Transcript Slide 1

Gaining the World and Losing the Soul?
Trust Change and Electronic Government
Mike Grimsley & Anthony Meehan
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
1
Outline
• Context: public services and e-government
• Moving the focus of attention beyond ‘realising the efficiencies
promised by investment in technology’
• Importance of Trust in Social Value of the technology
• Describing and explaining loss of trust by users of e-government
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
2
Public Services Context
Goals of e-government include:
• efficiency (cost:benefit, RoI)
• effectiveness (primary service-related outcomes)
• realising democratically expressed values and aspirations - the
“soul” of a community: regeneration, sustainability, well-being.
The focus remains on realising efficiency (in the UK, at least).
But there is a need to better understand how to realise effectiveness
and community sustainability.
We focus on Trust as an expression of these forms of Social Value.
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
3
Trust
vertical trust
ICT
political, social and economic institutions
horizontal trust
community – family, friends, neighbours
How will e-government impact the relationship between citizen and
public service provider?
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
4
‘Trust’ in Public Services
• A client’s psychological state arising from their experience of
vulnerability in the light of their expectations of the intentions and
behaviour of the service provider (c.f. Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).
• Constructed from expectations and experiences of behaviours
underpinned by institutional rules, laws, and customs (Calnan and
Rowe, 2006); in this case, people’s experience of the relationship
between themselves (people ‘in need of’ or ‘entitled to’ a public
service) and a local council, its officers and elected
representatives.
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
5
Trust and Social Exclusion
• Connection between experience of vulnerability and trust as a
psychological state articulated by Luhmann (1994) who sees trust
as arising in situations of risk, where “one must accept the
possibility of future loss as a consequence of one’s own action or
omission”.
• People whose experience is one of not taking the right action at
the right time are “likely to enter … the vicious circle of not risking
trust, losing possibilities of rational action, losing confidence in the
system, and … being that much less prepared to risk trust at all”.
• Thus, Luhmann points towards a link between corrosion of trust,
anxiety, alienation and social exclusion.
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
6
Role of Trust in Social Value
• Engagement with services (effectiveness)
“The level of trust in an organisation affects levels of use and engagement with
services. Some [people] avoid contact with services they do not trust unless it is
absolutely essential. This can have a direct impact on how well services meet the
wider community's needs.” (MORI, Trust in Public Institutions: A Report for the UK Audit Commission, 2003)
• Community sustainability and well-being
“Trust is an expression of a community’s capacity to co-operate to achieve a
better quality of life.”
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
7
Case: Choice-based Letting
Significant change in approach to allocation of public housing:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Available properties advertised.
People registered as being in need may apply for properties.
Allocation determined according to priority and other policy considerations.
Encourages ‘out of borough’ and ‘non public sector’ alternatives.
Encourages a multi-agency approach to needs.
ICT-mediated route complemented by Local Estate and Central Housing
Officers.
• Many characteristics of CBL systems (and level of analysis used here) are
comparable to those in other (UK) public services such as education, health
care, social services, etc..
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
8
Survey
6 months post-launch
• 2315 CBL ‘IT-Users’
• 3625 CBL ‘non-IT-Users’
• 244 responses (11%)
• 427 responses (12%)
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
9
Changes in Trust (+/-)
Change in Trust (Percentage of clients)
Trust in Councillors (non-users)
Trust in Councillors (users)
Trust in Council (non-users)
Tru st inCouncil (users)
Trust in H.O.s (non-users)
Trust in H.O.s (users)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Trust is Less : Trust is More
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
10
Experience driving trust change
Trust in housing officers is principally driven by:
1.
2.
•
•
•
Client’s appreciation of why they themselves are unsuccessful in an application.
Ease of contacting a housing officer when needed.
Being better informed about housing in general.
Sense of empowerment.
Being more able to influence/negotiate.
•
Ability of a housing officer to answer queries in a reasonable length of time.
Trust in the council is principally driven by:
1.
2.
•
•
•
•
Client’s appreciation of why they are unsuccessful in an application.
Sense of empowerment.
Being more able to influence/negotiate.
Ease of contacting a housing officer when needed.
Being better informed about housing in general.
Ability of housing officer to answer queries in a reasonable length of time.
Trust in elected councillors is principally driven by:
1. Being better informed about housing in general.
2. Client’s appreciation of why they are unsuccessful in an application.
3. Being helped to consider alternatives to their accommodation needs.
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
11
Explanations (1)
Context:
• Enhanced understanding of housing in general, especially amongst ICT-users.
Prominence of:
• Client’s appreciation of why they are unsuccessful in an application when
others are successful.
• Ability to speak to a Housing Officer.
Explanation?:
• Fairness and equity are fundamental expectations in respect of the ‘rules,
norms and customs’ of councils and public services. In the absence of an
explanation as to why you are treated differently to the successful applicant it is
very difficult to resolve doubts about the fairness or equity of a decision.
• Feedback from HO enables them to model rationally their situation in relation to
others and to understand the response in light of their choices/actions.
• Lack of appropriate feedback makes it difficult to strategise (i.e. consider
alternative courses of action to improve one’s chances).
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
12
Tentative explanations (2)
Context:
• The meaning of “Choice” - relative transfer of power/control.
• Enhanced sense of control.
Prominence of:
• Empowerment
Explanation:
• Having a sense of Influence is one of the drivers of trust (Grimsley and
Meehan, 2007).
• Sense of Contingency derives from ability to identify a (rational) relationship
between one’s actions and a perceived response. Allows one to adapt
behaviour in pursuit of some desired goal. Loss of sense of contingency may
be associated with uncertainty and unpredictability and it is associated with
feelings of powerlessness, helplessness, alienation, or even mental illness
(Skinner, 1996).
– People whose experience is one of not taking the right action at the right time are
likely to enter … the vicious circle of not risking trust, losing possibilities of rational
action, losing confidence in the system, and … being that much less prepared to risk
trust at all (Luhmann)
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
13
How might this arise? (1)
A. Simple oversight?
B. Deployment of a model for e-commerce into e-government?
We identify three types of e-government service interaction:
1. Information seeking (what, where, when)
2. Transactional (taxes, fines, etc)
3. Complex problem solving (social services, school allocation,
public housing, justice, etc)
e-commerce model may suit 1 and 2, but not 3.
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
14
How might this arise? (2)
C. Challenge of Co-production?
3 strategic modes of interaction:
Information seeking (e.g. looking for the ‘what, where, when, and why’).
Transactional (e.g. reporting, paying taxes, parking-fines, applying for planning
permission, etc.)
Complex problem solving (e.g. interacting with social services, school allocation,
public housing, justice, etc. and possibly more than one agency).
CBL at the forefront of strategic capability in e-government.
Challenge of equipping people to contribute effectively to the
solution of often intractable personal and social problems.
Responsibilisation without Emancipation (Clarke et al 2007)?
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
15
Going further?
D. Deliberate Strategy?
Gaining the world? - ‘New Public Management’ (1980s-90s):
“an inappropriate emphasis on narrow concepts of cost-efficiency and a
downplaying of non-functional objectives that were difficult to
measure…reduction of goals to simplistic targets that lend themselves to
manipulation and contrivance in their attainment.” (Kelly, Mulgan, Muers, 2002; Moore, 1995)
Losing the Soul? - Casting Citizens as Consumers/Customers (late
1990s - ):
Ideological images of the citizen-consumer…
“harvesting information”, “making informed choices in the market”, “walking away
from public services which do not command their confidence” (Milburn, 2002)
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
16
Mike Grimsley & Anthony Meehan
Supplementary Slides
• For possible use in discussion.
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
18
Changes in Trust (+/-)
User respondents
(N=244)
Trust Councillors
No.
%
Non-User
respondents
(N=427)
No.
%
More
13
5
72
17
Same
137
56
151
35
Worse
59
24
64
15
Missing
35
15
140
33
User respondents
(N=244)
Trust Council
No.
%
Non-User
respondents
(N=427)
No.
%
More
24
10
119
28
Same
137
56
127
30
Worse
57
23
54
12
Missing
26
11
127
30
User respondents
(N=244)
Trust Staff
No.
%
Non-User
respondents
(N=427)
No.
%
More
22
9
97
23
Same
143
58
131
31
Worse
53
22
66
15
Missing
26
11
133
31
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
19
Service Experience 1
Multinomial Models Adjusted* Odds Ratios (OR) Adjusted for age and years looking for property (apart from base models)
Explanatory
variables
ICT user
Housing
Officer: ease
contact
Housing
Officer:
competence
Categories
N
(max)
Trust level: Housing staff
(ref: Less 20.3%)
Trust level: Local council
(ref: Less 19.0%)
Trust level: Elected
councillors (ref: Less 21.1%)
More
(17.5%)
Unchange
d
(62.2%)
More
(20.7%)
Unchanged
(60.3%)
More
(12.5%)
Unchanged
(66.4%)
Yes
206
0.33
1.10
0.26
0.83
0.24
0.94
No (ref)
315
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Easy
259
17.65
3.58
11.05
3.20
3.62
2.13
Unsure
196
5.75
2.65
3.83
3.00
2.20
2.11
Difficult (ref)
66
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
High
204
5.59
3.36
5.91
4.35
2.53
3.13
Unsure
212
2.10
3.71
2.04
2.90
0.74
2.10
Low (ref)
105
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
20
Service Experience 2
Multinomial Models Adjusted* Odds Ratios (OR) Adjusted for age and years looking for property (apart from base models)
Explanatory
variables
TCH user
Appreciate
why others
allocated
Helped
consider
alternatives
Categories
N
(max)
Trust level: Housing staff
(ref: Less 20.3%)
Trust level: Local council
(ref: Less 19.0%)
Trust level: Elected
councillors (ref: Less 21.1%)
More
(17.5%)
Unchanged
(62.2%)
More
(20.7%)
Unchanged
(60.3%)
More
(12.5%)
Unchanged
(66.4%)
Yes
206
0.39
0.39
0.31
1.34
0.28
1.46
No (ref)
315
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Usually
134
40.63
40.63
50.34
12.62
13.02
9.10
Unsure
218
4.20
4.20
5.10
4.24
2.21
3.10
Rarely
169
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Usually
121
2.38
2.38
2.17
1.16
5.07
1.09
Unsure
182
2.32
2.32
1.96
2.36
6.11
3.62
Rarely
218
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
21
Service Experience 3
Multinomial Models Adjusted* Odds Ratios (OR) Adjusted for age and years looking for property (apart from base models)
Explanatory
variables
TCH user
Better informed
on housing
Influence HOs/
advisors
Feel more
empowered
Categories
N
(max)
Trust level: Housing staff
(ref: Less 20.3%)
Trust level: Local council
(ref: Less 19.0%)
Trust level: Elected
councillors (ref: Less
21.1%)
More
(17.5%)
Unchanged
(62.2%)
More
(20.7%)
Unchanged
(60.3%)
More
(12.5%)
Unchanged
(66.4%)
Yes
206
0.22
1.57
0.18
1.27
0.16
1.08
No (ref)
315
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Usually
175
11.56
2.10
7.97
1.46
15.41
2.73
Unsure
200
3.48
2.32
7.01
2.37
10.86
2.54
Rarely (ref)
146
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Usually
130
7.55
2.17
14.91
3.96
4.59
2.07
Unsure
231
3.80
2.84
6.61
3.19
1.48
2.51
Rarely (ref)
160
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Usually
120
8.78
1.61
16.70
5.27
3.18
3.20
Unsure
238
5.29
2.06
1.81
2.90
0.66
1.55
Rarely (ref)
163
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
*
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
22
Trust in Public Services
Drivers:
horizontal trust
vertical trust
.4
.6
.3
.4
.2
.2
95% CI Horizontal trust
95% CI Vertical trust
• Well-informedness
.1
-.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
N=
1052
1030
poorly informed
1724
0.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
-.4
N=
414
not well informed
0.0
0.0
95% CI Horizontal trust
.1
95% CI Vertical trust
.2
.2
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
140
590
strongly disagree
435
2219
neither
disagree
-.2
-.3
-.4
N=
837
140
.2
.1
95% CI Horizontal trust
95% CI Vertical trust
.2
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
631
617
Grimsley, Meehan, Green and Stafford, 2003
2114
neither
disagree
711
strongly agree
agree
Sense of ability to influence
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
2219
837
strongly agree
agree
Sense of personal control
0.0
146
435
neither
disagree
agree
.3
strongly disagree
590
strongly disagree
strongly agree
.4
N=
414
very well informed
-.1
Sense of personal control
• Influence/Contingency
1724
fairly well informed
Sense of being well-informed
.4
N=
1030
not well informed
very well informed
Sense of being well-informed.
• Personal Control in Life
1052
poorly informed
fairly well informed
-.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
N=
146
631
strongly disagree
disagree
617
2114
neither
711
strongly agree
agree
Sense of ability to influence
23
Willingness to recommend
Willing to Recommend TCH
40
35
30
%
25
IT-Users
20
non-IT-Users
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No Opinion
• IT-Users are more willing to recommend TCH.
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
24
Elements of Empowerment
Efficacy
(contingency)
Influence
Personal
control
Empowerment
Informed
participation
Informed
choice of action
Wellinformedness
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
25
Exclusion
Acting in
the
World
not voting?
Alienation  exclusion
Confidence
Anxiety  exclusion
Trust
mental ill-health?
ontological insecurity?
Note: Confidence and Trust are not necessarily linearly additive
after Luhmann, 2001
Grimsley & Meehan ECIS 2008
26