Administrators’ identities and strategies in the e-participation innovation process: A qualitative analysis of institutional logics and institutional work in German municipalities

Abstract

Local public administrations around the world are facing the challenge of introducing e-participation, but the cultural and institutional aspects of the e-participation innovation process have not been researched extensively. This dearth in research can inhibit our understanding of how and why e-participation succeeds, fails or develops in certain contexts. Thus, we apply two concepts from organizational institutionalism to determine how e-participation in local public administrations is influenced by and influences the organizational and institutional context. Institutional logics help us to describe and analyze the complex institutional context, and institutional work assists in focusing agency aimed at but also embedded in this institutional context. The research, which includes results of a multiple case study of three local German public administrations, finds that three role identities in regard to e-participation can be distinguished: entrepreneurs, pragmatists, and skeptics. These identities develop in relation to administrators’ positions in e-participation processes and evolve as actors engage strategically in the innovation process through institutional work on e-participation practices at the individual, project, and organizational level. We thereby generate insights into the specific perspective of central actors in the e-participation innovation process (i.e. administrators).

Keywords

e-participation institutional logics institutional work public administration local government innovation institutional complexity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alcaide-Muñoz,

Bolívar,

M. P. R.

Cobo,

M. J.

, & Herrera-Viedma,

(2017). Analysing the scientific evolution of e-Government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.002

Almandoz,

Marquis,

, & Cheely,

(2017). Drivers of Community Strength: An Institutional Logics Perspective on Geographical and Affiliation-Based Communities. In Greenwood

Oliver

Lawrence

T.B.

, & Meyer

R.E.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2

{}^{\rm nd}

ed., pp. 190–213). London: Sage Publications.

Andersen,

K. V.

Henriksen,

H. Z.

Secher,

, & Medaglia,

(2007). Costs of e-participation: the management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506160710733689

Arnstein,

S. R.

(1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.

Bach,

van Thiel,

Hammerschmid,

, & Steiner,

(2016). Administrative tradition and management reforms: A comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four Continental Rechtsstaat countries. Public Management Review, 19(6), 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205

Bannister,

, & Connolly,

(2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002

Bannister,

, & Connolly,

(2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-government really have a problem? Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.10.003

Battilana,

Sengul,

Pache,

A.-C.

, & Model,

(2015). Harnessing Productive Tensions in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Work Integration Social Enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903

Battilana,

Besharov,

M. L.

, & Mitzinneck,

(2017). On Hybrids and Hybrid Organizing: A Review and Roadmap for Future Research. In Greenwood

Oliver

Lawrence

T. B.

, & Meyer

R. E.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2

{}^{\rm nd}

ed., pp. 128–162). London: Sage Publications.

10.

Battilana,

, & Lee,

(2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.893615

11.

Bekkers,

, & Homburg,

(Eds.). (2005). The information ecology of e-government: E-government as institutional and technological innovation in public administration. Informatization developments and the public sector: Vol. 9. Amsterdam, Washington, DC: IOS.

12.

Besharov,

M. L.

, & Smith,

W. K.

(2014). Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431

13.

Bévort,

, & Suddaby,

(2016). Scripting professional identities: How individuals make sense of contradictory institutional logics. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov007

14.

Bogumil,

(2003). Veränderungen im Kräftedreieck zwischen Bürgern, Politik und Verwaltung. In Grunow

(Ed.), Verwaltung in Nordrhein-Westfalen: Zwischen Ärmelschoner und E-Government (pp. 109–142). Münster: Aschendorff Verlag.

15.

Bogumil,

, & Holtkamp,

(2013). Kommunalpolitik und Kommunalverwaltung: Eine praxisorientierte Einführung (Vollständige Neufassung). Schriftenreihe/Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung: Vol. 1329. Bonn: BPB.

16.

Bolívar,

M. P. R.

(2017). Governance Models for the Delivery of Public Services Through the Web 2.0 Technologies: A Political View in Large Spanish Municipalities. Social Science Computer Review, 35(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315609919

17.

Bourgault,

, & van Dorpe,

(2013). Managerial reforms, Public Service Bargains and top civil servant identity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312467739

18.

Bovaird,

(2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x

19.

Brandsen,

Trommel,

, & Verschuere,

(2015). The state and the reconstruction of civil society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(4), 676–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315592467

20.

Chadwick,

(2011). Explaining the Failure of an Online Citizen Engagement Initiative: The Role of Internal Institutional Variables. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2010.507999

21.

Christensen,

, & Laegreid,

(2012). Administrative Reform in Western Democracies. In Peters

B. G.

& Pierre

(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Public Administration (2

{}^{\rm nd}

ed., pp. 577–589). London: Sage Publications.

22.

Cloutier,

Denis,

J.-L.

Langley,

, & Lamothe,

(2016). Agency at the Managerial Interface: Public Sector Reform as Institutional Work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv009

23.

Cordella,

, & Bonina,

C. M.

(2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004

24.

Coule,

T. M.

, & Patmore,

(2013). Institutional Logics, Institutional Work, And Public Service Innovation in Non-Profit Organizations. Public Administration, 91(4), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12005

25.

Cunliffe,

A. L.

(2011). Crafting Qualitative Research: Morgan and Smircich 30 Years On. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110373658

26.

Danziger,

J. N.

(2004). Innovation in Innovation? The Technology Enactment Framework. Social Science Computer Review, 22(1), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303259892

27.

Dekker,

, & Bekkers,

(2015). The contingency of governments’ responsiveness to the virtual public sphere: A systematic literature review and meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.007

28.

Denhardt,

J. V.

, & Denhardt,

R., B.

(2015). The New Public Service Revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347

29.

Dunn,

M. B.

, & Jones,

(2010). Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149.

30.

Emerson,

Nabatchi,

, & Balogh,

(2011). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011

31.

Emery,

, & Giauque,

(2005). Employment in the public and private sectors: toward a confusing hybridization process. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(4), 639–657.

32.

Emery,

, & Giauque,

(2014). The hybrid universe of public administration in the 21st century. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313513378

33.

Fossestol,

Breit,

Andreassen,

T. A.

, & Klemsdal,

(2015). Managing Institutional Complexity in Public Sector Reform: Hybridization in Front-Line Servic Organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12144

34.

Fountain,

J. E.

(2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

35.

Fountain,

J. E.

(2009). Bureaucratic reform and e-government in the United States: An institutional perspective. In Chadwick

& Howard

P.N.

(Eds.), Routledge International Handbooks. Routledge handbook of Internet politics (pp. 99–113). London, New York: Routledge.

36.

Friedland,

, & Alford,

R. R.

(1991). Bringing Society Back, Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions. In Powell

W. W.

& DiMaggio

P. J.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago [u.a.]: Univ. of Chicago Press.

37.

Fung,

(2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 66–75.

38.

Geißel,

(2009). How to Improve the Quality of Democracy? Experiences with Participatory Innovations at the Local Level in Germany. German Politics and Society, 27(4), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.3167/gps.2009.270403

39.

Giddens,

(1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

40.

Gladitz,

Schöttle,

Steinbach,

Wilker,

, & Witt,

(2017). DIID Monitor Online-Partizipation – Zum Stand von Online-Bürgerbeteiligung in den Kommunen Nordrhein-Westfalens. KommunalPraxis Wahlen, 8(1), 30–34.

41.

Greenwood,

Oliver,

Lawrence,

T. B.

, & Meyer,

R. E.

(2017). Introduction: Into the Fourth Decade. In Greenwood

Oliver

Lawrence

T. B.

, & Meyer

R. E.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2

{}^{\rm nd}

ed., pp. 1–24). London: Sage Publications.

42.

Greenwood,

Raynard,

Kodeih,

Micelotta,

E. R.

, & Lounsbury,

(2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299

43.

Harrison,

T. M.

Guerrero,

Burke,

G. B.

Cook,

Cresswell,

Helbig,

, & Pardo,

(2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83–97.

44.

Hepburn,

(2014). Local Democracy in a Digital Age: Lessons for Local Government from the Manchester Congestion Charge Referendum. Local Government Studies, 40(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.829457

45.

Hood,

(1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

46.

Janssen,

, & Helbig,

(2016). Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared! Government Information Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.009

47.

Janssen,

, & van der Voort,

(2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.003

48.

Jay,

(2013). Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772

49.

Kearns,

Bend,

, & Stern,

(2002). E-participation in local government. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan038370.pdf

50.

King,

J. L.

, & Kraemer,

K. L.

(2012). Too Early To Say. In Snellen

I. T. M.

Thaens

, & van de Donk

(Eds.), Innovation and the public sector: v. 19. Public administration in the information age: Revisited (pp. 281–295). Washington, D.C.: IOS Press.

51.

Klijn,

E.-H.

, & Skelcher,

(2007). Democracy and Governance Networks: Compatible or Not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587–608.

52.

Koliba,

Zia,

, & Lee,

B. H. Y.

(2011). Governance Informatics: Managing the Performance of Inter-Organizational Governance Networks. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 16(1), 1–26.

53.

Kornberger,

Meyer,

R. E.

Brandtner,

, & Höllerer,

M. A.

(2017). When Bureaucracy Meets the Crowd: Studying “Open Government” in the Vienna City Administration. Organization Studies, 38(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655496

54.

Kraatz,

M. S.

, & Block,

E. S.

(2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). Los Angeles, London: Sage Publications.

55.

Kramer,

(2005). Local government and city states in Germany. In Steytler

(Ed.), Occasional papers/Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung: November 2005. The place and role of local government in federal systems (pp. 83–94). Johannesburg: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

56.

Kuhlmann,

Bogumil,

, & Grohs,

(2008). Evaluating Administrative Modernization in German Local Governments: Success or Failure of the “New Steering Model”? Public Administration Review, 68(5), 851–863.

57.

Kuhlmann,

Veit,

, & Bogumil,

(2015). Public Service Systems at Subnational and Local Levels of Government: A British-German-French Comparison. In van der Meer

F. M.

Raadschelders

J. C. N.

, & Toonen

T. A. J.

(Eds.), Comparative civil service systems in the 21st century (2

{}^{\rm nd}

ed., pp. 162–184). Houndsmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

58.

Lawrence,

T. B.

Suddaby,

, & Leca,

(Eds.). (2009). Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

59.

Lawrence,

T. B.

Suddaby,

, & Leca,

(2011). Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222

60.

Lenk,

(2012). The Nuts and Bolts of Administrative Action in an Information Age. In Snellen

I. T. M.

, Thaens

& van de Donk

(Eds.), Innovation and the public sector: v. 19. Public administration in the information age: Revisited (pp. 221–234). Washington, D.C.: IOS Press.

61.

Levina,

, & Vaast,

(2005). The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.

62.

Lips,

(2012). E-Government is dead: Long live Public Administration 2.0. Information Polity, 17(3-4), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-120292

63.

Lok,

(2010). Institutional Logics as Identity Projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305–1335. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.57317866

64.

Luna-Reyes,

L. F.

, & Gil-Garcia,

J. R.

(2014). Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001

65.

Macintosh,

(2004). Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making. In Proceedings of the 37t⁢h Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300

66.

Matei,

, & Irimia,

S. I.

(2014). Open Source Governance – A More Ambitious Cousin of Collaborative Governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(12), 812–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.907315

67.

McPherson,

C. M.

, & Sauder,

(2013). Logics in Action: Managing Institutional Complexity in a Drug Court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486447

68.

Meijer,

A. J.

(2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001

69.

Meijer,

A. J.

Gil-Garcia,

J. R.

, & Bolivar,

M. P. R.

(2016). Smart City Research: Contextual Conditions, Governance Models, and Public Value Assessment. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315618890

70.

Mergel,

I. A.

(2016). Social media institutionalization in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.002

71.

Meyer,

J. W.

, & Rowan,

(1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

72.

Meyer,

R. E.

Egger-Pleitler,

Höllerer,

M. A.

, & Hammerschmid,

. (2014). Of Bureaucrats and Passionate Public Managers: Institutional Logics, Executive Identities, and Public Service Motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 861–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02105.x

73.

Meyer,

R. E.

, & Hammerschmid,

(2006). Changing Institutional Logics and Executive Identities: A Managerial Challenge to Public Administration in Austria. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 1000–1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285182

74.

Millard,

(2015). Open governance systems: Doing more with more. Government Information Quarterly. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.08.003aaa(000)Möltgen, K., & Pippke, W. (2009). New Public Management und die Demokratisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung. In E. Czerwick, W. H. Lorig, & E. Treutner (Eds.), Die öffentliche Verwaltung in der Demokratie der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 199–224). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. aaa(000)Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.016 aaa(000)Netzwerk Bürgerbeteiligung. (2017). Netzwerk kommunale Partizipationsbeauftragte. Retrieved from https://www.netzwerk-buergerbeteiligung.de/kommunale-beteiligungspolitik-gestalten/beteiligungsorientierte-verwaltung/netzwerk-kommunale-partizipationsbeauftragte/ aaa(000)Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). E-democracy at the American grassroots: Not now…not likely? Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 18(3), 201–216. aaa(000)Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. aaa(000)Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and Open Government: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment aaa(000)Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Pressures. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. aaa(000)Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719 030600853022 aaa(000)Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Embedded in Hybrid Contexts: How Individuals in Organizations Respond to Competing Institutional Logics. In E. Boxenbaum & M. Lounsbury (Eds.), Research in Sociology of Organizations: 39B. Institutional Logics in Action, Part B (pp. 3–35). Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039AB014 aaa(000)Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2009). eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? European Journal of ePractice. (7), 15–26. Retrieved from https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/91/da/cc/ePractice%20Journal-Vol.7-March%202009.pdf aaa(000)Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2014). Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives. Information and Organization, 24(4), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.08.001 aaa(000)Paulin, A., & Anthopoulos, L. G. (2017). Reaching Beyond Bureaus: Perspectives and Challenges of Sustainable, Non-Bureaucratic Government. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 4(2), v–vi. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.seppur.2011.03.001 aaa(000)Peters, B. G. (2010). Bureaucracy and Democracy. Public Organization Review, 10(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115 -010-0133-4 aaa(000)Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2012). The turn to work in organization and management theory: Some implications for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012453109 aaa(000)Pierre, J. (2009). Reinventing governance, reinventing democracy? Policy & Politics, 37(4), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1332/ 030557309X477208 aaa(000)Polzer, T., Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M. A., & Seiwald, J. (2016). Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms. In J. Gehman, M. Lounsbury, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 48B. How institutions matter! (48B, pp. 69–99). Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10. 1108/S0733-558X201600048B003 aaa(000)Raaijmakers, A. G. M., Vermeulen, P. A. M., Meeus, M. T. H., & Zietsma, C. (2015). I Need Time! Exploring Pathways to Compliance under Institutional Complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amj.2011.0276 aaa(000)Reay, T., Goodrick, E., Waldorff, S. B., & Casebeer, A. (2017). Getting Leopards to Change their Spots: Co-creating a New Professional Role Identity. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1043–1070. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0802 aaa(000)Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 441–454. https://doi. org/10.1177/1476127015589981 aaa(000)Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. aaa(000)Rose, J., Persson, J. S., Heeager, L. T., & Irani, Z. (2015). Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships. Information Systems Journal, 25(5), 531–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12052 aaa(000)Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007 aaa(000)Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, London: Sage Publications. aaa(000)Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2016). Toward an integrative assessment of open government: Proposing conceptual lenses and practical components. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1125190 aaa(000)Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly, 31, S63-S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008 aaa(000)Scarbrough, H., Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2015). Diffusion in the Face of Failure: The Evolution of a Management Innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12093 aaa(000)Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. aaa(000)Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., & Weerakkody, V. (2015). Evaluating the use and impact of Web 2.0 technologies in local government. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.004 aaa(000)Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations, and Actor Identities: The Case of Nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12105 aaa(000)Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance Trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing Conflicting-yet-Complementary Logics in Practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amj.2012.0638 aaa(000)Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x aaa(000)Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0275074005282583 aaa(000)Susha, I., & Grönlund, Å. (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005 aaa(000)Tassabehji, R., Hackney, R., & Popovič, A. (2016). Emergent digital era governance: Enacting the role of the ‘institutional entrepreneur’ in transformational change. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.giq.2016.04.003 aaa(000)Taylor, J. A., & Lips, M. (2008). The citizen in the information polity: Exposing the limits of the e-government paradigm. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 13(3-4), 139–152. aaa(000)Tholen, B. (2015). Citizen participation and bureaucratization: the participatory turn seen through a Weberian lens. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(3), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314548152 aaa(000)Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1858–1990. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. aaa(000)Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. aaa(000)van Duivenboden, H., & Thaens, M. (2008). ICT-driven innovation and the culture of public administration: A contradiction in terms? Information Polity, 13(3-4), 213–232. aaa(000)Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037. 2014.930505 aaa(000)Wahid, F., & Sein, M. K. (2014). Steering Institutionalization through Institutional Work: The Case of an eProcurement System in Indonesian Local Government. In 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 4264–4274). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.527 aaa(000)Weber, M. (1972). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie (5th ed.). Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. aaa(000)Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011). Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 320–328. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.giq.2010.07.010 aaa(000)Welch, E. W., & Feeney, M. K. (2014). Technology in government: How organizational culture mediates information and communication technology outcomes. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 506–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.giq.2014.07.006 aaa(000)Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4

{}^{\rm th}

ed.). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

75.

Zietsma,

, & Lawrence,

T. B.

(2010). Institutional Work in the Transformation of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.