icegov2012 proceedings

continuum in which individuals must gain additional access and
skills to take advantage of new opportunities afforded by
technology. Schradie’s [22] work confirms, however, that
disparities may persist even once groups are online. In looking at
who produces content (i.e., the opposite of passive information
consumption), she finds that only one-fifth of people actually
contribute online, and that they tend to be those with higher
educational levels. In fact, people are four times more likely to
produce content yesterday if they have a college level education
versus a high school degree [22]. Importantly, the digital divide is
not a static problem but, instead, constantly evolves and amplifies.
Technology-based initiatives can reinforce existing inequities if
not implemented strategically and if larger social and economic
forces are overlooked [11]. As quickly as technology changes, so,
too, does the digital divide, constraining not only individuals but
entire communities and geographic regions.
Hilbert [9] suggests a lack of understanding of the
digital divide may result ineffective and wasted efforts. He posits
that interpretations of the divide are as diverse as the impacts
organizations seek and encourages the development of a larger
framework for comparing and contrasting definitions. Definitions
of the digital divide may vary depending on organizations’ views
of who is affected (e.g., individuals, communities), their
characteristics (e.g., income, age), the level of digital
sophistication (e.g., basic access or effective adoption) and the
type of technology (e.g., mobile, computers) [9]. In effect, with
various definitions of the digital divide possible, one organization
may believe the divide is shrinking while another may view it as
widening [9].
Lastly, it is important to briefly note Goldfinch’s [5]
work which demonstrates varying interpretations of e-government
based upon the position and knowledge of government
employees. Goldfinch [5] employs agency theory to explore why
certain principals and actors approach e-government differently
and how these diverse outlooks, approaches and understandings
can undermine the effectiveness of efforts. For example, managers
tend to take an entrepreneurial approach to technology and are
more heavily influenced by bureaucratic structures, while IT
professionals tend to focus on the technology itself absent the
larger contexts and strategies [5].
3.2. Understanding users of e-government
Once government administrators understand the
connections and disconnects among their conceptions of egovernment,
technology and the digital divide, they must then
commit to understanding users. A user-centric approach shifts the
focus to the needs and wants of citizens and allows them to drive
e-government development [26]. According to a report of the
OECD [18], this shift away from technology toward citizens
began in mid-2000’s; however, it is questionable as to what extent
change has actually occurred [1][24].
Understanding the user requires the recognition that
user groups are diverse, not homogenous [8]. Ferro and Molinari
[4] suggest that government tends to categorize users by degrees
of access, skills and motivation, all of which are elements akin to
the digital divide. Without a shared understanding of all
stakeholders’ “interests, perspectives, value dimensions and
benefits,” up-take, or e-government adoption, will be limited [21].
Furthermore, a failure to recognize that many users cannot access
e-government, know how to use e-government or prefer more
traditional communication channels weakens the success of e-
514
government efforts and may prop up a new “e-aristocracy”
marked by elite individuals obtaining greater power [19]. Brewer,
Neubauer and Geiselhart [2] suggest administrators have a
responsibility to actively shape e-government based on
democratic values to narrow gaps between the “information elite”
and the “information poor.” Not addressing this gap may prove
detrimental to goals of efficiency since those who depend on
government the most often have the least access.
3.3 Evaluating demand
Lastly, governments serious about digital inclusion must
commit to measuring demand. Despite the importance of egovernment
assessments, there has been a general lack of
evaluation and measurement [4]. Even at the federal level,
agencies have developed plans and good practices in adherence to
the Open Government Initiative but do not specifically address the
impact of these efforts [12]. In the 2011 ICMA survey [10], 14%
of local governments claim that a lack of demand poses a barrier
to e-government efforts, but there is no indication of how demand
was measured, if at all. An earlier ICMA survey reveals few local
governments surveyed their citizens to better understand demand,
and it appears measurements often fail to assess the complexities
of demand-side factors [23]. Evaluations of the digital divide also
fall short. With broadband adoption data primarily stemming from
non-transparent businesses, knowledge at the local level remains
limited. Today, local governments have a basic understanding of
access and subscription rates but little more, e.g., how people use
technology and for what purposes.
Governments must understand why people use egovernment
as well as why they do not. Given the rate that
technology changes, citizen feedback is especially important to
ensure offerings align with preferences and are utilized [25]. An
absence of feedback loops places the alignment of supply and
demand in jeopardy and threatens government’s ability to adapt as
users’ needs change [25]. Measurements may include evaluations
of user satisfaction, awareness of services, access to technology,
skill levels, trust and preference of communication channels;
further, assessments should move beyond outputs to include
outcomes [25][13]. As budgets constrict government faces
increasing pressure to justify expenditures and demonstrate a
return on investment; therefore, evaluation remains critical to
designing and sustaining e-government efforts [18].
5. CONCLUSION
With little written on the interdependence of egovernment
and the digital divide, and a profound lack of data on
technology adoption and use at the local level, this proposed study
will contribute knowledge about how local governments deploy egovernment
in the absence of good information.
REFERENCES
[1] Bertot, J.C., & Jaeger, P.T. (2006). User-centered egovernment:
Challenges and benefits for government
websites. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 163-168.
[2] Brewer, G.A., Neubauer, B.J., & Geiselhart, K. Designing
and implementing e-government systems: Critical
implications for public administration and democracy.
Administration and Society, 38(4), 472-499.