[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Digitalisation and Developing a Participatory Culture: Participation, Co-production, Co-destruction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 38))

Abstract

Although governments and public sector organisations are known for being bureaucratic and hierarchic, they are being encouraged to move to models of digital and more participatory governance. This involves the use of digital tools and methods that are able to support active citizen roles, stakeholder participation and co-production. Whilst the focus is on positive outcomes of participation and co-production, the phenomenon of co-destruction is less the focus of research. This chapter therefore presents on the one hand a review of scholarly literature on digital participation and co-production in public sector organisations and how these topics contribute to the development of participatory culture as defined by Jenkins et al. (2015) and, on the other hand, considers the disruptions, errors and mistakes that may arise through participation and collaboration. The themes presented here provide an analysis of participation, co-production and co-destruction in the context of digital governance and highlight the importance of these themes as part of a research agenda as developed by Charalabidis and Lachana (2020).

Chapter submitted to Area C. Perspectives and Future Research Directions for Digital Governance.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 87.50
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 109.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
GBP 109.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aichholzer, G, Kubicek, H, & Torres, L. (2015). Evaluating e-participation: Frameworks, practice, evidence (vol. 19). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åkesson, M, & Edvardsson, B. (2008). Effects of e-government on service design as perceived by employees. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 5, 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520810898839

  • Alford, J. (2016). Co-production, interdependence and publicness: Extending public service-dominant logic. Public Management Review, 18(5), 673–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austrian Working Group on E-Democracy. (2008). Positionspapier zu e-democracy und e-participation in österreich (v.1.0.0.0-2008041). Retrieved from http://reference.e-government.gv.at/uploads/media/EDEM-1-0-0-20080525.pdf. Accessed 05.07.2020.

  • Barbosa, A. F., Pozzebon, M., & Diniz, E. H. (2013). Rethinking government performance assessment from a citizen perspective. Public Administration, 91(3), 744–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02095.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes Jr, W. S., & Williams, B. N. (2012). Applying technology to enhance citizen engagement with city and county government. The state of citizen participation in America, pp. 163–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertot, J, Estevez, E, & Janowski, T. (2016). Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public service innovation framework. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolivar, M. P. R. (2017). Governance models for the delivery of public services through the web 2.0 technologies: A political view in large Spanish municipalities. Social Science Computer Review, 35(2), 203–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolivar, M. P. R. (2018). User centric services under the web 2.0 era. Coproduction, execution and efficiency of public services. In S. Saeed, T. Ramayah, & Z. Mahmood (Eds.), User centric e-government: Challenges and opportunities (Vol. 39, pp. 137–158). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T, & Löfler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, D. H. M. (2009). How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. Retrieved from London: Accessed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. Public Management Review, 8(4), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services. Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Breit, E., & Salomon, R. (2015). Making the technological transition—citizens’ encounters with digital pension services. Social Policy & Administration, 49(3), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundeskanzleramt, & Österreich, P. D. (2017). Behörden im netz: Das österreichische e-government abc (ISBN 978-3-9503782-2-1). Retrieved from https://www.digitales.oesterreich.gv.at/documents/22124/30428/E-Government-ABC.pdf/b552f453-7ae9-4d12-9608-30da166d710b. Accessed 05.07.2020.

  • Burgess, J., Marwick, A., & Poell, T. (2017). The sage handbook of social media. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charalabidis, Y, & Lachana, Z (2020) Towards a science base for digital governance. Paper presented at the The 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatfield, A. T., Scholl, H. J. J., & Brajawidagda, U. (2013). Tsunami early warnings via twitter in government: Net-savvy citizens’ co-production of time-critical public information services. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • City of Vienna. (2016). Digitale agenda wien. Retrieved from https://www.wien.gv.at/digitaleagenda/das-nervensystem-der-smarten-stadt.html Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • City of Vienna. (2020). Sag’s wien - die app für ihre anliegen an die stadt. Retrieved from https://www.wien.gv.at/sagswien/. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • Clark, B. Y., Brudney, J. L., & Jang, S. G. (2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cluley, V., Parker, S., & Radnor, Z. (2020). New development: Expanding public service value to include dis/value. Public Money & Management, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordella, A., Paletti, A., Chun, S. A., Adam, N. R., & Noveck, B. (2018). Icts and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 23(2), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2017). Tallinn declaration on egovernment at the ministerial meeting during Estonian presidency of the council of the EU on 6 October 2017. Tallinn Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ministerial-declaration-egovernment-tallinn-declaration. Accessed 05.07.2020.

  • Criado, J. I., & Rojas-Martín, F. (2016). Adopting social media in the local level of government: Towards a public administration 2.0? In Social media and local governments (pp. 135–152). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearing, E., & Trattnigg, R. (2008). Standards der öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung. Retrieved from http://www.partizipation.at/fileadmin/media_data/Downloads/Standards_OeB/standards_der_oeffentlichkeitsbeteiligung_2008_druck.pdf. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • Deutsche Bundesregierung. (2014). Digitale agenda 2014–2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, H., Sullivan, H., & Head, G. (2015). The future of the public service workforce: A dialogue. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(1), 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, K., & Edelman, D. (2015). What ‘digital’ really means. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/what-digital-really-means. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • Duijn, M., Rijnveld, M., & van Hulst, M. (2010). Meeting in the middle: Joining reflection and action in complex public sector projects. Public Money & Management, 30(4), 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory, 16(3), 467–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelmann, N., & Mergel, I. (2021). Co-production of digital public services in Austrian public administrations. Administrative Sciences, 11(1), 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelmann, N., & Parycek, P. (2009). Eparticipation and eDemocracy in Austria: Projects and tenets for an eDemocracy strategy. Paper presented at the Advances in eGovernment & eGovernance, Proceedings 1st International Conference on eGovernment & eGovernance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelmann, N., Parycek, P., Krimmer, R., Buchsbaum, T., & Pieber, L. (2018). Eastern partnership eDemocracy—politics in the digital age. Retrieved from Krems, Austria: Accessed.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2003). Directive 2003/35/EC (2003). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4a80a6c9-cdb3-4e27-a721-d5df1a0535bc.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2020). Berlin declaration on digital society and value-based digital government. Berlin: BMI Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/berlin-declaration-digital-society-and-value-based-digital-government. Accessed 02.03.2021.

  • European Commission. (2021). Public sector modernisation for EU recovery and resilience. (JRC124111). Digital Economy Unit, Joint Research Centre Accessed Directive 2003/35/ec (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisahn, A. (2002). Demokratie und öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung (Vol. 84). Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flak, L. S., & Rose, J. (2005). Stakeholder governance: Adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984, 2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • freie Hansestadt Bremen. (2014). Informationstechnologie strategie der freien hansestadt bremen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawłowski, R. (2018). Co-production as a tool for realisation of public services. Public Governance/Zarzadzanie Publiczne, 44 71–81. https://doi.org/10.15678/ZP.2018.44.2.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Governance International. (2020). Co-design: Working with citizens and front-line staff for better services. Retrieved from http://www.govint.org/co-design/. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • Government Offices of Sweden. (2011). Ict for everyone—A digital agenda for Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granier, B., & Hiroko, K. (2016). How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese “smart communities.” Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 21(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, C. (2013). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0253-8

  • Greve, C. (2015) Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 49–65.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0253-8

  • Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermanns, H. (2017). The digital political communication of South Korean politicians. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 9(2), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijboom, N., Van Den Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Nielsen, M., & Millard, J. (2009). Public services 2.0: The impact of social computing on public services. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H., Ito, M., & Boyd, D. (2015). Participatory culture in a networked era: A conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. JBh. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media, 53(1), 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2016). Innovation and the state: Thinking of government as “technology maker” and implications for public administration research. Administrative Culture, 17(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, G. F., Swar, B., Lee, S. K. J. S. S. C. R. (2014). Social media risks and benefits: A public sector perspective. 32(5), 606–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Amorim, M., Bhattacharya, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Esain, A. E. (2016). Reverse exchange: Classifications for public service SCM. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 2, 216. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2015-0041

  • Lember, V. (2017). The increasing role of digital technologies in co-production. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation engaging citizens in public services. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lember, V. (2018). The increasing role of digital technologies in co-production and co-creation. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation (p. 115). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lember, V., Brandsen, T., & Tõnurist, P. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, I., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2018). Digital government transformation: A case illustrating public e-service development as part of public sector transformation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löffler, E. (2020). Co-production of public services and outcomes. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2018). Assessing the effect of co-production on outcomes, service quality and efficiency. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 269–280). Taylor & Francis.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K. F., & Jinnett, K. J. (2001). A new framework for building participation in the arts. Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, A. (2014). New media and the coproduction of safety: An empirical analysis of Dutch practices. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, A. (2016). Coproduction as a structural transformation of the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(6), 596–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misuraca, G., Barcevičius, E., & Codagnone, C. (2019). Exploring digital government transformation in the EU. Analysis of the state of the art review of literature. (EUR 29987 EN). Luxembourg: European Commission Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Egidijus-Barcevicius/publication/348369900_Exploring_Digital_Government_Transformation_in_the_EU/links/5ffb101645851553a035e0ac/Exploring-Digital-Government-Transformation-in-the-EU.pdf. Accessed 20.03.2021.

  • Moon, M. J. (2018). Evolution of co-production in the information age: Crowdsourcing as a model of web-based co-production in Korea. Policy and Society, 37(3), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1376475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • mySociety. (2020). Fixmystreet.Com. Retrieved from https://www.mysociety.org/community/fixmystreet-in-the-uk/. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham, C. (2009). Editorial: Consumerism in public services. Public Money & Management, 29(2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540960902767923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuizen, W, & Meijer, A. (2021). Ict-based co-production: A public values perspective. In The palgrave handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes (pp. 577–594). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2019). Going digital: Shaping policies, improving lives. Retrieved from Paris: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264312012-en.pdf?expires=1594733801&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=3B42C9E536D689E2C6E19AED0C0EBE78. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • OECD. (2020). The digitalisation of science, technology and innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Flynn, J. (2021). Where to for public value? Taking stock and moving on. International Journal of Public Administration, 44, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1884696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Government Partnership. (2020). Open government partnership. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2012). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, S31–S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 6, 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Percy, S. L. (1978). The public service production process: A framework for analyzing police services. Policy Studies Journal, 7, 381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotopoulos, P., Klievink, B., & Cordella, A. (2019). Editorial, public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parycek, P. (2019). Integrierte partizipation im policy cycle. Paper presented at the DigiPart Kick-Off, Impact Hub, Vienna. https://www.oeffentlicherdienst.gv.at/verwaltungsinnovation/oeffentlichkeitsbeteiligung/Leitfaden_DigiPart_KickOff_Peter_Parycek_Keynote_24012020.pdf?7ciyee

  • Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2014). Collective action and the sustainability of co-production. Public Management Review, 16(3), 383–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radnor, Z., Osborne, S. P., Kinder, T., & Mutton, J. (2013). Operationalizing co-production in public services delivery: The contribution of service blueprinting. Public Management Review, 16(3), 402–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randma-Liiv, T., & Vooglaid, K. (2019). Success factors for organizing and administering e-participation. Retrieved from https://tropico-project.eu/download/d5-3-policy-brief-on-success-factors-for-organizing-and-administering-e-participation/?wpdmdl=1223&refresh=5f0dada701e921594731943. Accessed 14.07.2020.

  • Rich, R. C. (1981). Interaction of the voluntary and governmental sectors: Toward an understanding of the coproduction of municipal services. Administration Society, 13(1), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. C. (2015). The age of direct citizen participation. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, C. (2017). E-government in europa – warum es in österreich gut funktioniert. Public Governance, Herbst/Winter, 2017, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, B. (2012). Co-production: Option or obligation? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(3), 314–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2001). Applying stakeholder theory to e-government. In Towards the e-society (pp. 735–747). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 39(2), 145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrat, O. (2017). Innovation in the public sector. In Knowledge solutions (pp. 559–568). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, E. B. (2012). Does local government matter?: How urban policies shape civic engagement (Vol. 19). U of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silvestre, H. C., Catarino, J. R., & de Araújo, J. F. F. E. (2016). Evidence of co-production in public service provision: The case of the administrative arbitration centre in portugal. Evidencias De La Coproducción En La Prestación De Servicios Públicos: El Caso Del Centro De Arbitraje Administrativo En Portugal., 51(4), 355–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2018). Co-Initiation of Collaborative Innovation in Urban Spaces., 54(2), 388–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416651936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strokosch, K., & Osborne, S. P. (2020). Co-experience, co-production and co-governance: an ecosystem approach to the analysis of value creation. Policy & Politics, 48(3), 425–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szkuta, K., Pizzicannella, R., & Osimo, D. (2014). Collaborative approaches to public sector innovation: A scoping study. Telecommunications Policy, 38(5), 558–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trischler, J., Dietrich, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). Co-design: From expert-to user-driven ideas in public service design. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1595–1619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trischler, J., & Scott, D. R. (2015). Designing public services: The usefulness of three service design methods for identifying user experiences. Public Management Review, 18(5), 718–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1028017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trischler, J., & Scott, D. R. (2016). Designing public services: The usefulness of three service design methods for identifying user experiences. Public Management Review, 18(5), 718–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1028017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1083–1101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wamsler, C. (2016). From risk governance to city-citizen collaboration: Capitalizing on individual adaptation to climate change. Environmental Policy & Governance, 26(3), 184–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Procter, R., Hinder, S., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). Co-production in practice: How people with assisted living needs can help design and evolve technologies and services. Implementation Science, 10(1), 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiewiora, A., Keast, R., & Brown, K. (2016). Opportunities and challenges in engaging citizens in the co-production of infrastructure-based public services in Australia. Public Management Review, 18(4), 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.999820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B., Kang, S., & Johnson, J. (2016). (co)-contamination as the dark side of co-production: Public value failures in co-production processes. Public Management Review, 18(5), 692–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, I., & Shearer, H. (2011). Appraisng public value: Past, present and futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, M. H., Douglas, G. G. A., Dunstan, E., & Pavey, S. (2003). Evaluation of pocklington day services in the west midlands: Final research report for thomas pocklington trust. Retrieved from Birmingham: Accessed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, B., Daiser, P., & Binkowska, B. (2018). E-participation: A strategic framework. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, B., & Langer, P. (2016). Public multichannel management—An integrated framework of off- and online multichannel government services. Public Organization Review, 17(4), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0356-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for E-Governance and Administration, Danube University Krems, Danube, Austria

    Noella Edelmann

Authors
  1. Noella Edelmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noella Edelmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Aegean, Samos, Greece

    Yannis Charalabidis

  2. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Leif Skiftenes Flak

  3. Danube University Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria

    Gabriela Viale Pereira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Edelmann, N. (2022). Digitalisation and Developing a Participatory Culture: Participation, Co-production, Co-destruction. In: Charalabidis, Y., Flak, L.S., Viale Pereira, G. (eds) Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 38. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92945-9_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation