A citizen-centered analysis of what public services are suitable for digital communication channels

Sara Hofmann, Christian Østergaard Madsen, Ida Lindgren, Guri Verne

Research output: Conference Article in Proceeding or Book/Report chapterArticle in proceedingsResearchpeer-review


The benefits of digitalizing public services can only be met if citizens adopt digital services while at the same time stop using expensive traditional channels. Still, many citizens keep using traditional channels. Studies on channel choice and IT adoption have addressed what factors influence citizens’ channel behavior. However, they have omitted the interplay between citizens’ perceptions of public services and their channel choices, as well as how the design of digital services and citizens' experience of using self-service applications affect their channel choice. In addition, the technological optimism of digital government may have caused us to overlook the important question whether all public services are suitable for digitalization. In this ongoing research paper, we present the outline of a research project starting this summer, in which we will critically analyze – from the perspectives of citizens and public sector organizations – what public services are suitable for digital communication channels.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of Ongoing Research, Practitioners, Posters, Workshops, and Projects at EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2021
Number of pages8
Publication dateNov 2021
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2021
EventIFIP EGOV-CeDEM-ePART 2021 - University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Duration: 8 Sept 202110 Sept 2021


ConferenceIFIP EGOV-CeDEM-ePART 2021
LocationUniversity of Granada
Internet address


  • Digitalization of Public Services
  • Citizen Channel Behavior
  • IT Adoption
  • Self-Service Applications
  • Public Service Suitability


Dive into the research topics of 'A citizen-centered analysis of what public services are suitable for digital communication channels'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this