In this article, we developed and tested an integrated model to predict intention to use e-government services by combining the concepts of technology adoption, the digital divide, and conflict literature through surveys of 360 citizens of Afghanistan. Using a partial least squares approach, we found that components of the access divide and the social divide have significant effects on intentions to use e-government services, and that the perceived intensity of civil conflict and perceived behavioral conflict moderate certain predictors of intention to use e-government services. Implications for e-government service adoption and delivery in digitally divided conflict zones in the contexts of research, policy and practice are also discussed.
Afghanistan National Development Strategy 2008 (2008) Afghanistan National Development Strategy, Information and communication technology 2007/08-2012-13, pillar III: infrastructure. Government of Afghanistan: Afghanistan National Development Strategy.
2.
Al-AdawiZYousafzaiSPallisterJ (2005) Conceptual model of citizen adoption of e-government. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT’05).
3.
Al-GahtaniSSGeoffreySWangHJ (2007) Information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance and use of IT. Information & Management44, 681–691.
4.
Altai (2007) ICT sector in Afghanistan, CDP program private sector, final report to MCIT. Kabul, Afghanistan: Altia consulting.
5.
AndersonBTraceyK (2001) Digital living: the impact (or otherwise) of the Internet on everyday life. American Behavioral Scientist45(3): 456–475.
6.
Arenas-GaitánJRamírez-CorreaPRondán-CataluñaJ (2011) Cross cultural analysis of the use and perceptions of web based learning systems. Computers & Education57(2): 1762–1774. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.016
7.
ArgyrisC (1957) Personality and organization; the conflict between system and the individual. New York Harper & Row.
8.
BadreAN (2000) The effects of cross cultural interface design orientation on World Wide Web user performance. GVE Research Technical Reports. Accessed on November 11, 2009. ftp://ftp.cc.gatech.edu/pub/gvu/tr/2001/01-03.pdf
9.
BarkiHHartwickJ (2001) Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system development. MIS Quarterly25(2): 195–228.
10.
BasuS (2004) E-government and developing countries: an overview. International Review of Law Computers & Technology18(1): 109–132.
11.
Bahrain. E-Government Authority (2007) Findings of survey on customer satisfaction and e-government awareness. Bahrain E-Government Authority. Accessed on November 2009 athttp://www.ega.gov.bh/downloads/news/270509-3E.pdf
12.
Brislin RW (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology1(3): 185–216.
13.
BrislinRW (1986) The wording and translation of research instruments. In: LonnerW.L.BerryJ.W. (Ed.) Field methods in cross-cultural research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
14.
BrocknerJ (2005) Unpacking country effects: on the need to operationalize the psychological determinants of cross-national differences. In: StawB.M.SuttonR.L. (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior25, 335–369.
15.
CarterLBélangerF (2005) The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal 15, 5–25.
16.
CarterLWeerakkodyV (2008) E-government adoption: A cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers10(4): 473–482. doi: 10.1007/s10796-008-9103-6
17.
ChatfieldAAlhujranO (2007) An analysis of e-government maturity models from a user centric perspective: Toward a public value proposition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of EEE’07–The 2007 International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government, Monte Carlo Resort, Las Vegas, Nevada.
18.
ChenYNChenHMHuangWChingRKH (2006) E-government strategies in developed and developing countries: An implementation framework and case study. Journal of Global Information Management14(1): 23–46.
19.
ChinWWMarcolinBLNewstedPR (2003) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo Simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research14(2): 189–217.
20.
DavidsonECottenSR (2003) connection discrepancies: unmasking further layers of the digital divide. First Monday8(3).
21.
DeLoneWHMcLeanER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research3(1): 60–95.
22.
DeutschM (1990) Sixty years of conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management1(3): 237–263.
23.
DewanSRigginsF (2005) The digital divide: current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems6(12): 298–337.
24.
DiMaggioPHargittaiECelesteCShaferS (2004) From unequal access to differentiated use: a literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In: NeckermanK. (Ed.) Social inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 355–400.
25.
DmitriyGGrossmanHI (2000) Civil conflict: ended or never ending?The Journal of Conflict Resolution44(6): 808–822.
26.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18, 39–50.
27.
FrazierPATixAPBarronKE (2004) Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology51(1): 115–134.
28.
GilbertDBalestriniP (2004) Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-Government. The International Journal of Public Sector Management17(4): 286–301.
HarperV (2003) The digital divide (DD): A reconceptualization for educators. AACE Journal11(1): 96–103.
31.
HeeksR (2006) Understanding and measuring egovernment: international benchmarking studies. Paper prepared for UNDESA workshop, E-Participation and E-Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the Future, Budapest, Hungary.
32.
Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (2008) Crises–wars–coups d’état, negotiations–mediations–peace settlements. 17th Annual Conflict Analysis: Department of Political Science, The Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK). Available at: http://hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2008.pdf
33.
HelbigN (2008) Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly26(1): 89–97.
34.
HorriganJRaineyL (2002) The broadband difference: how online Americans’ behavior changes with high-speed Internet connections at home. Washington D.C: Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_Report.pdf. Accessed November 07,2009.
35.
IsginTBilgicAForsterDLBatteMT (2008) Using count data models to determine the factors affecting farmers' quantity decisions of precision farming technology adoption. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture62(2): 231–242.
36.
JaegerPTThompsonKM (2003) E-government around the world: lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly20(4): 389–394.
37.
KankanhalliATanBWeiKK (2007) Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems23(3): 237–274.
38.
KaplowitzN (1976) Psychopolitical dimensions of the Middle East conflict: policy implications. The Journal of Conflict Resolution20(2): 279–318.
39.
KathleenBCGallagherMD (2004) A nation online: entering the broadband age. U.S Department of Commerce, National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA). Retrieved 20 November 2009http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.pdf.
40.
KhanGFMoonJRheeCRhoJJ (2010) E-government skills identification and development: Toward a staged-based user-centric approach for developing countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems20(1): 1–31.
41.
KiiskiSPohjolaM (2002) Cross-country diffusion of the Internet. Information Economics and Policy14(2): 297–310.
42.
KijsanayotinBPannarunothaiSSpeedieSM (2009) Factors influencing health information technology adoption in Thailand's community health centers: Applying the UTAUT model. International Journal of Medical Informatics78(6): 404–416.
43.
KimYJungJY (2002) Digital divide in 90% access: multi-dimensional examination of adolescents' Internet connectedness in Seoul, Singapore and Taipei. In: Hwang JY. J.LeeJ. (Eds.) A study on the digital divide of the youth. Seoul Korea Institute for Youth Development. pp. 219–247.
44.
KohCEPrybutokVRZhangX (2008) Measuring e-government readiness. Information & Management45, 540–546.
45.
KvasnyLKeilM (2002, December15–18) The challenges of redressing the digital divide: a tale of two cities. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain.
46.
LandriganPJLioyPJThurstonGBerkowitzGChenLCChillrudSNGavettSHGeorgopoulosPGGeyhASLevinSPereraFRappaportSMSmallC (2004) Health and environmental consequences of the World Trade Center disaster. Environmental Health Perspectives112(6). 731–739.
47.
LayneKLeeJ (2001) Developing fully function e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly18(1): 122–136.
48.
MaldonadoUPTKhanGFMoonJRhoJJ (2010) E-learning motivation, students' acceptance/use of educational portal in developing countries: a case study of Peru. Online Information Review35(1): 66–85.
49.
MehraBMerkelCBishopAP (2004) The Internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media and Society6, 781–802.
MossbergerKTolbertCJStansburyM (2003) Virtual inequality: beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
52.
National Intelligence Council (2008) Global trends 2025: a transformed world. Washington: The National Intelligence Council's 2025 Project. Available at: www.Dni.Gov/Nic/Nic_2025_Project.Html
53.
NorrisP (2001) Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. New York Cambridge University Press.
Oyelaran-OyeyinkaBCatherineNA (2004) Internet access in Africa: empirical evidence from Kenya and Nigeria. Telematics and Informatics21(1): 67–81.
56.
PartridgeH (2007) Redefining the digital divide: attitudes do matter!Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology44(1): 1–13.
57.
PedersenD (2002) Political violence, ethnic conflict, and contemporary wars: broad implications for health and social well-being. Social Science & Medicine55, 175–190.
58.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJYPodsakoffNP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
59.
RenW (1999) Self-efficacy and the search for government information. Reference & User Service Quarterly38, 283–291.
RobeyDFarrowDLFranzCR (1989) Group process and conflict in system development. Management Science35(10): 1172–1191.
62.
RobeyDLSmithLAVijayasarathyLR (1993) Perceptions of conflict and success in information systems development projects. Journal of MIS10(1): 123–139.
63.
SangingaPKamugishaRMartinA (2007) Conflicts management, social capital and adoption of agroforestry technologies: empirical findings from the highlands of southwestern Uganda. Agroforestry Systems69(1): 67–76. doi: 10.1007/s10457-006-9018-5
64.
SelwynNGorardSFurlongJ (2005) Whose Internet is it anyway? Exploring adults’ (non)use of the Internet in everyday life. European Journal of Communication20(1): 5–26.
65.
SimmelG (1950) The sociology of Georg Simmel. (Translation and Introduction by WolffK.H.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
66.
SinghNToyDRWrightLK (2009) A diagnostic framework for measuring Web-site localization. Thunderbird International Business Review51(3): 281–295.
67.
SlackFRowleyJE (2004) Challenges in the delivery of e-government through kiosks. Journal of Information Science30(4): 369–377.
68.
SmithHAMcKeen JD (1992) Computerization and management: a study of conflict and change. Information & Management22, 53–64.
69.
SriteMKarahannaE (2006) The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly30(3): 679–704.
70.
StraubDKeilMBrennerW (1997) Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information & Management33(1): 1–11. doi: 10.1016/s0378-7206(97)00026-8
71.
SunH (2001) Building a culturally-competent corporate Web site: An explanatory study of cultural markers in multilingual Web design. In Proceedings of the SIGDOC’01, 2001, October21–24Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
72.
TeoTSSrivastavaSCJiangL (2008) Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems25(3): 99–131.
73.
ThomasKW (1992) Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior13, 265–274.
74.
TrimmerKCollinsRWWillRPBlantonE (2000) Information systems development: can there be “good” conflict?Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
75.
United Nations Environment Programme (1991) The Kosovo conflict–Consequences for the environment and human settlements. United States: UNEP and UNCHS. Available at: http://www.grid.unep.ch/btf/final/finalreport.pdf.
76.
Van der MeerAVan WindenW (2003) E-governance in cities: a comparison of urban information and communication technology policies. Regional Studies37(4): 407–419.
77.
VenkateshVBrownSA (2001) A longitudinal investigation of personal computer adoption in homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly25, 71–102.
78.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGBDavisFD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
79.
WalhelsteinJ (1985) Post-Vietnam counterinsurgency doctrine. Military Review1(42). 42–52.
80.
WallJACallisterRR (1995) Conflict and its management. Journal of Management21(3) 515–558.
81.
WangYSLiaoYW (2008) Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Government Information Quarterly25(4): 717–733.
82.
WangYSShihYW (2009) Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Government Information Quarterly Volume26(1): 158–165.
83.
WuCZhaoJXiaLZhuZ (2008) Impact of internal factors on information technology adoption: an empirical investigation of Chinese firms. Tsinghua Science & Technology13(3): 318–322.
