Introduction to the special issue on Inclusion and E-Government: Progress and Questions for Scholars of Social Equity

1.Introduction

Recently, scholars have argued that more attention is needed for inclusion in the achievement of e-government in democratic societies (Morte-Nadal et al., 2022; Rodriquez-Hevia et al., 2020). Citizens are increasingly interacting with the government using a broad range of digital applications (Rodriquez-Hevia et al., 2020), such as informational websites on COVID-19 (Kimemia, 2022), open data portals (Schwoerer, 2022), digital platforms for online deliberation (Shin et al., 2022), and platform and electronic procedures for social services and benefits (Marin, 2022). These e-government services provide new opportunities, but they can also reinforce or increase mechanisms of (social) exclusion (Macaya et al., 2021; Mervyn et al., 2014). For example, by ignoring those who do not have access or competencies to deal with these digital environments (Mariën & Prodnik, 2014).

E-government and inclusion have been discussed extensively in terms of the digital divide (Ciecielska et al., 2022; Mervyn et al., 2014), but limited work has been done on the factors that foster inclusion in relation to e-government (Weerakkody et al., 2012). Furthermore, technological developments in the public sector advance quickly, yet the examination of the impact of these new technologies on inclusion, is still underdeveloped (Schwoerer, 2022). In addition, there are many different definitions of inclusion without consensus on the nature of this construct or its theoretical underpinnings (Jansen et al., 2014; Shore et al., 2011; Weerakkody et al., 2012). We argue that inclusion, as it relates to e-government, needs to be conceptualized beyond the digital divide, and explored in relationship to other well-established concepts, such as diversity and social equity, so as to avoid any conceptual confusion.

In this introduction, we start with a conceptualization of inclusion. We identify three perspectives on inclusion and e-government: (1) the access perspective, (2) the user-driven perspective, and (3) the system perspective, and we describe how the articles in this special issue relate to these perspectives. Finally, we provide an agenda for future research in this area.

2.Conceptualizing (digital) inclusion in relation to diversity and social equity

The concept of inclusion has received increasing attention in different domains varying from organizational studies, social work and social psychology (Jansen et al., 2014; Shore et al., 2011). In the public sector, McCandless et al., (2022 p. 129) point out that there is a growing normative understanding that public institutions should be Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive (DEI). Although the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion are related, definitions and implications of these terms vary (Chordiya et al., 2020; McClandless et al., 2022). Social equity is widely accepted as a pillar of public administration and refers to fairness and justice in the provision of governmental policies and services (Cepiku & Mastradascio, 2021; Frederickson, 2015; Gooden, 2015; Guy & McCandless, 2012; Riccucci, 2009). Scholars differentiate equity in terms of access to public services, whether citizens of different groups receive the same treatment, the same quality of public services and whether they experience similar outcomes (Cepiku & Mastrodascio, 2021; Johnson & Svara, 2015; Rivera & Knox, 2022). Equity research is concerned with the characterization, measurement, and achievement of fairness in the provision of government services (Gooden & Portillo, 2011 p. 65). To advance social equity in the public sector, it is important according to several scholars (McCandless et al., 2022; Gooden, 2014; Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009) that researchers and practitioners name inequities (identify inequities), blame inequities (understand its causes and effects) and claim inequities (take diverse, inclusive, and meaningful steps to reduce or eliminate inequities. Hence, for these scholars, the concepts of diversity and inclusion are important subunits of social equity, aimed at reducing inequities.

Diversity is often described in terms of the make-up or composition of a group (Chordia et al., 2020; Miller, 1998; Vohra et al., 2015) based on, for example, gender, race, education or socio-economic status (Gooden & Portillo, 2011; Chordiya, 2022). Research on diversity has focused on reducing unfair and illegal bias, on increasing equity and social justice, and on the benefits that individuals, groups, organizations, and societies can derive from diversity (Ferdman, 2018; Vohra et al., 2015). Vohra et al., (2015) argue that there has been a shift in the discourse of diversity from debates about affirmative action to a focus on the notion of inclusion. Some scholars argue that diversity is an outcome, whereas inclusion is a process or practice of including people in a given structure (Ferdman, 2013; Vohra, 2015; Weerakkody et al., 2012)).

According to Rivera and Knox (2022), inclusion refers to the extent to which diverse groups of the public such as ethnic minorities, people with special needs (i.e., individuals with disabilities, the elderly, children, immigrants, the homeless, etc.), and individuals of different genders, sexual identities, religious groups, and cultures are integrated into management processes. Others, Chordiya (2022), Miller (1998), Mor Barak and Chrin (1998) and Shore et al., (2011), stress the degree to which individuals are part of critical organizational processes in their definition of inclusion, but they add to the definition the degree that individuals are represented by the extent to which they have access to information and resources, have voice, can participate and influence decision-making processes. Some scholars focus on their definition on individuals and their needs. For example, Shore et al., (2011 p. 1265) define inclusion as the degree to which individuals experience treatment from the group that satisfies their need for belongingness and uniqueness. However, Jansen et al., (2014) argue that inclusion consists of belonging and authenticity instead of uniqueness. They define authenticity as the extent to which a group member perceives that they are allowed and encouraged by the group to remain true to themselves. They illustrate this point by indicating that there is a difference between organizations that merely tolerate the presence of diversity and those that lend active support for diversity. They argue that in the process of inclusion, it is the group or organization rather than the individual that has primary agency (Jansen et al., 2014). In this line of thinking, an inclusive climate and inclusive leadership are considered important antecedents of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011).

In the context of e-government, inclusion is often associated with the digital divide (Morte-Nadal, 2022; Rodousakis, Mendes dos Santos, 2008; Weerakkody et al., 2012). To illustrate this, Morte-Nadal et al., (2022 p. 2) define inclusion as bringing the knowledge and use of digital technologies to those who do not already have it, thereby bridging the digital divide. Weerakkody et al., (2012) observe a trend in Europe to move away from the term digital divide and focus on inclusion, as the latter has a more positive connotation. Furthermore, Helbig et al., (2009) describe that the term e-inclusion was described as one of the three strategic pillars of the European i2010 Strategic plan, which specifies overarching goals of quality of life, employment and growth. The European Strategy in relation to inclusion states: “making sure that ICT benefit all citizens; making public services better, more cost effective and more accessible; and improving quality of life […] strong emphasis is given to full participation and to providing people with basic digital competence” (European Commission, 2005, p. 9).

Building on the conceptualization of inclusion in other fields, digital inclusion, not only implies access to technology and connectivity to technological devices and networks for all. Digital inclusion also concerns whether individuals have the digital skills to use technology and e-government services and whether the use of technology leads to beneficial outcomes for all (Esteban-Navarro et al., 2020; Morte-Nadal et al., 2022). It is concerned with whether individuals have voice, can participate in (online) democratic processes (Van den Berg et al., 2020), and whether they have the ability based on technology to influence decision-making. Furthermore, switching the perspective from the individual to the organization, digital inclusion also concerns how government agencies actively promote and steer towards inclusion in e-government services (Esteban-Navarro et al., 2020; Van den Berg et al., 2020). Building on the work of Chordiya (2022), Mor Barak and Chrin (1998) and Shore et al., (2011) we therefore define digital inclusion as a multi-faceted concept distinguished by the degree to which individuals are part of (digital) democratic and organizational processes, by the extent to which they have access to government information and digital information services, and have the digital skills to participate and influence decision-making processes.

3.Three perspectives on E-government and inclusion

Building on this conceptualization and recent work on inclusion (Esteban-Navarro et al., 2020; Morte-Nadal et al., 2022; Mariën & Prodnik, 2014), we distinguish three interrelated perspectives of digital inclusion in this special issue:

The authors in this special issue cover all three perspectives. Using a variety of methods in different national contexts (see Table 1), the authors identify mechanisms of inclusion for each perspective, and demonstrate the importance of the interplay between the different levels.

4.Next steps

Collectively, the authors of this special issue demonstrate the importance of digital inclusion from a range of perspectives, using a variety of methods in several different contexts. They demonstrate that inclusion needs to be conceptualized beyond the digital divide. The authors identified a broad range of mechanisms that underlies the concept of digital inclusion. Digital inclusion is not only about connectivity and access to technology or government services but also about access and availability of information. Inclusion requires user-friendliness of government services, building informational literacy skills, having voice and whether users can enter and influence participatory (network) processes. Finally, this special issue demonstrates the importance of organizational capabilities and institutional rules and procedures for fostering inclusion. In sum, the authors have pushed our understanding of the field and state of practice of inclusion in the context of e-government.

Based on the findings of this symposium we can develop a research agenda for future studies on e-government and inclusion: