WASET_E-govt._Conference_Paris

406 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
406
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
24
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

WASET_E-govt._Conference_Paris

  1. 1. 1<br />Civil Conflict, Digital Divide, and E-government Service Adoption: A Conflict Theory Approach<br />Department of Management Science, ITTP, Korea Advanced Institute of Technology and Science (KAIST), Daejeon, South Korea.<br />Paper presented in the International Conference on e-Democracy, e-Government and e-Society, Paris, June 2010 organized by WASET. http://waset.org/programs/Paris10.pd<br />
  2. 2. 2<br />Introduction<br />Civil Conflicts<br /> & violence <br />Introduction<br />Introduction<br /><ul><li>According to a survey conducted by HIIK (2008) at global level a total of 345 conflicts were reported. </li></ul>System<br />Design<br />RQ<br />Conclusion<br />Literature<br /><ul><li>111 conflicts were located in Asia and Oceania,
  3. 3. 79 in Africa,
  4. 4. 65 in Europe,
  5. 5. 47 in the Middle East and Maghreb, and
  6. 6. 43 were located in the Americas.</li></ul>R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />Has<br />However<br />Psychological, Environmental, and Economical effects (Noel, 1976; UN, 1991; (Pedersen, 2002; Landrigan et al., 2004).<br />E-government literature is silent on the issue <br />29-06-2010<br />
  7. 7. 3<br />Introduction Continue…<br /><ul><li>Furthermore,</li></ul>Introduction<br />MIS Research Mainly <br />Deals with<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br /><ul><li>Organizational (Smith and McKeen, 1992) and
  8. 8. Interpersonal Conflicts (Barki & Hartwick, 2001) focused on:</li></ul>Method<br />Results<br />Focused on<br />Implications<br /><ul><li>relationship conflict (Atreyi et al., 2007)
  9. 9. task conflict (Trimmer et al., 2000) and
  10. 10. process conflict (Robey et al., 1989; Robey et al., 1993)</li></ul>Conclusion<br />BUT<br />NOT EXPLORED<br />Q & A<br />What about potential influence of Civil Conflicts and violence on online service use??<br />29-06-2010<br />
  11. 11. 4<br />Research Questions (RQ)<br /><ul><li>How civil conflict in a region affects e-government service adoption?
  12. 12. How behavioral conflict toward online service does affects e-government service use intention?
  13. 13. What components of digital divide will shape e-government service use intention in less developed countries having civil conflict, political instability, and a low level of ICT awareness?
  14. 14. Do demographics can explain e-government service use in digitally divided conflict zone?</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  15. 15. 5<br />Literature Review<br />Conflict theory<br /><ul><li>Conflict is a natural and integral part of social life (Simmel, 1950).
  16. 16. Conflict has been classified in several ways in the literature for Instance:
  17. 17. Affective and Substantive conflict (Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954).
  18. 18. Bargaining, Bureaucratic, and Systems conflict (Pondy, 1967).
  19. 19. “conflict arising from conditions” (Brett,1984).
  20. 20. relationship versus task, emotional versus intellectual, and compromise versus win (Pinkley, 1990).
  21. 21. However, the subject of this study is to test consequences of
  22. 22. Civil conflict (Wall and Callister, 1995)
  23. 23. Behavioral(inner) conflict (Argyris, 1957; Thomas 1992) and
  24. 24. Digital Divide (Norris, 2001; Harper, 2003) On e-government use intention</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  25. 25. 6<br />Literature Review<br /><ul><li>E-government and Behavioral conflict:
  26. 26. Behavioral (or inner) conflict is “actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests which is internal (within oneself) to individuals” [28] (pp. 47-54).
  27. 27. Individuals with individualistic values assess the usefulness of the technology with respect to their own needs without taking into consideration the needs of others [45].
  28. 28. [46] Studied the influence of values on technology adoption and found that technology use varies as a function of cultural values
  29. 29. In their study, [47] showed that people’s usage of the Internet service is mainly based on interest and relevance.</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  30. 30. 7<br />Literature Review<br /><ul><li>E-government and Civil Conflict:
  31. 31. Not much of research dealing with topic
  32. 32. The issue is slightly touched in e-government literature[37] in form of political instability.
  33. 33. Elsewhere, the effect of social conflicts on natural resources management (NRM) technology adoption has been studied [38] leading to positive association between technology adoption and conflicts among social entities.
  34. 34. However, [39] pointed out that the level of civil conflict in a country may explain their new technology adoption behavior; countries engaged in civil conflicts are less likely to adopt new technology, as their recourses and efforts are diverted to winning the war instead of adopting new civilian technologies</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  35. 35. 8<br />Literature Review Continue…<br /><ul><li>Two parallel research streams</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />(Al-adawi, 2005; TEO et al., 2008; Harper, 2003;Mehra et al, 2004; Gefen et al 2002)<br />29-06-2010<br />
  36. 36. 9<br />Literature Review Continue…<br /><ul><li>Digital divide: Access Divide and Social Divide
  37. 37. Access Divide:
  38. 38. E-service access
  39. 39. Resource availability and convenience of access
  40. 40. E-service access quality
  41. 41. Timeliness (speed), Trust, and Stability
  42. 42. E-service access Skills
  43. 43. Technical and applied e-skills
  44. 44. Social Divide:
  45. 45. E-service Awareness
  46. 46. Knowledge of e-gov services availability
  47. 47. E-service Social Support
  48. 48. Technical assistance and emotional reinforcement from friends and family
  49. 49. E-service Culturability
  50. 50. National colors, pictures, and local language</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  51. 51. 10<br />Proposed Research Model<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  52. 52. 11<br />Research Method<br /><ul><li>Assessing E-government in Afghanistan:
  53. 53. We surveyed websites of 14 government bodies and examined the online services provided to the citizens.
  54. 54. initial stage of development—one way information flow.
  55. 55. Subjects:
  56. 56. Around 360 citizens Afghanistan in two provinces: Kabul and Nangrahar (see table 1 for sample characteristics)
  57. 57. Instrument Development:
  58. 58. An instrument consisting of 33 items was developed based previous research.
  59. 59. A Pilot-test: </li></ul>was carried out in which 4 experts were asked to give their judgments on the questionnaire. <br /><ul><li>Back Translation:
  60. 60. Furthermore, back translation method (Brislin, 1970) was used for translating an English version of the original survey items to:
  61. 61. Pashtu and Dari—two major languages in Afghanistan;
  62. 62. Pre-test:
  63. 63. Later, the questionnaire was distributed to 60 citizens of Afghanistan for a pre-test.
  64. 64. Respondents consisted of 45% female and 55% male.
  65. 65. Problematic Items revised</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  66. 66. 12<br />Results: Sample Characteristics <br />Table 1 Sample Characteristics<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  67. 67. 13<br />Results Continue…<br /><ul><li> HML (Hierarchal Multiple Regression) Using smart PLS (Partial least square) were used for data analysis.
  68. 68. Construct Validity Test</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Table 2 Composite Reliability and Average Varian extracted<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Table 3 Discriminant Validity (Inter-correlation) of Latent Variables<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  69. 69. 14<br />Reliability of measurement scale: Convergent validity<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  70. 70. 15<br />Assessment of the structural model using HMR<br />Table 5 HLM Model Predicting E-government Service Use Intention<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  71. 71. 16<br />Structure Model Results: Access Divide<br />Introduction<br />E-service Access<br />RQ<br />β =-0.163***<br />Literature<br />Use Intention<br />R² =0.13<br />R. Model<br />E-service access Quality<br />β =0.224***<br />Method<br />Results<br />E-service Usage Skills<br />Implications<br />β =0. 0.216***<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br /> *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001<br />29-06-2010<br />
  72. 72. 17<br />Structure Model Results: Social Divide<br />Introduction<br />E-service Awareness<br />RQ<br />β = 0.249***<br />Literature<br />Use Intention<br />R² =0.18<br />ΔR²=0.05<br />R. Model<br />E-service Social Support<br />β = 0.094***<br />Method<br />Results<br />β = ns<br />E-service Culturability<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br /> *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001<br />29-06-2010<br />
  73. 73. 18<br />Structure Model Results: Control Variables<br />Introduction<br />Gender<br />RQ<br />β = -0.170** <br />Literature<br />Age<br />β = ns<br />R. Model<br />Use Intention<br />R² =0.27<br />ΔR²=0.09<br />Method<br />Internet Use<br />β = 0.139*<br />Results<br />β = 0.130*<br />Implications<br />Income<br />Conclusion<br />β = ns<br />Q & A<br />Educ.<br /> *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001<br />29-06-2010<br />
  74. 74. 19<br />Structure Model Results: Access Divide X Civil Conflict<br />Civil Conflict<br />Introduction<br />E-service Access<br />RQ<br />β = -0.418**<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Use Intention<br />R² =0.32<br />ΔR²=0.05<br />E-service access Quality<br />β = -0.417*<br />Method<br />Results<br />β = 0.491*<br />Implications<br />E-service Usage Skills<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br /> *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001<br />29-06-2010<br />
  75. 75. 20<br />Structure Model Results: Access Divide X Civil Conflict<br />Civil Conflict<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />E-service Awareness<br />β = ns<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Use Intention<br />R² =0.32<br />ΔR²=0.05<br />Method<br />β = ns<br />E-service Social Support<br />Results<br />β = 0.526**<br />Implications<br />E-service Culturability<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br /> *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001<br />29-06-2010<br />
  76. 76. 21<br />Structure Model Results: Access Divide X BC<br />Behavioral Conflict<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />E-service Access<br />β = ns<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Use Intention<br />R² =0.36<br />ΔR²=0.09<br />Method<br />β = ns<br />E-service access Quality<br />Results<br />Implications<br />β = -0.181**<br />Conclusion<br />E-service Usage Skills<br />Q & A<br /> *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001<br />29-06-2010<br />
  77. 77. 22<br />Structure Model Results: Social Divide X BC<br />Behavioral Conflict<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />E-service Awareness<br />β = 0.211*<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Use Intention<br />R² =0.36<br />ΔR²=0.09<br /> β = ns<br />E-service Social Support<br />Method<br />Results<br />β = ns<br />Implications<br />E-service Culturability<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br /> significance level:*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001<br />29-06-2010<br />
  78. 78. 23<br />Discussion and Implications<br /><ul><li>For Research:
  79. 79. Integrated model
  80. 80. Civil and behavioral conflicts as moderators
  81. 81. Agenda setting for researchers working in the fields of conflict, and their effects on technology adoption.
  82. 82. Reliable measures for digital divide: access divide and social divide
  83. 83. For practice:
  84. 84. The study will help policy makers in formulating policies in conflict zones.
  85. 85. E-service Access can have negative effect on use under influence of civil conflict; policies for secure access needed
  86. 86. Providing access doesn’t quarantine use: Access Quality and e-skills are crucial.
  87. 87. Equipping citizens with high e-skills may offset side effects of conflict
  88. 88. Culturability of e-government website: colors, pictures, and local language is more crucial in conflict zones
  89. 89. Need for providing high quality access as it increase use intention; but in conflict zone high Q has negative effect on use.
  90. 90. The more the website according to the needs, desires, and feelings of citizens the more they will be aware of it and may use it.
  91. 91. Special polices for motivating citizens with the help of peers to use e-service</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  92. 92. 24<br />Limitations and Future Work<br /><ul><li>First, we carried our analysis in one country facing civil conflict; different countries may have different forms of conflict which may influence user’s intention toward an e-service; thus, the results cannot be completely generalized.
  93. 93. Secondly, the study looked only into the e-government services provided in the first stage of e-government development, since e-government in the target country was in an initial stage.
  94. 94. Cross sectional study
  95. 95. Fourth, present research investigated only G2C side of e-government service, whereas the influence of civil and behavioral conflicts on G2E, G2B, and G2G services can be the subjects of future studies.
  96. 96. Future research may also focus on consequences of different forms of civil conflicts on users’ intention toward online services.
  97. 97. Another area opened for future research is to look into cross-cultural effects of civil conflict and violence on e-government service use behavior.</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  98. 98. 25<br />Conclusion<br /><ul><li>Utilizing conflict theory, technology adoption, and digital divide literature, this study took first step toward understanding consequences of civil and behavioral conflict in a digitally divided conflict zone by proposing and empirically validating an integrated model.
  99. 99. Results suggest that civil and behavioral conflict play moderating roles between the relationship of some of the access divide, social divide components and e-service use intention.
  100. 100. The study will server as agenda setting for IS researchers to look into the issues of conflict and violence on e-government.
  101. 101. More research is need to explore the issue under consideration</li></ul>Introduction<br />RQ<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />
  102. 102. 26<br />Introduction<br />RQ<br />Thank You!<br />Comments and Suggestions<br />Literature<br />R. Model<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />Q & A<br />29-06-2010<br />

×