Ali Asker Gündüz

The interest in digital identities has increased considerably in academia and practice in recent years. This can be seen by the many electronic identity projects worldwide and the numerous published studies that provide insightful narratives and descriptive case findings about success factors and barriers to the adoption of national authentication infrastructures. In this paper, we take a closer look to the role of trust on the design and implementation of a nation-wide e-credential market. We argue that trust in political and economic institutions can be an important factor to explain differences in the chosen cooperative arrangement which can range from monopolistic, purely state-controlled e-credential markets, to polypolistic, decentralized e-credential markets where also private vendors offer state recognized e-ID on their own or in partnership with the government. Following an inductive reasoning process, we develop three testable propositions which may inspire further empirical research and offer practitioners a new angle to rethink e-credential markets in the light of citizen trust in political and economic institutions.

Many cities are pursuing the goal of becoming a smart city which has far-reaching consequences for the city and its stakeholders. A successful implementation of these smart city initiatives requires a broad legitimacy base. This poses a challenge for cities as creating legitimacy for new ideas is by no means easy. In this article, we explore how a city administration tries to influence the legitimacy of an idea like that of a smart city. Based on a case study about the #Smarthalle, a project of the city of St. Gallen different legitimization strategies are presented. The results show that legitimization efforts are primarily directed at citizens and administrative staff. The analysis reveals that creating a vision, making the idea tangible and mobilizing allies are key strategies for legitimizing smart city initiatives and related projects. onsequently, the #Smarthalle was designed as a place to exchange ideas, experience smart technologies and directly connect the administration and the citizens.

Being among the largest creators and gatherers of data in many countries, public administrations are looking for ways to harness big data technology. However, the de facto uses of big data in the public sector remain very limited. Despite numerous studies aiming to clarify the term big data, for many public managers, it remains unclear what this technology does and does not offer public administration. Using the concept of technological frames, we explore the assumptions, expectations, and understandings that public managers possess in order to interpret and make sense of big data. We identify nine big data frames, ranging from inward-oriented techno-enthusiasts to outward-oriented techno-skeptics, each of which characterizes public managers' specific viewpoints relating to the introduction of big data in public administrations. Our findings highlight inconsistencies between different perceptions and reveal widespread skepticism among public managers, helping better understand why the de facto uses of big data in the public sector remain very limited.

Smart information and communication technologies are finding their way into public administration. Today, there are numerous initiatives in the public sector, promising a new model for the public services: smart government. In this article, we seek to identify success factors for smart government initiatives. We provide a selected review of the current literature on the motivations, goals, and processes behind smart government so as to provide a conceptual and analytical basis for the analysis. Based on desk research, interviews, and workshops, our qualitative analysis reveals institutional (political commitment, clear governance, legal agility, digital awareness, and IT infrastructure), organizational (structure and processes, capabilities, values, and human resources), and leadership/strategy success factors that must be considered when implementing smart government initiatives. We discuss our findings and conclude by emphasizing the limitations as well as implications for praxis and future research.

This study explores the feasibility and usefulness of five generic frames (conflict, responsibility, economic consequences, human interest and morality) in analysing framing practices in a multifaceted journalistic field over time. We show that supplementing generic frames through the tonality expressed in news stories enhances analytical quality. Mapping Swiss media outlets by how they frame a highly polarizing policy, we identify different framing practices in covering the issue. Using multiple correspondence analyses, the results first show that, while cultural background and media partisanship lead to heterogeneity in how the issue is initially framed, the state’s involvement homogenizes framing practices over time. Second, unlike previous research, our study provides empirical evidence that both conflict frame and attribution of responsibility frame can measure the same underlying construct. Third, we find evidence that these two frames are strongly associated with a negative tone. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

This paper explores multirationality of public organizations from the perspective of systems theory. In the tradition of this theoretical approach, it focuses on how communication may be used in explaining and understanding the hybridity of these organizations. It argues that faced with a variety of different rationalities of function systems in their environment, public organizations are responding, inter alia, by becoming more complex internally. In other words, they import different rationalities from their environment into their own house. Classifying public organizations as being comprised of highly autonomous subsystems, where each subsystem uses a specific type of specialized communication to process a subsystem specific rationality, this paper sheds light on associated tensions and conflicts within public organizations. It discusses managerial challenges and tasks deriving from multirationality within public organizations. The paper finally concludes that proper communication requires greater theoretical and practical consideration when explaining and dealing with conflicts stemming from the hybridity of public organizations.