“You probably shouldn’t give them too much information” – Supporting Citizen-Government Collaboration

Conference paper


This paper discusses the challenge of supporting digitally mediated citizengovernment collaboration in public service provision. With a vantage point in activity theory and the empirical data from three exploratory design cases, we derive a theoretical framework for understanding the way in which citizens share information with government. Through the proposed framework and the notion of Participatory Citizenship, we propose a set of central design challenges to supporting collaboration within this setting. We argue that civil servants and citizens have inherently different foci in the service provision process. Hence, we conclude that the focus of design should not be to support a shared motive for the overall service delivery, but to support a better common understanding of the case process in itself, i.e. the involved actors, their motives, and their mediating artifacts. Moreover, we argue that the aim of technological support for complex collaboration should not be leaner, more rational case processes, but improved citizen involvement in the configuration of service provision and the alignment of actor motives. Lastly, we exemplify how these design challenges can be met by discussing how a concrete exploratory prototype in the form of a web-based timeline addresses collaboration within a complex service provision setting.


Service Provision Parental Leave Collaborative Activity Computer Support Cooperative Work Case Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bannon, L. and Schmidt, K. (1991): ‘CSCW, four characters in search of a context’, in J.M. Bowers and S.D. Benford (eds.): Studies in computer supported cooperative work. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  2. Bardram, J. (1998a): Collaboration, Coordination, and Computer Support-An Activity Theoretical Approach to the Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Dissertation Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  3. Bardram, J. (1998b): ‘Designing for the dynamics of cooperative work activities’. Proceedings of the ACM CSCW ’98. ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 89–98.Google Scholar
  4. Barney, D. (2000): Prometheus Wired: The Hope for Democracy in the Age of Network Technology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. Bertelsen, O.W. and Bødker, S. (2001): ‘Cooperation in massively distributed information spaces.’ ECSCW 2001: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  6. Bohøj, M., Borchorst, N.G., Bouvin, N., Bødker, S. and Zander, P.-O. (2010): ‘Timeline collaboration.’ CHI 2010, pp. 523–532, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bohøj, M., Borchorst, N.G., Bødker, S., Korn, M. and Zander, P.-O. (2011): ‘Public deliberation in municipal planning: supporting action and reflection with mobile technology,’ ACM Communities and Technologies, in press.Google Scholar
  8. Borchorst, N.G., Bødker, S. and Zander, P.-O. (2009): ‚Participatory citizenship’, ECSCW 2009: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Bowers, J. Button, G. and Sharrock, W. (1995): ‘Workflow from within and without: technology and cooperative work on the print industry shopfloor.’ Proceedings of the fourth conference on European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’95). Kluwer Dordrecht, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar
  10. Bryant, S. L., Forte, A. and Bruckman, A. (2005): ‘Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia.’ Proceedings of GROUP, ACM Press, NY, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  11. Bowker, G.C. and Star, S.L. (1999): Sorting Things Out. Classification and its Consequences, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  12. Bødker, S. and Grønbæk, K. (1995): ‘Users and Designers in Mutual Activity- an analysis of cooperative activities in systems design,’ in Y. Engeström and D. Middleton (Eds.). Cognition and Communication at Work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 130–158.Google Scholar
  13. Bødker, S. and Christiansen, E. (1997): ‘Scenarios as springboards in design.,’ in Bowker, G., Gasser, L., Star, S.L. and Turner, W. (eds.). Social science research, technical systems and cooperative work. Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ, pp. 217–234.Google Scholar
  14. Bødker, S. and Christiansen, E. (2004): ‘Designing for ephemerality and prototypicality.’ Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, pp. 255–260.Google Scholar
  15. Bødker, S. and Klokmose, C.N. (2011): ‘The Human-Artifact Model,’ accepted for publication in HCI Journal.Google Scholar
  16. Clement, A. and Wagner, I. (1995): ‘Fragmented exchange: Disarticulation and the need for regionalized communication spaces.’ Proceedings of ECSCW ‘95, Kluwer, Amsterdam, pp. 33–49.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, A.L., Cash, D. and Muller, M.J. (2000): ‘Designing to support adversarial collaboration.’ Proceedings of CSCW 2000, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y. (1987): Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y. (1990): Learning Working and Imagining. Twelve Studies in Activity Theory. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  20. Engeström, Y., Brown, K., Christopher, L. and Gregory, J. (1997). ‘Coordination, Cooperation, and Communication in the courts. ‘In Cole, M., Engeström, Y., and Vasquez, O. (Eds.) Mind, Culture, and Activity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 369–385.Google Scholar
  21. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. and Saarelma, O. (1988): ‘Computerized medical records, production pressure and compartmentalization in the work activity of health center physicians.’ Proceedings of CSCW ’88. ACM, New York, NY, pp. 65–84.Google Scholar
  22. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.) (1991): Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Grudin, J. (1994): ‘Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers..’ Communications of the ACM, 37, 1 pp. 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaeger, P. T. and Thompson, M. (2003): ‘E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions.’ Government Information Quarterly 20, pp. 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kling, R. (1991): ‘Cooperation, coordination and control in computer-supported work.’ Communications of the ACM. 34 (12), pp. 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuutti, K. (1991): ‘The concept of activity as a basic unit of analysis for CSCW research.’ Proceedings of ECSCW’91. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 249–264.Google Scholar
  27. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991): Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.Google Scholar
  28. Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D. and Davis, M. (2006). HT06, Tagging Paper, Taxonomy, Flickr, Academic Article, ToRead. Proc. Hypertext ’06, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp 31–40.Google Scholar
  29. Osimo, D. (2008): Web 2.0 in government: why and how? Technical Report. JRC, EUR 23358, EC JRC.Google Scholar
  30. Raeithel, A. (1996): ‘From coordinatedness to Coordination via Cooperation and Coconstruction.’ Workshop on Work and Learning in Transition, San Diego, January.Google Scholar
  31. Schmidt, K and Bannon, L. (1992): ‘Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work.’ JCSCW, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, 7–40.Google Scholar
  32. Schön, D. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Temple Smith, London.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, M. (1991): ‘Double-level languages and co-operative working.’ AI and Society, 5(1), pp. 34–60 Springer London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Star, S.L. (1989): ‘The structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem solving’. Distributed Artificial Intelligence, volume II, chapter 3, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
  35. Star, S.L. (1996): ‘Working together: symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems.’ Engeström, Y. and Middleton D. (Eds.). Cognition and Communication at Work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 296–318.Google Scholar
  36. Vigoda, E. (2002): ‘From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration.’ Public Administration Review, 62(5), pp. 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004): ‘Educating the "Good" Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals.’ Political Science and Politics, pp. 241–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations