admin on 31 January 2011 - 01:17pm
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The ePractice Journal has launched the issue on "Megatrends in eGovernment" (Section 1), the issue on "Policy Lessons Learned from a decade of eGovernment, eHealth & eInclusion" (Section 2). and "Surving in the Digital Identity World" (Section 3). Please, read through the article guidelines carefully (Section 4) prior to your paper submission.
The issues on: "eGovernment for the economic Crisis" and "The Openness of Government" will be published soon.
The first government websites were launched almost 15 years ago. E-government initiatives have since then proliferated at all levels of government. Early views assumed the move towards e-government as a single linear developmental path. This notion was soon captured by suppliers in a variety of stage models.
Those early views, clearly infused by technological determinism, tended to emphasize the technological dimensions of e-government and suggested a rather automatic set of outcomes and benefits. Experience, and even some high profile failures, showed us that e-government does not actually follow a single linear path, nor are its potential benefits so predictably accomplished. Project implementation is much more difficult than expected. Problems and barriers are not primarily technological, but also organizational, political, legal, or even cultural. Moreover, successful solutions and practices are usually highly dependent on local conditions.
If this complex historical background becomes fully appreciated, current and future e-government initiatives will likely be shaped by different basic orientations and goals. Is this currently the case? Will it be the case in the future? The aim of this issue is to identify and discuss some of the broad trends and paradigms that characterize the present landscape of e-government developments â€“ some of which may be crucial for the future of government.
The key question in this issue is: what are the main emerging megatrends in e-government and how will they shape innovation, service delivery, and policy outcomes?
At a general level, contributors could discuss the relative relevance or the potential synergies and conflicts between different trends. Alternatively, they could just focus on one particular megatrend and analyze its significance and implications. Contributors may also choose to look at the use of new technical media and platforms, such as Mobile Government (mGovernment), government 2.0, government 3.0, or the use of cloud computing. Another point of view for detecting megatrends could be the broad strategic orientations or goals that may be driving actual developments in e-government. Some examples here are the issues of transparency, trust and privacy, the move towards Transformational Government, encouraging participation (which may involve new strategies like crowd sourcing), or the progress towards a networked government.
Regardless of the chosen approach, empirical evidence from e-government implementation would be desired but not required. The European Journal of ePractice invites contributions of both an empirical and theoretical nature, from a policy, organisational and/or technical perspective. In the spirit of sharing a wide variety of best practices, we will also allow submissions in this issue on any other topic in eTransformation (including eGovernment, eInclusion, eHealth or otherwise). , contributions should ideally focus on Megatrends in eGovernment.
The issue editor is: Eduard Aibar Puentes
Policy lessons from a decade of eGovernment, eHealth, and eInclusion Europe has had many information society strategies, eEurope (1999), i2010 (2005) and Digital Agenda for Europe (2010). eGovernment, eHealth, and eInclusion are the three policy sub-domains comprising the societal public services pillar which is the backbone of all of these strategic frameworks. Given the emphasis that the new overarching EU2020 Strategy places on tackling grand societal challenges and turning them into economic opportunities, the relevance of these three domains is today even higher than in the past. Inclusive Innovation is often called the I2 paradigm. It is, thus, of the uttermost importance today to take stock of what has been achieved, not simply for reasons of accountability of public spending, but also in order to derive lessons and insights that can improve the efforts towards 2020.
A large body of secondary and primary data exists on outcomes of such policies for the users and the administrations and on the drivers and barriers for this kind of ICT enabled administrative and social innovation. Yet, we still do not have conclusive evidence and interpretative frameworks to guide the design of future policies and investments.
Alongside cases of success, we can find several instances of counter-intuitive results and of intentional or unintentional policy resistance. For instance, why the phenomenal growth in the supply of eGovernment services has not been followed by a comparable growth in usage of such services it is still to be explained. Increasing numbers of user oriented functionalities for mobile health services are offered by technology but little take up is documented within the institutional practice of healthcare. Noteworthy legislative measures and investments for eAccessibility and digital literacy do not yet bring Europe close to meet the Riga Ministerial targets from 2006.
While empirical evidence should continue to be gathered, it is clear that a paradigm shift is needed in the interpretative knowledge engines supporting policy making. In other words, we need to apply a different perspective on the evidence available and on what we make of it for policy design. In particular, insights from behavioural studies and social network analysis are needed to: a) understand why certain policy measures are supported and other resisted by the target (policy takers); b) study how social networks structure and flows can lead to positive cascade effects for adoption of policy measures; c) extract insights for new policies that focus on choices architecture to nudge users into desired direction without infringing on individual free choice.
So, the key question in this issue is: what are the theoretical and interpretative frameworks that can help us make better sense of the evidence already collected and support new and innovative policy approaches? The answer may be approaches that so far never or very seldom have been applied to eGovernment, eHealth, and eInclusion. Behavioural and social network studies have been mentioned only as an example. Other alternative approaches can include System Dynamics and other tools using empirical data to elaborate modelling simulation under counter-factual assumptions (â€œwhat if?â€). Papers can also propose yet other alternative approaches. The thread is, however, to discuss frameworks resting on two basic assumptions: a) policy resistance and failure springs from the fact that ecosystem are way more complex than the linear and reductionist assumptions upon which policy design tend to rest; b) agents act using socially embedded and bounded rationality.
Regardless of the chosen approach, papers should not be merely descriptive of data (in whatever form, statistics, survey results, in depth case studies) but ideally would propose a new interpretative and theoretical framework supported by illustrative and explanatory empirical evidence. There is no need to test a hypothesis. Purely theoretical or methodological papers are also welcome but they should include a sustained analysis and argue for the validity of the proposed framework through a systematic review of the relevant literature. Additionally, we also welcome papers illustrating how new paradigms have been successfully applied in other policy domain and showing how they could be applied in eGovernment, eHealth, and eInclusion.
The issue editor is: Cristiano Codagnone
A personâ€™s digital identity can be defined as the collection of all digital information about or related to the person. Social interaction, shopping, entertainment, government services â€“ all are increasingly done by digital means, and all depend on, create and use digital identity information that may be disparate to different domains but that is also increasingly linkable across services. Requirements range from unique identification of a real identity with high certainty to full anonymity.
Identity information is an asset that can create value for the individual and for service providers â€“ to the benefit of both parties or with conflicts of interest. Identity information is also an asset to imposters, and increased availability of identity information implies threats to the individualâ€™s privacy, economy and reputation. Identity theft and impersonation is a serious issue, and â€œforgive and forgetâ€ are not prominent properties of the digital world.
While identity information is definitely the property of the individual, the information is increasingly shared across social networks, commercial services and government, with or without the individualâ€™s consent.
How can we, as individuals, survive in the digital identity world while still being able to utilise our identity information as an asset to our own advantage in a controlled way? How can society contribute to an environment where privacy and ownership to personal information are respected â€“ by legal measures, culture and technology?
The European Journal of ePractice seeks high quality contributions for a special issue on digital identity. Possible topics, non-exhaustive, are:
â€¢ Identity theft, impersonation and defamation
â€¢ Anonymity and pseudonymity
â€¢ Physical and digital identity and how the two interrelate
â€¢ Privacy, user control and consent
â€¢ Claims based identity â€“ issuing, validation and assurance level for claims
â€¢ Disparate identities â€“ digital domains and digital versus physical identity
â€¢ Social networks
â€¢ Identity in eGovernment â€“ including national identity cards and information held by public agencies
â€¢ Identity in eCommerce â€“ including identity as a commercial asset
The European Commissionâ€™s ICT R&D Strategy dated March 2009 targets â€œan electronic identity (eID) infrastructureâ€ as one of three areas for large scale actions starting 2013. As a Commission representative stated: â€œThis will be dealing with things that are going to change the world we live in.â€
Now is the time to provide as much input as possible as background to this work. The European Journal of ePractice invites contributions of both an empirical and theoretical nature, from a legal, society, cultural, commercial, organisational and/or technical perspective. While identification of problem areas and challenges is important, contributions that also contribute towards solving challenges are preferred.
See the full guidelines at http://www.epracticejournal.eu/guidelines
European Journal of ePractice: www.epracticejournal.eu
Editor-in-Chief: Trond Arne Undheim