Michael Sachs
email: michael.sachs@donau-uni.ac.at

Judith Schossböck
email: jschossbo2-c@my.cityu.edu.hk

Acceptance of tools for electronic citizen participation

Keywords: E-Participation, Decision-Making, Identification, Trust, Usability

In order to motivate diverse user groups to participate in e-participation, platform designers are keen to offer attractive communication formats in combination with modern tools and suitable forms of online identification. This does not come without difficulties, as individual users prefer different solutions. Research on tools and electronic identification in this context has investigated the appropriateness of different e-IDs for different stages of e-participation. In this respect, this paper offers three contributions to questions of technology application and acceptance in e-participation: Firstly, it showcases two scenarios from a platform simulation on different levels of e-participation. Secondly, the authors present results on the acceptance of these scenarios and tools based on questionnaires and usability tests. Thirdly, viewpoints from interviews with key stakeholders for e-participation in governance and politics are included. Results shall be useful for the future design and implementation of e-participation platforms.

1 Introduction E-participation is an interdisciplinary research area dealing with the electronic support of all public activities that enable citizens to participate in processes relevant for society. [START_REF] Schossboeck | Digitale Bürgerbeteiligung und elektronische Demokratie[END_REF] This often comes with demands to introduce new participation facilities into the traditional processes of decision-making. [START_REF] Scherer | E-participation and enterprise architecture frameworks: An analysis[END_REF] Tools for citizen decision-making must attract a variety of users with different preferences, literacies and demands for content and processes, especially when it comes to inclusion. [START_REF] Schoßböck | Inclusion and Privacy in E-Participation Platform Design[END_REF] Some stress the importance of institutional context and careful design for e-participation performance. [START_REF] Kabanov | Evaluating E-Participation Institutional Design. A Pilot Study of Regional Platforms in Russia[END_REF] Concepts of e-participation, reflecting either the way of participation (top-down or bottom-up), the legal foundation (formal or informal), the goals of a measure or the intensity of e-participation in tiers. [START_REF] Schossböck | Identification in e-participation: A multi-dimensional model[END_REF][START_REF] Phang | A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives[END_REF] In this paper, we draw on structured concepts of citizen involvement and decision-making, where each level of participation increases citizen power or the intensity of participation. In line with the idea of the meta-analytical study of Al-Dalou' & Abu-Shanab [START_REF] Al-Dalou | E-Participation Levels and Technologies[END_REF] that the most comprehensive model is a five levels schema, a 5-level concept of e-participation levels was chosen in the context of this paper: (1) Information, (2) consultation, (3) cooperation, (4) co-decision, and (5) decision. [START_REF] Schossböck | Identification in e-participation: A multi-dimensional model[END_REF] Previous research of the authors study group has utilized this classification for a model of tool assessment, specifically for investigating which e-ID is appropriate on which particular level of e-participation, with special regard to voting and rating mechanisms, participation threshold and security. [START_REF] Schossböck | Identification in e-participation: A multi-dimensional model[END_REF][START_REF] Parcyek | Identification in e-participation: Between quality of identification data and participation threshold[END_REF] This paper focuses on the acceptance of users and potential stakeholders when it comes to choosing appropriate means of identification (e-IDs) for authentication in different e-participation levels. The authors assess potential areas of application from a stakeholder perspective and the acceptance of tools from users' points of views (micro-level or project perspective, see the evaluation framework below).

For that purpose, an e-participation platform demonstrator-software was developed in a project for assessing acceptance and demand of modern e-participation tools in the Austrian context. While we can draw conclusions from the project in the sense of users' and stakeholders' expectations, we are not accessing socio-technical perspectives in the sense of public take up or the greater democratic perspective (macro level in the sense of real-life application). In reference to the domain model of e-participation evaluation [START_REF] Kalampokis | A domain model for e-participation[END_REF] and the four layers of this framework, our analysis focuses on participation areas and processes, actors as well as tools and technologies more than the democratic context. We also exclude the socio-economic conditions beyond stakeholder opinion or sustainability of e-participation processes [START_REF] Islam | Towards a sustainable e-Participation implementation model[END_REF] due to the scope of the project. However, we will glimpse at the macro level in the sense of its political situatedness and context. While the project is not tied to a specific planned initiative of citizen involvement, an assessment of acceptance lays the foundations for the implementation of e-participation projects in the future.

2

Project "E-Partizipation"

The Austrian government program of the 2017-elected federal conservative-right government declares in its preamble that citizen participation in political processes shall be increased through the expansion of direct democratic opportunities. Participation shall be improved at the parliamentary level and in the legislative procedures. In addition, direct democratic processes such as popular petitions and consultative referenda are promoted in the government program. However, a single platform comprising various e-participation opportunities and activities for a broader target group is missing.

In general, some efforts towards more citizen decision-making in Austria have not been without controversy in the past. The 2009 e-voting for representation in the Austrian students body [START_REF] Krimmer | The use of E-voting in the Austrian federation of students elections 2009[END_REF] was met with criticism regarding its implementation [START_REF] Goby | Das E-Voting-Erkenntnis des VfGH: gesetzwidrige Ausgestaltung der ÖH-Wahlordnung[END_REF] and led to a numerous appeals and a final repeal by the Austrian high court. Given this background, an assessment of the acceptance of e-participation solutions is indicated if Austria wants to foster citizen decision-making within e-participation, and affirm citizens' trust in digital solutions.

The Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) funded the project "E-Partizipation -Authentifizierung bei demokratischer Online-Beteiligung"1 to research means of online participation with use of different authentication and identification methods. The 2 years project ended in Autumn 2016. Its goal was the development of a flexible and modular platform demonstrator-software that uses several means of authentication in the context of citizen e-participation, including the existing state e-ID solution in Austria. The platform enabled an adaptive set up of various e-participation processes. The consortium consisted of actors from public administration, academia and industry:

 Austrian Institute of Technology as leader of the consortium,  Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs, as public agency responsible for election processes,  Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance,  University of Vienna, Legal Informatics,  Austrian State Printing House, and  Rubicon IT GmbH.

Applied evaluation framework and research questions

Scholars have offered a variety of evaluation methodologies for citizen participation, with different criteria for project specific factors. [START_REF] Kabanov | Evaluating E-Participation Institutional Design. A Pilot Study of Regional Platforms in Russia[END_REF][START_REF] Kubicek | Erfolgreich beteiligt? Nutzen und Erfolgsfaktoren internetgestützter Bürgerbeteiligung -eine empirische Analyse von 12 Fallbeispielen[END_REF][START_REF] Loukis | Evaluating eParticipation Projects and Lessons Learnt[END_REF][START_REF] Téran | An Evaluation Framework for eParticipation: The VAAs Case Study[END_REF] However, a too general evaluation framework would also miss the goal of accessing context and actor specific aspects. [START_REF] Kubicek | Closing the Evaluation Gap in e-Participation Research and Practice[END_REF] Starting from the idea of a systematic analysis using defined criteria, [START_REF] Aichholzer | Evaluating e-participation Projects: Practical Examples and Outline of an Evaluation Framework[END_REF] we followed an evaluation design recommended in the literature. Our starting point were the categories for e-participation evaluation as suggested by Macintosh & Whyte [START_REF] Macintosh | Towards an Evaluation Framework for e-participation[END_REF] with adaptations towards project goals and the national context. Building on the experiences from other evaluations, [START_REF] Parycek | Evaluation of an E-participation Project: Lessons Learned and Success Factors from a Cross-Cultural Perspective[END_REF] we used the following analytical dimensions:

 Political dimension: attractiveness of the selected cases for users and stakeholders; relevance of the platform (for real-life application); strengthening of e-participation (motivation).  Technical dimension: fulfillment of technical requirements; processes and functionality; security aspects.  Socio-technical dimension: acceptance of the selected solutions; e-ID variants; trust in the platform; sustainability.  Legal dimension: data security compliance; trust of users in data security; protection and privacy.  Methodological dimension: Practicability of the model for practitioners; suitability of the tool for the specific areas of application.

Based on the evaluation of the project within that framework, we formulate the following research question for this paper: How do users and stakeholders trust e-participation tools with view to platform specifics and authentication providers? How can these become more attractive to use?

In this paper, we mainly present the results of the user and stakeholder perspective based on the testing simulations with 33 test users as well as the 10 qualitative interviews with stakeholders in governance and public administration (6 interviewees) and politics (4 interviewees stratified by political parties).

Research and development design

The research design used in the project combined qualitative and quantitative methods for the development of the demonstrator platform consisting of a literature review, an internal assessment workshop (within the project consortium), expert interviews, a workshop and questionnaire within the scientific community. The project consortium provided continuous technical evaluation, internal testing and legal feedback throughout the development and scenario set-up period. The demonstrator of the platform was evaluated with a testing simulation, subsequent questionnaires and plenum discussions with user groups. In addition to user testing, stakeholder interviews were conducted.

The following figure shows the workflow of the entire project starting in autumn 2014.

Fig. 1. Research Design and Demonstrator Development

Testing scenarios were conducted by using the demonstrator-software, tested on the 13th and 15th of June, 2016. This was based on usability tests in a lab with 33 participants in two testing groups at university facilities. In addition, feedback was received during the testing sessions via standardized questionnaires and qualitative plenum discussions following the simulations.

Testing scenarios with users

User test groups. In order to assure comparability of results, the two user test groups did not differ with regards to the testing scenarios presented. While the results of the questionnaires are not comparable to the representability required for surveys and follow a predominantly qualitative setup, we still tried to stratify along demographic characteristics, as it is common in user-testing or usability-testing, in order to simulate a realistic mix of potential users. Furthermore, studies have shown that several important aspects of our study (like privacy or data security) can be influenced by demographic features like gender or age. Privacy can be defined as one's ability to control the release of personally identifiable data in the context of institutional practices, and the level of privacy protection can differ by gender. [START_REF] Park | Do men and women differ in privacy? Gendered privacy and (in)equality in the Internet[END_REF] Gender is a factor in understanding privacy and disclosure practices. [START_REF] Litt | Understanding social network site users' privacy tool use[END_REF] Research on social network sites also found associations between gender and disclosure in young adults. [START_REF] Hoy | Gender Differences in Privacy-Related Measures for Young Adult Facebook Users[END_REF] Also age and education can relate to how users evaluate aspects of information privacy. [START_REF] Zukowski | Examining the influence of demographic factors on internet users' information privacy concerns[END_REF] User test groups were selected as effectively as possible according to the demographic criteria age, gender and educational level. Further variables (f.i. self-assessment regarding tech-savviness) were included in the questionnaire. Participants received as compensation € 15 gift vouchers. People were contacted on the basis of a call within the premises of the University of Vienna, leaflets, posters, Facebook groups, within the networks of consortium members and private networks of project workers. Citizenship was not mandatory for participation, but sufficient command of German was a necessary criterion. Registration for the two test events was done online and people had to provide age, education and gender for the composition of the test groups. The final composition of the testing groups was: Additional assessment of user groups showed that participants used the internet on average for 2.8 hours per day professionally, and 3.4 hours per day privately. Regarding mobile usage participants used the internet on average for 2.8 hours per day. The majority of our participants used social media daily. Regarding political activity, about half of participants saw themselves as politically active, however, only a few were politically very active. A bare majority was not very or not politically active. Participants use the internet predominantly for information retrieval purposes (election program or politicians), less so for expressing their political opinion or for discussion. Around a fifth of our participants used the internet for polling or voting. It must be pointed out that we received 34 questionnaire responses despite 33 participants, and this error could not be definitely solved in the analysis thereafter.

 Age.
Test scenarios. The testing was conducted in a PC lab, where two testing scenarios were simulated under the guidance of a moderator. While the platform was modular and adaptive, two testing scenarios had to be selected, that were realistic in the Austrian context. Due to project goals, each scenario needed a voting phase, hence the scenarios had to include the e-participation level of co-decision-making or decision-making. In the testing procedures specific aspects could be tested within the timeframe of 1 hours and 15 minutes (10 min. introduction, 10 min. scenario 1, 25 min. scenario 2, 10 min. questionnaire, 20 min. feedback in a plenum discussion). The testing procedures were pretested with associates of the consortium that were not directly involved in the development of these procedures.

Scenario 1 simulates the election of a works council by employees in a company. Two electable lists provide information about their agendas and candidates can be selected.

Table 1. Test scenario 1.

Phase 1

Participants read information about the electable lists, the list's candidates and the voting process. Level of participation Information.

Authentication

Username and password (as member of the company). Duration 5 minutes.

Phase 2

Users vote for their preferred candidate. Level of participation Decision-making.

Authentication

Username and password (as member of the company). Duration 3 minutes.

Scenario 2 simulates urban planning in a future construction site in Vienna. A part of the new space is to become a public place, and citizens are invited to suggest ideas for a plaza design or similar. The submitted ideas are preselected by the hosts of the participatory process, turned into concepts of urban design, and then discussed and evaluated by the users. Finally, users can select one of final concepts to be presented to the jury that will decide on the development of the public space.

Table 2. Test scenario 2.

Phase 1

User inform themselves about the urban planning project and can submit ideas. After handing in their idea, a pop-up window appears displaying "thank-you". Users do not see other submitted ideas. Level of participation Consultation. Authentication Not required. Duration 8 minutes.

Phase 2

Four previously prepared concepts for the plaza are presented. Participants can comment, discuss, and rate "like" and "dislike". Ratings are visible for all participants. Level of participation Consultation. Authentication Social IDs2 , mobile electronic citizen card 3 , or identities register number (the latter was simulated via the social security number). Duration 12 minutes.

Phase 3

Two concepts from phase 2 with the most "likes" are put to a vote. Level of participation Co-decision making.

Authentication

Mobile electronic citizen card, or identities register number (simulated via the social security number). Duration 5 minutes.

After the simulation, participants in both groups had to in a standardized questionnaire. Thereafter they were invited to a moderated qualitative feedback discussion on the basis of semi-structured guidelines. Moderators guided the 20 minutes long discussion via prompting questions, and the discussion was generally fluent and active among participants. The goal of the plenary discussion was to test the acceptance of e-participation solutions. Moderators observed the users during the discussion and took notes of nonverbal clues of approval or disapproval. The discussion was held structured along the political, socio-technical and legal dimensions and criteria.

Stakeholder interviews

To access the stakeholder perspective, interview partners were selected by key-informant sampling [START_REF] Young | A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research[END_REF] and comprised 6 representatives from governance and public administration, including one representative from the data protection authority, and 4 persons from parliamentary political parties. They were selected according to whether they could potentially employ such a platform, and asked whether and how they could imagine its real-life implementation. The data protection authority was asked specifically about aspects of data protection relevant for the implementation of such a platform. Stakeholders from public administration were selected according to the levels of administration: city, regional and country level were all represented. They were contacted per email, invited to the interview per telephone, and interviewed mostly in their offices. While some interviewees in the stakeholder categories were responsible for citizen participation, others were responsible for elections (thus representing one specific level of e-participation). The interview partners were selected from the following institutions and departments: the Federal Ministry of the Interior (Department III/6), the Federal State Government of Lower Austria (Department for citizenship and elections), the Josefstadt district, the City of Krems (2 interviewees) and the Federal Ministry for Women, Families & Youth (BMFJ). The stakeholders from the domain politics were selected to represent all political parties of the National Council (parties selected their representative after invitation). All parties, except from one party, were available for an interview.

The stakeholder interviews were conducted between the end of April and mid-June 2016. On average, the interviews lasted 45 minutes each. The interviewer followed semi-structured interview guidelines [START_REF] Dicicco-Bloom | The qualitative research interview[END_REF] and a receptive interviewing strategy. [START_REF] Wengraf | Qualitative research interviewing: biographical narrative and semi-structured methods[END_REF] They were recorded, thematically coded [START_REF] Kluge | Empirically Grounded Construction of Types and Typologies in Qualitative Social Research[END_REF] along the evaluation dimensions, and interpreted via a summary analysis, using paraphrasing methods. At the beginning, the stakeholders were shown the platform from both a user and admin perspective by showcasing the two scenarios with a live presentation. Two times the live demonstration did not work, so the presenter retreated to a PowerPoint-Presentation to show the demonstrator as it would look in the live scenario.

Results

According to user feedback, the tested platform was suitable for use in the defined areas of applications. Both users and political stakeholders found the location-and time-independent aspects of e-participation appealing as well the transparency of the processes.

Technology Application

Multi-ID design principle. Regarding the socio-technical evaluation dimension, user feedback after the test run showed that the option to use various e-IDs was considered as especially user-friendly. Users expect secure, mobile and barrier-free technical solutions, and an adaptive design is advised to meet the diversity of user requirements.

Transparent operations and usage statistics. Criticism was related to the desire for more information about certain operations and processes on the platform, e.g. how comments and likes influence the ranking of results. While such questions were mostly explained by the moderator during user testing, the use of corresponding information tools (for example a video explaining the ranking and selection processes, or a F.A.Q.) is by all means recommended for such a platform. Users did not see relevant benefits in the transparent presentation of usage statistics of the e-participation phases. This led to some irritation especially in the voting phase, even though the actual voting results were only displayed after the voting phase was closed. It is thus advisable to proactively and clearly communicate information relating data processing, security and data protection (identification and authentication issues), especially when it comes to voting procedures in e-participation, such as the example of work council elections. [START_REF] Parycek | Voting in E-Participation: A Set of Requirements to Support Accountability and Trust by Electoral Committees[END_REF] Perceived risk of manipulation. Users generally rate the perceived risk of manipulation of results as high. A cooperation of public body with NGOs as controlling body seemed to be the most trustworthy solution for operators of e-participation platforms. Security concerns were not only related to the operators, but also to hacker attacks.

Thus, transparent and pro-active communication regarding the prevention of manipulation can enhance trust.

3.2

Trust in the proposed solutions (e-IDs)

Clear identification methods for sensitive processes. If an e-participation platform as the one presented was to be used by political parties for deliberation, they want to get an accurate picture of the participating population, hence clear identification methods are important. To the parties, the more sensitive the process is (e.g. in terms of financial impact or legal implications), the more desirable background information of participants becomes for analysis. In addition, some parties have already internally used electronic tools for voting, opinion forming or project development. While parties want to know background data of the users for analysis, anonymity on the platform remains very relevant to users, but opinions on the use of real names are indifferent.

Acceptance of e-IDs and strengthening the attractiveness of the electronic citizen card. The integration of the electronic citizen card into e-participation is likely to promote the dissemination or increased use of citizen e-IDs according to user feedback.

Identification with an e-ID issued by the state provides a sense of security and adds to the trustworthiness of the platform. Yet, only a few people actually used their electronic citizen card (possibly because only a few users had one) in the simulation and the majority used their social security number for authentication. Nonetheless, no participant refused the demand for unique personal identification in the final stage of the testing simulation scenario 2. The use of unique e-IDs increases trust in the results. Social IDs are a first low-threshold entry into e-participation, although users critically evaluated the application of such IDs in e-participation platforms operated by the state and in terms of data protection. At the same time, the use of existing electronic identities seems preferable to the ability to create a new e-ID for yet another platform. Users mainly used their Facebook and Google IDs, some used LinkeIn and Windows Live, but other social IDs were not used. The users rated various options of authentication options on the platform positively. While it is thus recommended to offer a flexible design with different identification options on the different levels of e-participation, platform providers should be aware that in the context of e-participation, users predominantly hold a critical stance towards social IDs they know from other (non-state) contexts.

Reservations towards private platform providers. Users expressed general low confidence in all platform operators, but even more negative concern towards private enterprises as platform hosts. The usage of personal data that would be collected and saved by platform providers was emphasized, despite the demonstrator-software of the project using only the required data in a secure way. In particular users were insecure regarding the options of the e-participation platform provider to access the collected data, also from a technical point of view, as users had to accept that the platform exchanges data with their e-ID. These confirmation messages often ask for more data than is actually used by the demonstrator-software.

Practicality of the e-IDs-model for practitioners. Feedback from stakeholders has confirmed the basic principle of the multi-ID approach, in particular with regard to the use of high-quality e-IDs for high-level e-participation processes such as the level of collaboration or co-decision making. At lower levels of e-participation, diverse options of identification are perceived as positive. As the e-participation procedures have to be designed according to the needs of the target group, in relation to the respective topics and expected outcomes, generalization for the whole field of e-participation, with many variations and contexts, is always problematic.

Regulatory issues. The platform was tested before the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union, but users were already very well aware of needs for data protection and regulations. There was a clear differentiation between the e-ID provider and the host of the e-participation platform and both need to gain the users trust. The development of the platform was closely monitored by legal advisors within the consortium for legal compliance, and it was also crucial to follow the regulations of voting processes, such as the option to cast a blank vote.

Conclusion and Discussion

Research emphasizes that the utilization of ICT does not lead to more participation per se, and that certain measures of inclusion need to be undertaken if that should be the case. [START_REF] Van Dijk | One Europe, digitally divided[END_REF] However, e-participation can theoretically serve as legitimizing mechanism of democracy if it affords a way of empowerment for citizens. [START_REF] Parycek | Democracy in the digital age: digital agora or dystopia[END_REF] When it comes to sensitive information and different views on privacy and new tools like social identification methods (social IDs), these often sensitive subjects might clash with otherwise well-meant intentions. This study showed that there might be a demand for official sites for participation purposes, as the user feedback in this project has also shown with regard to online authentication and data protection, that platforms hosted by states or NGOs still enjoy greater trust than private platform providers do. Transferring political discussions from semi-public spaces such as social media to official platforms could increase the chances to bring people out of the "echo chambers" of one-sided information, [START_REF] Del Vicario | The spreading of misinformation online[END_REF] and potentially foster a more direct and open discussion culture, in which several sides actively participate. Accompanying direct democratic processes with digital tools has the potential to reach decisions that are more satisfying. If citizens are provided platforms that meet their needs and enable them to control the ways of their participation, purposefully built digital platforms could support the transparency of the opinion making process, the accountability of the democratic participation and the overall acceptance of the outcomes. [START_REF] Parycek | Democracy in the digital age: digital agora or dystopia[END_REF] The limitations of our methodology lie in the inability to evaluate the impact perspective, as our results are based on a demonstrator-software and not an e-participation project in the field. Thus, a replication of the method in an open phase would be desirable. Further limitations can be seen with view to the creation of trust in modern technological solutions: It is to be expected, that mobile devices will enjoy more trust from people in the future. Thus, future assessments of e-participation solutions should by all means include such dimensions. In our study, participants were not in agreement regarding mobile access: While some took such an option for granted, for others it was not high priority. But overall, users will surely expect mobile, secure and accessible solutions in the future.

  16-24: 16 persons, 25-44: 13 persons, 45-99: 5 persons.  Gender. Female: 15 persons, male: 18 persons, gender-diverse: 1 person.  Education. Compulsory school: 9 persons, Higher School certificate (Matura):17 persons, university/college: 8 persons.

The project "E-Partizipation" was funded by the Austrian security research programme KIRAS of the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (bmvit).

Steam, WordPress, PayPal, LinkedIn, GitHub, Flickr, Dropbox, BattleNet, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Windows Live.

State issued e-ID or electronic signature (Bürgerkarte or Handy-Signatur)


Bettina Distel
email: bettina.distel@ercis.uni-muenster.de

Ida Lindgren
email: ida.lindgren@liu.se

Who are the users of digital public services? A critical reflection on differences in the treatment of citizens as 'users' in e-government research

Keywords: digital public service, citizens, users, e-government, value ideals, theory-building

Despite the importance of citizens as users of digital public services, e-government research has not explicitly considered different perspectives on citizens as users of said services. This paper sets out to explore the possible variations in which the citizen as a user of digital public services is conceptualized within the e-government literature. Through a qualitative and interpretive approach, we have analysed literature from different fields of e-government research to create an overview of how citizens as users of digital public services are conceptualized in e-government research. The structure of the review departs from, and is framed by, four established value paradigms for e-government management. Our approach reveals that -depending on the perspective taken -the conceptualization of the citizen varies considerably and, as a consequence, may impact the results and contributions of each research perspective. The conception of the citizen as a user of digital public services varies from being a passive recipient of government services, to being an active co-producer of services. This article contributes to e-government theory by unboxing the conceptions of citizens as users of digital public services that are existent in current research on digital public services. In providing a framework that relates these conceptions to previously known value paradigms, the article offers a starting point for taking a multidimensional perspective in e-government research that considers the citizen as a multifaceted and heterogeneous entity.

Introduction

As part of e-government initiatives worldwide, public services are being provided through digital channels. Repeatedly, citizens are conceptualized as the major beneficiaries of e-government, e.g. [START_REF] Jaeger | The endless wire: e-government as global phenomenon[END_REF], including digital public services, by having ubiquitous access to services [START_REF] Belanche | Integrating trust and personal values into the Technology Acceptance Model: The case of e-government services adoption[END_REF] and a wide range of information. The implementation of digital public services also aims at making communication and interactions between public administrations and citizens more efficient and easier for the citizen; accordingly, much e-government research treats citizens as a unit of analysis, e.g. [START_REF] Carter | Citizen Adoption of E-Government Services. Exploring Citizen Perceptions of Online Services in the United States and United Kingdom[END_REF].

Despite the importance of citizens, as users of digital public services, only few research attempts exist that closely examine who the citizens are and what they expect from e-government initiatives of this kind, e.g. [START_REF] Nam | Determining the type of e-government use[END_REF][START_REF] Rowley | e-Government stakeholders -Who are they and what do they want[END_REF][START_REF] Scott | Measuring eGovernment success: a public value approach[END_REF]. Instead, e-government research mostly treats citizens as a homogenous group, without specifying subgroups, e.g. [START_REF] Carter | The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors[END_REF]. Often, citizens are clustered along rather unspecific, mostly socio-demographic variables, e.g. [START_REF] Molnar | Improving Usability of e-Government for the Elderly[END_REF]. Related to public service provision in general, researchers agree that the mutual expectations and behaviors are dependent on the role in which the citizens interact with public administrations [START_REF] Jos | Keeping It Public: Defending Public Service Values in a Customer Service Age[END_REF], e.g. as a citizen, or as a customer. The necessity to view the interactions of citizens and public administrations from different perspectives does not become obsolete by simply conceptualizing the citizen as a 'user' of a digital service. Rather, the differentiation into separate roles must be made for the digitally mediated interactions and for the citizen as a user of these digital services. However, e-government researchers have so far mostly refrained from opening this black box. Whereas the need for understanding who the user is has been acknowledged in other lines of research, e.g. [START_REF] Millerand | Who are the users? Who are the developers? Webs of users and developers in the development process of a technical standard[END_REF], e-government research has not explicitly considered different perspectives on citizens as users. Against this background, this paper sets out to explore the possible variations in which the citizen as a user of digital public services is conceptualized within the e-government literature.

With the term digital public service, we refer to public services that are provided through a digital channel [START_REF] Madsen | Channel Choice: A Literatuer Review[END_REF], typically using Internet-based technology, meaning that the citizens' interaction with public authorities is partly or completely mediated by the technology [START_REF] Jansen | The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions[END_REF][START_REF] Lindgren | Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework[END_REF]. The technology used can serve different purposes; a digital public service can refer to a clearly delimited IT-system, but also to larger service processes in which the digital interface towards the citizen is merely a small and limited part of the process [START_REF] Lindgren | Time to refuel the conceptual discussion on public e-services -revisiting how e-services are manifested in practice[END_REF]. Digital public service denotes a "fuzzy" phenomenon, in the sense that it can take on many different shapes in practice, and is referred to under several different labels in the e-government literature [START_REF] Jansen | The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions[END_REF][START_REF] Lindgren | Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework[END_REF]. As argued above, only few researchers attempt to differentiate the user of digital public services but mostly do so by using socio-demographic variables to distinguish users. In an attempt to further our understanding of how the citizen as a user of digital public services is conceptualized, we explore the citizen concept from a value position perspective. We use the work by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF] as a point of departure, who present four different value paradigms visible in e-government research and practice. These value paradigms (professionalism ideal; efficiency ideal; service ideal; and, engagement ideal) highlight the underlying drivers behind implementations of digital public services. However, the framework by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF] does not include how the user (citizen) is understood in each of these value paradigms. In this paper, we discuss the view on citizens as users of digital public services by relating e-government research that considers the citizen's role in digital public service provision to the value paradigms presented by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF]. As a result of this analysis, we present a framework that distinguishes between different views on citizens and highlights the need to understand the citizen as a user of e-government from multiple perspectives. This paper contributes to our understanding of digital service provision in the public sector. Succeeding in providing digital services is difficult, due to the complex nature of the public sector context, the service processes being digitized, and the technology used to digitize these processes. The framework presented in this paper can be used to further conceptualize this complex phenomenon and hence help both researchers and practitioners to understand digitization of public services in a more nuanced manner.

The paper is organized as follows; first, we present our research approach. Second, we present the different perspectives that we have identified, and discuss the view on the citizen present in these views. We then proceed to a comparative analysis of these strands, concluding with a conceptual framework that gives and overview of these various conceptualizations. We conclude this article with a short summary and outlook for future research.

Background

E-government is not a value-neutral endeavour; in fact, the values driving e-government initiatives, such as the implementation of digital public services, is gaining increasing attention in the research literature [START_REF] Boell | A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches[END_REF]. In this context, values are understood as the general aims and drivers of a project [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF]. Building on both theory and e-government practice, Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF] distinguish between four value positions for managing e-Government initiatives; as described in Table 1. For each value position, they focus on the prevalent tradition of public administration, representative values, how the purpose of e-Government is described, and the role of IT for fulfilling these emphasized values. This framework, however, refers to the ideals of public sector managers and the implementation of e-government projects in public agencies. Thus, it is focused on practice rather than on e-government research and does not include any conceptualization of citizens as participants in this implementation process. Especially against the background that citizens are repeatedly treated as the main beneficiaries of e-government projects, a value framework for e-government research should contain this perspective. Within e-government research, citizens are understood as users of e-government who generate benefits through the use of digital public services [START_REF] Scott | Measuring eGovernment success: a public value approach[END_REF]. The citizens' use of digital public services is, from this perspective, focused on consuming public services through electronic means: "[…] citizens and businesses can use e-government for three purposes: to access information; to engage in electronic transactions with government; and to participate in government decision making." [25, p. 212] Accordingly, types of usage are focused on the search for information and policies, service use, and participation in political processes [START_REF] Gerpott | Use levels of electronic government services among German citizens. An empirical analysis of objective household and personal predictors[END_REF][START_REF] Nam | Determining the type of e-government use[END_REF]. Scott et al. [START_REF] Scott | Measuring eGovernment success: a public value approach[END_REF], for example, refer as well to these categories but name them differently. In their study, users of e-government are grouped into passive users who browse content and download forms or documents, active users who communicate and interact with public administrations by digital means, e.g. by electronically transmitting a form, and participatory users who take part in the political process of opinion forming through electronic channels. Detached from the channel of communication and interaction, respectively, other researchers have attempted to define different roles in which citizens interact with public administrations and that, as a consequence, may define the type of (digital) service use. For example, Thomas [START_REF] Thomas | Citizen, Customer, Partner. Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management[END_REF] argues that citizens can take three different roles: as customers who are served by public administrations and 'consume' public services, as citizens who participate in political processes, and as partners, when "[…] the broader pursuit of public ends supposedly occur[s] mostly through networks of private and non-profit entities, members of the public, and governments […]" [33, p. 788]. Especially this last aspect of citizens becoming partners of public authorities is so far a lesser studied topic in our field.

3

Research approach

This work is interpretive and builds on a hermeneutic literature review [START_REF] Boell | A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches[END_REF]. We have analysed literature from different lines of research related to e-government in order to create an overview of how the citizen as a user of digital public services is treated and conceptualized in e-government research. The structure of the review departs from the four value paradigms presented by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF]; these four paradigms therefore function as a frame for the analysis. We have included papers on e-government services, public e-services, web-site channels, etc. that deal primarily with the citizens' perspective. We have searched for literature in an 'unstructured' manner; and have aimed for a more exploratory approach, identifying examples of different conceptualizations of citizens as users of digital public services. In a first step, the articles were analysed with regard to the question of whether they can be assigned to one or more of the four value paradigms by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF]. The conceptualizations and definitions of the citizen and user, respectively, were extracted for each article. This analysis was focused on the question of how the citizen is understood with regard to her role within the public sector and as a user of digital public services; e.g., whether she is actively involved in the provision of public services or rather seen as a passive receiver of services. We extracted the specific perspective on the citizen from each article and compared the articles with each other to gain a better understanding of each individual viewpoint. Only then, the four existing value paradigms were compared in order to understand what types of definitions and conceptualizations of the citizen and user, respectively, exist (see section 4). While in most of the works on which this article is based one view was dominant, these perspectives are not disjoint and one article may be based on more than one conceptualization.

Different perspectives on citizens as users of digital public service

The analysis of e-government research reveals that the understanding of citizens as users of e-government corresponds with the types of value positions presented by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF]. In the sections below, we discuss different perspectives on citizens as users of e-government and depart from these four value positions. For each value position, we have found exemplary articles that we use to illustrate the various interpretations of the citizen as a user of digital public services.

Citizens as clients and consumers of public services (Professionalism ideal)

In the first value position presented by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF], the professionalism ideal, IT is seen as important infrastructure that can provide an independent, robust and consistent administration in accordance with the law. Important values guiding e-government initiatives include durability, equity, legality and accountability.

Literature associated with this ideal views the citizen more as a client or a customer. Thus, interactions between public agencies and citizens occur in the process of service delivery. Research from this perspective deals, for example, with changing internal and legal structures that occur with the introduction of IT in the public sector. In this view, public agencies do not simply introduce new infrastructure for improving service delivery but "[…] have the power to dictate the rules and regulations, and thus create a legal obligation." [34, p. 158] Here, the need for citizens to trust their administrations is often referred to, because public agencies cannot only dictate the rules for online activities but also "[…] may be required by law to share information with other agencies or with the citizenry, further intensifying the need for trust in the maintenance of accurate citizen information." [34, p. 158] Although the need for citizens' trust is recognized in this line of research, the understanding of the citizen is not further defined; the citizen is simply treated as an external entity to the public administration.

Citizens as receivers of public services (Efficiency ideal)

The efficiency ideal [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF] is characterized by wanting to provide lean and efficient administration, reducing waste of public resources gathered from taxpayers. Hence, value for money, cost reduction, productivity and performance are salient values. The dominant view on technology is that IT can be used for automation of administrative tasks. Much research on e-government has focused on digitalization of public services and internal administrative processes from a government perspective; in fact, e-government research is often criticized for being too supply-side and efficiency oriented [START_REF] Gauld | Do they want it? Do they use it? The 'Demand-Side' of e-Government in Australia and New Zealand[END_REF][START_REF] Reddick | Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers?[END_REF]. When looking at digital public services from an efficiency perspective, the external user -the citizen -is most often treated as a homogeneous and faceless group of people [START_REF] Distel | All citizens are the Same, Aren't They? -Developing an E-government User Typology[END_REF]. An example can be seen in Heeks' [START_REF] Heeks | Implementing and Managing eGovernment. An international text[END_REF] description of stakeholder roles in e-government projects, in which he describes six different types of stakeholders within the project management (project manager/team, suppliers operators, champions, sponsors, and owner), but merely two outside the project (clients and other stakeholders). The 'clients' are subsequently described as being one out of two types; primary clients are on the immediate receiving end of what the e-government system does or outputs. Sometimes these will be outside the government (e.g. citizens or businesses). Sometimes, though, these will be inside government (i.e. public servants): in this case, there may also be secondary clients who will be affected indirectly by the system since they are served by the primary clients (e.g. citizens served by those public servants) [START_REF] Heeks | Implementing and Managing eGovernment. An international text[END_REF]. In this line of thinking, the citizen as a user is mostly described in terms of its 'uptake' and 'adoption' of digital public services. The adoption of e-government by users outside the public administration is necessary to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative actions [START_REF] Belanche | Integrating trust and personal values into the Technology Acceptance Model: The case of e-government services adoption[END_REF]. This perspective is reflected in the use of maturity models and benchmarking studies that most often focus on the development of digital public services from a public administration viewpoint and do not consider the use of these services from the citizens' perspective.

Although some research exists that addresses the efficiency ideal from the citizens' perspective [START_REF] Araujo | Categorization of Brazilian Internet Users and Its Impacts on the Use of Electronic Government Services[END_REF], citizens are most often not further defined and treated simply as users of e-government [START_REF] Gil-Garcia | Collaborative e-Government: impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector[END_REF]. From the citizens' perspective, efficiency gains are related to the use of their personal resources: "Based on […their] capabilities, the individuals decide how they will use these resources in order to achieve their functioning, that is, the result of the effective use of these resources, which, in a last analysis, will lead to their utility, for example, exercise of rights, welfare [...]." [1, p. 243] Although the use of e-government by citizens can also be viewed from the perspective of efficiency gains, within this ideal the purpose of IT use is more often related to organizational efficiency: "Information technology (IT) is potentially capable of changing government organizational structures and business processes and, if implemented correctly, of producing substantial organizational, technical, and business benefits [...]." [12, p. 121] As such, interactions between public administrations and citizens take place within the service delivery process and citizens are here also treated as an undefined external entity.

Clients as users and adopters of digital public services (Service ideal)

In the service ideal [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF], maximising the utility of government to civil society by providing services directed towards the public good is in focus. Hence, public service, citizen centricity, service level and quality are dominant values. From this perspective, IT enables improved accessibility, availability and quality of services for citizens. Interestingly, this ideal is mostly prevalent in studies on e-government adoption although the adoption issue is also closely related to debates around efficiency gains for public administrations. The main rationale underlying this ideal is the use of ICT to better serve citizens: "Nevertheless, all the definitions [of e-government] are headed towards a single notion and encompass a generic and unique mission of e-Gov -presenting government systems using information and communication technology (ICT) to serve citizens better […]." [32, p. 17] Similarly, Nam [25, p. 211] expresses: "For a government to move toward a citizen-centric, outward-looking approach, understanding citizens' use of e-government and identifying determinants of e-government use has a central importance for both researchers and practitioners." Notably, although the citizens and their adoption behaviour are focused in this ideal, only Nam [START_REF] Nam | Determining the type of e-government use[END_REF] makes an attempt to better delineate who the citizen or user of e-government services are by differentiating three types of usage (access to information, transactions, participating). In accordance with the general service orientation expressed within this perspective, the use of IT for governmental purposes is predominantly focused on providing services by electronic means. Whereas articles mainly rooted in the efficiency ideal consider IT as a means to increase the public agency's internal efficiency, articles rooted in the service ideal are mainly geared towards providing better services for citizens: "The term electronic (e-) or digital government describes the utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT), predominantly internet-based applications, by administrative institutions to provide citizens and other stakeholders with directions and services related to a wide field of state functions [...]." [11, p. 637] In addition to the adoption discourse, two further debates in the e-government community can -at least partially -be related to this ideal. The first discussion is on user participation. Here, the involvement of citizens in the development process of digital public services is discussed as a way of attaining two main goals; system quality and democratic decision making. Conceptualizations of the user are often taken from more traditional IS literature on IT development. Thus, researchers in this field state that "[…] all types of users of a new system must be involved in different ways in the design of the relevant parts of a system." [5, p. 120] Similarly, Iivari et al. [15, p. 111] state that: "[u]sers usually are the best experts on the local work practices to be aligned with and to be supported by a system. Users also are the final 'implementers' of the system and evaluation of the system without any attention to subjective user-oriented criteria, such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived usability and user satisfaction, is seriously limited". In other fields, the question of who the users are has already been addressed and the integration of users in the design process is discussed [START_REF] Millerand | Who are the users? Who are the developers? Webs of users and developers in the development process of a technical standard[END_REF]. Often however, the users remain a largely undefined mass when examining existing studies [START_REF] Iivari | The user -the great unknown of systems development: reasons, forms, challenges, experiences and intellectual contributions of user involvement[END_REF].

The second discussion, on website quality, has its roots in the work on system quality, e.g. in terms of usability. In the e-government field, this is seen in applications of frameworks such as E-S-Qual [START_REF] Parasuraman | E-S-QUAL. A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality[END_REF], resulting in e-government context specific quality assessment frameworks such as E-GovQual [START_REF] Papadomichelaki | A multiple-item scale for assessing e-government service quality[END_REF] and quality dimensions for e-service design and evaluation [START_REF] Jansen | The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions[END_REF]. These frameworks typically construct quality based on several different constructs, e.g. efficiency, reliability, citizen support and trust [START_REF] Papadomichelaki | A multiple-item scale for assessing e-government service quality[END_REF], and usability, functionality, and technical performance [START_REF] Jansen | The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions[END_REF][START_REF] Papadomichelaki | A multiple-item scale for assessing e-government service quality[END_REF].

An underlying idea for both of these sub-perspectives is that a digital public service should be of high quality, assessed in relation to a set of quality dimensions, and that service of high quality is more likely to be used by the external user -the citizen. Through high usage of these services, the supplying organization can achieve the effectiveness and efficiency goals set in relation to these services. Hence, the user is seen both as the external actor whose behaviour determines the success of the system, but also as an important input in the design process, in which the system's quality is determined.

4.4

Citizens as co-producers of public policy and service (Engagement ideal)

The fourth value position, the engagement ideal [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF], departs from the public administration tradition of engaging with civil society to facilitate policy development in accordance with liberal democratic principles. Democracy, deliberation and participation are dominant values and IT is seen as a networking facilitation, as IT enables communicative interaction between governments and citizens.

Here, we see literature under a multitude of labels that we, in this paper, choose to treat together; e.g. on e-participation and digital divides. The common denominator is the underlying idea that, from a societal perspective, it is necessary that public services are accessible for all citizens, regardless of their personal abilities or preferences. Often, this research relates to the digital divide debate and discusses the relation between socio-demographic variables and the use of digital public services. The digital divide refers to a gap in the society that exists between those who have access to information and those who do not have access to information. This divide is aggravated by the use of technologies. Bélanger & Carter [START_REF] Bélanger | The impact of the digital divide on e-government use[END_REF] argue that this phenomenon relates i) to the access to technologies such as the Internet and ii) to the skills needed to use these technologies. Consequently, researchers in this area define different groups of citizens according to their access to digital public services and their resulting ability to participate in the digital administration, e.g. [START_REF] Becker | Digital Divide in eGovernment: The eInclusion Gap Model[END_REF].

With the increased digitisation of public services, scholars with various backgrounds have reported that in addition to the digital divide debate, not all citizens want to use egovernment services [START_REF] Leist | Accessibility Issues in E-Government[END_REF]. In this line of literature, the citizen as a user of public services is therefore often discussed in terms of being an agent that actively chooses between different channels for communication with public administrations. An underlying argument is that understanding how citizens decide on channels for interacting with public administrations might ensure the accessibility of public services for all citizens. Accordingly, authors argue that public administrations are responsible for ensuring social inclusion through digital public services: "In its purest form, citizens are all of us. We live our lives; we vote in elections; and we form special interest groups to influence decisions. In this way, the role of government is to create a society that presents for the individual citizen a possibility to live this kind of life." [13, p. 72] Thus, the citizens are not only treated as users of digital public services or an external entity, but are assigned different roles with varying degrees of involvement -and power [START_REF] Hansen | The Citizens in E-Participation[END_REF].

Discussion

In this section, the results of our explorative literature analysis in the preceding section is transposed into a framework of different conceptions of citizens as users of digital public services in relation to the four value positions by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF]. In order to better understand how the citizen is treated in each of the value paradigms and the related debates in e-government research, we focused our analysis of exemplary articles i) on how the citizen is conceptualized, ii) which role research assigns to the citizen in interactions with public administrations, and iii) how much attention the citizen is given (see Table 2). When describing citizens, literature from the field of administrative science often focuses on the role they play in the structure of 'public administration' as a whole as well as their way of interacting with public administration [START_REF] Jos | Keeping It Public: Defending Public Service Values in a Customer Service Age[END_REF][START_REF] Thomas | Citizen, Customer, Partner. Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management[END_REF]. Therefore, our analysis also focuses on these aspects. Lastly, as our analysis is on the conceptual level, we have added the question of what kind of attention is given to the citizen within each research direction.

In our exploration of possible variations of how the citizen as a user of digital public services is conceptualized within the e-government literature, the analysis revealed several interesting aspects. First, the four value positions as proposed by Rose et al. [38] differ with regard to the inherent conceptions of citizens as users of digital public services; presented in Table 2. It is noticeable that within each perspective, the citizen is conceptualized differently. For the professionalism ideal, we find examples for the treatment of the citizen as a client or a customer. Within the efficiency ideal, the citizen is understood as a passive receiver of digital services. Both ideals view the citizen as a more passive interaction partner. Similarly, both perspectives reduce the citizens' role in interactions with public administrations to a point of contact within the service delivery process. In contrast to this, research rooted in the service and engagement ideals promotes the active involvement of the citizen not only in the service process, but also in the design and policy process. Citizens are here treated as users and adopters of egovernment, as a source of design input (service ideal), and as co-producers of public policy (engagement ideal). In accordance with these conceptions, the citizens receive differing degrees of attention within each ideal. Whereas within the first two ideals the citizen is put in the background and views as a homogenous group, the service and engagement ideals treat citizens as heterogeneous entities. It is only within the latter ideal that the citizen is focused during the entire process. Surprisingly though, none of the analysed articles provided a definition of the term 'citizen' and only conceptualized the citizens and her role in interactions with public administrations implicitly. Interaction with the citizen takes place in the service process.

Interaction with the citizen takes place in the service process.

Promotes active interaction with citizens in design process.

Promotes active involvement of citizens in policy processes.

How much attention does research give to the citizen?

The citizen is put in the backgroundtreated as a homogeneous group.

The citizen is put in the backgroundtreated as a homogeneous group.

The citizen is focused during the design and implementation processes. Treated as a heterogeneous entity.

The citizen is focused during the entire process. Treated as a heterogeneous entity.

Secondly and detached from our proposed framework, the attribution of e-government research to one of the ideals by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF] reveals that they were merely implicitly present in the papers. The most prevalent ideal in this regard was the service ideal, i.e. e-government research often deals with the delivery of public services to external stakeholders such as businesses and citizens. While research related to other ideals often is concerned with interactions between citizens and public administrations that occur within the service process, within this ideal the citizen is often treated as a source of input already within the development and design process of public services. Whereas the efficiency and engagement ideal are as well present in the e-government research, we hardly found any examples for the professionalism ideal. This might be due to the fact that the professionalism ideal takes an organizational and processual perspective on e-government, in which legal aspects and changes to internal structures are focused rather than interactions with external partners. Therefore, there are considerably fewer articles for the professionalism ideal in our work than for the other three ideals. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that the perspectives taken in each article are neither disjoint nor mutually exclusive. Rather, they seem to overlap, at least in part, by taking a similar view, or building on each For example, we see that the service ideal is often combined with the engagement ideal, e.g. [START_REF] Nam | Determining the type of e-government use[END_REF] or that aspects of the engagement and efficiency ideal are treated together in one article, e.g. [START_REF] Gil-Garcia | Collaborative e-Government: impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector[END_REF]. In addition to the combination of two ideals, we found only two articles that took multiple perspectives on the citizen and explicitly served purposes that can be related to all four ideals [START_REF] Rowley | e-Government stakeholders -Who are they and what do they want[END_REF][START_REF] Scott | Measuring eGovernment success: a public value approach[END_REF].

Finally, we find that when analysing e-government papers in relation to the value ideals, it became apparent that each article takes a limited perspective on users of (digital) public services and focuses only certain aspects that serve specific research goals. To our knowledge, our article is the first attempt to collect these perspectives and to take a multi-dimensional look at different treatments of the citizen as a user of digital public services.

Conclusion & Outlook

This paper aimed to explore the possible variations in which the citizen as a user of digital public services is conceptualized within the e-government literature. Starting from the value framework proposed by Rose et al. [START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF], we employed an exploratory approach to analyze the existence of these ideals within e-government research and their manifestation in different conceptions of citizens as users of digital public services. In accordance with these ideals, articles from the field of e-government research differ with regard to their conception of citizens as users of digital public services. These differences are reflected in three aspects; i) the conceptualization or definition of the citizen, ii) the role citizens play in the respective research perspectives, and iii) the emphasis placed on the citizen in the provision of digital public services (see Table 2). This study contributes to e-government research by opening the lid of the black-box containing the 'citizen' as a user of digital public services. While a majority of studies in e-government consider the citizenry to be a homogenous group of people, our approach reveals that the citizen can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. As a consequence -depending on the perspective taken -different conceptualizations may impact the results and contributions of e-government research. For each of the identified perspectives, it is important to understand how the citizen or the user is treated, and to open the discussion to other perspectives. A too limited treatment of the citizen, as a user of digital public services, may hinder a deeper understanding of when and why citizens chose (not) to interact with the government through digital channels.

Table 1 .

 1 Four value positions for e-Government (shortened version of[START_REF] Rose | Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships[END_REF], p.542)

		Professional	Efficiency ideal Service ideal	Engagement
		ideal			ideal
	Public admin-	Providing an	Providing lean	Maximising the	Engaging with
	istration tradition	independent,	and efficient	utility of gov-	civil society to
		robust and con-	administration,	ernment to	facilitate pol-
		sistent admin-	which mini-	civil society by	icy develop-
		istration, gov-	mises waste of	providing ser-	ment in ac-
		erned by a rule	public re-	vices directed	cordance with
		system based	sources gath-	towards the	liberal demo-
		on law, result-	ered from tax-	public good	cratic princi-
		ing in the pub-	payers		ples; articulat-
		lic record,			ing the public
		which is the			good
		basis for ac-
		countability.
	Representative	Durability, eq-	Value for	Public service,	Democracy,
	values	uity, legality	money, cost re-	citizen cen-	deliberation
		and accounta-	duction,	tricity, service	and participa-
		bility	productivity	level and qual-	tion
			and perfor-	ity
			mance
	e-Government	Provide a flexi-	Streamline, ra-	Improve the	Support delib-
	purpose	ble and secure	tionalise and	availability, ac-	erative interac-
		digital public	transform pub-	cessibility and	tions with the
		record and sup-	lic administra-	usability of	public and the
		port standard-	tion around	government	co-production
		ised adminis-	digital technol-	services by	of policy
		trative proce-	ogies	providing them
		dures		online

Table 2 .

 2 Conceptions of citizens as users of digital public services

		Professional	Efficiency ideal Service ideal	Engagement
		ideal			ideal
	How is the citi-	Client/customer Receiver of	Users and	Co-producer of
	zen conceptual-		digital service	adopters of	public policy
	ized?			technology and
				source of design
				input
	What is the cit-
	izens' role in
	interactions
	with public ad-
	ministrations?