.
• changes the place of citizen-government interaction. The meaning and People and machines have different characteristics and qualities that
impact of the place of government is not explicitly dealt with in the can be utilized for different purposes; with new advancements in
e-government field. A research gap exists concerning how this technology, these differences have become increasingly blurred.
change in setting affects citizens' perception of their government, Therefore, digital public services must also be discussed in terms of
and, in turn, the perceived accountability and legitimacy of gov- what tasks we desire to hand over to technology and what tasks should
ernment. be performed by humans—even when new technology can perform a
• changes the casting and roles of the actors involved. A clear research certain task in a more efficient or effective manner. For example, we
gap exists concerning what these changes entail in terms of case observe the need to take the issue of bureaucrats' discretion seriously

Table 2
Summary of how digitalization of public services affects the public encounter.
Aspect Changes enabled by the digitalization of public services

Nature and purpose of encounter Digitalization facilitates the automatic exchange of information and citizen self-service.
Communication form and setting Digitalization provides additional communication channels.
The ‘place’ of government changes from an official setting to almost anywhere, but especially to citizens' homes.
Central actors involved Digitalization changes the roles of the actors involved and adds new actors related to the technology that can affect the interaction.
Initiation, duration, and scope Digitalization enables 24/7 access to government services and changes citizens' expectations of government response time. Digitalization also
enables proactive services in which the initiation is performed by the technology.

433
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

(Busch & Henriksen, 2018; Lipsky, 2010), in an attempt to understand lateral dimensions of public encounters) can even become intrusive or
what this discretion implies for the digitalization of public services. In controlling. We identify a great need to continuously investigate the
particular, we call for interdisciplinary studies of the social and societal consequences of such technologies for the nature and purpose of public
consequences of increased digitalization, while a primary concern for encounters in the future. In this context, scholars in the e-government
future research should involve ethical concerns and challenges related community have an important role to play. For each new technological
to increased automation of public services, governments' use of internet development related to the public encounter, we call for e-government
of things (IoT) technology, and more efficient data mining tools. For researchers and practitioners to return to Walsham's (2012) question
example, can artificial intelligence be used to better understand and and ask: Are we making a better world with ICTs in general and in
possibly mimic bureaucrats' decision-making and discretion, or is this digitalization of public services in particular? If so, how and for whom?
type of decision-making something that should be left to human actors?
6. Limitations and concluding comments
5.2. What actors and skills are central for digital public encounters?
In this paper, we illustrated the importance of greater awareness
The discussion in Section 4 concludes that digital public services regarding changes that the digitalization of public services brings for
changes the dyadic nature of the public encounter by changing when, the interactions between citizens and the government. As stated in the
where, and how the interaction can occur, what each actor does, and research approach section, this paper did not seek to identify and dis-
the skills required of all involved actors (cf. Grönlund et al., 2007; cuss all aspects of public service digitalization or completely cover the
Pollitt, 2012; Pors, 2015). This raises the question of who the central interaction between citizens and public officials. Instead, we strived to
actors in a public encounter are in a digitized society, and what skills identify important and relevant aspects of digitalization and the public
these actors require (cf. Grönlund et al., 2007). Can governments use encounter that changes our understanding and taken for granted view
digital services as a means to educate and empower citizens and make on the interaction between citizens and the government.
them more aware of services they are entitled to and thereby teach This paper is the result of a hermeneutic literature review aimed at
citizens the skills they require for success in a digital society? Changes expanding our understanding of how the digitalization of public ser-
in the nature of the encounter also raises the seemingly eternal question vices affects the public encounter. As a methodological approach, this
of whether technological developments result in a de- and re-skilling of hermeneutic literature review focused on the interpretation of meaning
the workforce (cf. Zuboff, 1988). With digital public services, we might through an iterative search for comprehensive and insightful arguments
end up in a societal situation wherein fewer case workers are needed, aimed at developing our understanding of the particular topic at hand
with IT professionals instead shaping the public service encounter (cf. (Boell & Cecez- Kecmanovic, 2014). Concerning the quality of this
Hood & Dixon, 2015). In this scenario, who will carry the knowledge work, following the hermeneutic tradition, the presented literature re-
necessary to understand the nature of public service provision—the IT view and proposed research agenda can be discussed in terms of (1) its
professional, or the citizen? Or will unforeseen new actors perform this internal cohesion (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; (2) whether the work is
task? Will this scenario lead to a situation where the citizen must be supported by ‘facts’ from the interpreted material (Alvesson &
their own case worker (cf. Madsen & Kræmmergaard, 2016), or will the Sköldberg, 2009); and (3) whether the work is communicated in a way
required knowledge be embedded in the technology? In summation, we that makes it possible for the reader to follow how the researcher ar-
call for further research on the potential workforce consequences and rived at the insights presented (Klein & Myers, 1999). Essentially, in-
what roles can and should be played by the actors providing these stead of discussing the quality of the work in terms of validation, the
technologies. Increased effort should be placed into investigating the logic of argumentation for the interpretation should be discussed
role and influence of technology providers for the public encounter. (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). The arguments and research agenda
This group of professionals has been invisible in the discussion until proposed in this paper are based on critical assessments of existing
now. With increased digitalization of public services, the actors de- knowledge from the e-government field on the digitalization of public
signing this technology inevitably become shapers of our society services using Goodsell's (1981) conceptualization of the public en-
(Bovens & Zouridis, 2002). This represents a new role for IT profes- counter as an analytical tool for mapping and classifying literature. The
sionals that these individuals might not even be aware of having. What search and analysis of literature was performed in an iterative manner
are the risks involved in allowing IT professionals to dictate how gov- that was continued until findings could be synthesized in a coherent
ernment organizations organize their processes and interact with citi- and well-supported line of argumentation, thereby reaching saturation
zens? in the process. We have continuously supported our arguments with
empirical and theoretical examples and strived for transparency in our
5.3. What are the consequences of digital public services on citizens' quality argumentation. Ultimately, however, the assessment of whether the
of life? argumentation is coherent, well-supported, and logical must be made
by the reader.
Technological developments will continue to create new commu- A potential critique against this type of literature review and theo-
nication forms and settings for public encounters into the future, and retical development is that is not sufficiently ‘objective’, and thus at risk
the dividing line between the physical and the digital world is likely to of being biased by the researcher's preunderstanding. The hermeneutic
become increasingly blurred (Pieterson et al., 2017). We particularly approach rejects the notion of researcher bias in the traditional sense;
wish to stress the need for critical studies investigating the ethical instead, it is acknowledged that the researcher's preunderstanding
concerns triggered by increased automation of public services, gov- shapes the analysis (Klein & Myers, 1999). Furthermore, it is recognized
ernments' use of IoT technology, and governments' use of data mining that the researcher cannot assume a neutral stance (Orlikowski &
and machine learning in various contexts. We also call for meta-studies Baroudi, 1991; Walsham, 1995). Instead, the researcher's prejudice,
investigating the outcomes and consequences of digital public services values, and interests always shape the manner in which s/he under-
on citizens' quality of life. As illustrated in the previous sections, even stands the world and the people in it. For these reasons, we have strived
seemingly straightforward systems can raise ethical issues regarding to make our preunderstanding and intellectual bases as transparent as
how data on citizen behavior should be generated and used. Using possible. We who author this paper come from three different countries,
Goodsell's (1981) conceptual framework, it is evident that public en- and have different academic backgrounds. This further enables multiple
counters originally meant for exchanging information can become in- perspectives in the analysis and reduces the risk of unwanted ‘bias’ in
teractions that control or constrain citizen behavior. In turn, this im- the analysis.
plies that services meant to have little impact on citizens' life (cf. the Another potential limitation is set by the choice of the public

434
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

encounter (Goodsell, 1981) as analytical tool. As stated in the metho- practice in a Swedish state agency. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 12(1),
dology section, we could have used alternative concepts as our analy- 112–125.
Goodsell, C. T. (1981). The public encounter and its study. 1981 In C. T. Goodsell (Ed.).
tical point of departure and reached different results. In addition, our The public encounter: Where state and citizen meet (pp. 3–20). Indiana University Press.
choices of practical examples and applications also affected the end Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 611–642.
result of the present paper. As a response to possible criticisms related https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742.
Grimsley, M., & Meehan, A. (2007). e-Government information systems: Evaluation-led
to these limitations, we clarify that we have strived to find important design for public value and client trust. European Journal of Information Systems,
and relevant aspects of digitalization and the public encounter that 16(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000674.
changes our understanding (cf. Whetten, 1989) of the interaction be- Grönlund, Å., Hatakka, M., & Ask, A. (2007). Inclusion in the e-service society–investi-
gating administrative literacy requirements for using e-services. In M. Wimmer, J.
tween citizens and government. The purpose was not to create an ex- Scholl, & Å. Grönlund (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
haustive and objective model for understanding the phenomenon at Electronic Government (pp. 216–227). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/
hand. Instead, we believe to have illustrated that, by investigating di- 10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_19.
Hasenfeld, Y., Rafferty, J. A., & Zald, M. N. (1987). The welfare state, citizenship, and
gitalization of public services in relation to the public encounter, our
bureaucratic encounters. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 387–415. https://doi.
understanding of the interaction between citizens and the government org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002131.
changes slightly. These changes, in turn, bring consequences for how Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing eGovernment. An international text. London:
we should study this phenomenon in the future. It is our hope and as- Sage.
Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philoso-
piration that the research agenda presented here will attract attention phies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2),
from researchers within the e-government field and fuel studies that can 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005.
critically inspect and discuss the consequences of the ongoing digitali- Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of elec-
tronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government
zation of public services. Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004.
Henman, P. (2010). Governing electronically: e-government and the reconfiguration of public
Acknowledgements administration, policy, and power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organisations,
and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
An early draft of this text was presented at the 2018 Scandinavian Hofmann, S., Räckers, M., & Becker, J. (2012). Identifying factors for e-government ac-
Workshop on e-Government; we want to acknowledge and thank our ceptance - a literature review. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS 2012). Orlando, Florida.
colleagues in the Scandinavian e-Government community for valuable Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluating three
feedback on our work. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers decades of reform and change in UK Central Government. Oxford: Oxford University
for their feedback, helping us to improve our thinking and line of ar- Press.
Jansen, A., & Ølnes, S. (2016). The nature of public e-services and their quality dimen-
gument. Lindgren and Melin's participation in this work was in part
sions. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
funded by a research grant from the Swedish Transportation giq.2016.08.005.
Administration. Madsen is employed and financed by the Research Janssen, M., & Klievink, B. (2009). The role of intermediaries in multi-channel service
Center for Government IT, which is a collaboration between the IT delivery strategies. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR),
5(3), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2009070103.
University of Copenhagen and the Danish Ministry for Finance. Katz, D., Gutek, B. A., Kahn, R. L., & Barton, Z. (1975). Bureaucratic encounters: A pilot
study in the evaluation of government services. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research,
References University of Michigan.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating
interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative https://doi.org/10.2307/249410.
research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage
Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2013). Public e-services for agency efficiency and model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/
citizen benefit – Findings from a stakeholder centred analysis. Government Information S0740-624X(01)00066-1.
Quarterly, 30(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.08.002. Lefton, M., & Rosengren, W. R. (1966). Organisations and clients: Lateral and longitudinal
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-government really dimensions. American Sociological Review, 802–810. https://doi.org/10.2307/
have a problem? Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10. 2091659.
1016/j.giq.2014.10.003. Lenk, K. (2002). Electronic service delivery - a driver of public sector modernisation.
Boell, S. K., & Cecez- Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting Information Polity, 7(2,3), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2002-0009.
literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the AIS, 34(12), Liang, F., Das, V., Kostyuk, N., & Hussain, M. M. (2018). Constructing a data-driven so-
257–286. ciety: China's social credit system as a state surveillance infrastructure. Policy &
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How Internet.. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.183.
information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion Lindgren, I., & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual
and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi. framework. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168. 1016/j.giq.2012.10.005.
Busch, P. A. (2018). Conceptualizing digital discretion acceptance in public service pro- Lindgren, I., & Melin, U. (2017). Time to refuel the conceptual discussion on public e-
vision: A policy maker perspective. Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia conference on services – revisiting how e-services are manifested in practice. In M. Janssen, (Ed.).
information systems (PACIS), Yokohama, Japan. Proceedings of the 16th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference on Electronic Government,
Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review Springer, Berlin, Heidelberghttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64677-0_8.
of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public service
3233/IP-170050. (30th ann. ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Ebbers, W. E., Janssen, M., & Van Deursen, A. (2016). Impact of the digital divide on e- Madsen, C., & Kræmmergaard, P. (2016). Warm experts in the age of mandatory e-gov-
government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government ernment: Interaction among Danish single parents regarding online application for
Information Quarterly, 33(4), 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.007. public benefits. Electronic Journal of E-government, 14(1).
Ebbers, W. E., Pieterson, W. J., & Noordman, H. N. (2008). Electronic government: Madsen, C.Ø., Berger, J., & Phythian, M. (2014). The development in leading e-govern-
Rethinking channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 25(2), ment articles 2001-2010: Definitions, perspectives, scope, research philosophies,
181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.11.003. methods and recommendations: An update of Heeks and Bailur. In Janssen, (Ed.).
European Commission (2016). eGovernment action plan 2016–2020 accelerating the Proceedings of the 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference on Electronic Government
digital transformation of government. Accessed on January 9, 2018, at https://eur- (pp. 17–34). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0179. 44426-9_2.
Eurostat (2017). Key figures on the digital economy and society. Retrieved from http:// Madsen, C.Ø., & Kræmmergaard, P. (2015a). Channel choice: A literature review. In
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/data/database, Accessed Tambouris, (Ed.). Proceedings from the 14th International Conference on Electronic
date: 16 March 2018. Government (pp. 3–18). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
Fountain, J. (2001). Paradoxes of public sector customer service. Governance, 14(1), 319-22479-4_1.
55–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00151. Madsen, C.Ø., & Kræmmergaard, P. (2015b). The efficiency of freedom: Single parents'
Giesbrecht, T., Schwabe, G., & Schenk, B. (2017). Service encounter thinklets: How to domestication of mandatory e-government channels. Government Information
empower service agents to put value co-creation into practice. Information Systems Quarterly, 32(4), 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.008.
Journal, 27(2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12099. Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Maheshwari, D. (2018). Data science empowering the public:
Giritli Nygren, K., Axelsson, K., & Melin, U. (2014). Multi-channel service management in Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart
public sector: Three interpretative frames illustrating e-government and work cities. Government Information Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.006

435
I. Lindgren, et al. Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 427–436

in press. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research commentary—Digital infra-
Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a structures: The missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4),
fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 237–245. https:// 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0318.
doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.04.006. Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional Paper, 2, 1981.
Meuter, M., Ostrom, A., Roundtree, R., & Bitner, M. (2000). Self-service technologies: Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method.
Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.
Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.50.18024. 1995.9.
Moody, G. D., Lowry, P. G., & Galletta, D. F. (2017). It's complicated: Explaining the Walsham, G. (2012). Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on a future
relationship between trust, distrust, and ambivalence in online transaction relation- agenda for the IS field. Journal of Information Technology, 27(2), 87–93. https://doi.
ships using polynomial regression analysis and response surface analysis. European org/10.1057/jit.2012.4.
Journal of Information Systems, 26(4), 379–413. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303- West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen
016-0027-9. attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
Nielsen, P. A., & Persson, J. S. (2017). Useful business cases: Value creation in IS projects. 1540-6210.2004.00343.x.
European Journal of Information Systems, 26(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1057/ Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
s41303-016-0026-x. Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: Wihlborg, E., Larsson, H., & Hedström, K. (2016). The computer says no! – A case study
Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175. on automated decision-making in public authorities. Proceedings from 49th Hawaii
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02647.x. International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer
Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organi- Society.
zations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information systems research, 2(1), Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine. The future of work and power. Oxford:
1–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1. Heinermann Professional Publishing.
Pelet, J. E., & Papadopoulou, P. (2012). The effect of colors of e-commerce websites on
consumer mood, memorization and buying intention. European Journal of Information Ida Lindgren is an assistant professor in Information Systems, Linköping University,
Systems, 21(4), 438–467. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.17. Sweden. She conducts research on information systems development in the public-sector
Piccoli, G. (2016). Triggered essential reviewing: The effect of technology affordances on context. Her work is published in e.g. Government Information Quarterly, Transforming
service experience evaluations. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(6), Government – People, Process, Policy, and in proceedings from several IS conferences and
477–492. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-0019-9. the IFIP Electronic Government conference.
Pieterson, W., Ebbers, W. E., & Madsen, C.Ø. (2017). New channels, new possibilities: a
typology and classification of social robots and their role in multi-channel public
service delivery. In Janssen, (Ed.). Proceedings of the 16th IFIP WG 8.5 International Christian Østergaard Madsen is an assistant professor at the Research Center for
Conference on Electronic Government, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberghttps://doi.org/10. Government IT at the IT University of Copenhagen. His research concerns public digi-
talisation, service design, and multichannel management. He has published in
1007/978-3-319-64677-0_5.
Pollitt, C. (2012). New perspectives on public services: Place and technology. Oxford: Oxford Government Information Quarterly, International Journal of Public Administration in the
University Press. Digital Age, the Electronic Journal of e-Government and the IFIP Electronic Government
Pors, A. S. (2015). Becoming digital–passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy. conference.
Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-
08-2014-0031. Sara Hofmann is an associate professor in Information Systems at the University of
Reddick, C. G., & Turner, M. (2012). Channel choice and public service delivery in Agder, Norway. Her research focuses on digitisation in the public sector, which she has
Canada: Comparing e-government to traditional service delivery. Government published in several conference and journal publications. She has participated in national
Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.03.005. and international research projects on e-government, service science and IT adoption.
Scholta, H., Mertens, W., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Becker, J. (2018). From one-stop shop to
no-stop shop: An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly. Ulf Melin is a full professor in Information Systems, Linköping University, Sweden. His
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.010 in press. research is focused on public sector digitalization. Ulf is active in several IS conferences
Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (2018). Digitala vårdtjänster riktade till and has published in e.g. Government Information Quarterly, Transforming Government
patienter. Kartläggning och uppföljning. Accessed on January 9, 2018, at http:// – People, Process and Policy, International Journal of Electronic Governance,
www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/20984/2018-6-15.pdf. International Journal of Public Information Systems.
Taylor, F. W. (2004). Scientific management. Routledge.

436