Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic literature review to propose a model. Burcu Demirdoven, Ecem Buse Sevinc & Naci KARKIN

1. Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic
literature review to propose a model
Burcu Demirdoven
Pamukkale University
Turkey
burcudemirdoven@gmail.com
Ecem Buse Sevinc Cubuk
Aydin Adnan Menderes University
Turkey
ecembuse.sevinc@adu.edu.tr
Naci Karkin
Pamukkale University
Turkey
nkirgin@pau.edu.tr
ABSTRACT1
As information and communication technologies (ICTs) have
diffused throughout the customary forms of works and services,
various models, theories and approaches have emerged and been
developed to measure how and to what extent people accept
technologically transformed products and services in the e-
government domain. Despite the existence of applicable models
regarding the acceptance and diffusion of e-government and e-
participation, the current literature has failed to fully cover
citizens’ expectations due to factors affecting complex and organic
bonds between states and citizens (i.e. trust). This study aims to
discuss whether and how trust serves as an intermediary function
with regard to technology acceptance models on e-government in
general but e-participation in particular. This review finds (1) that
it is necessary to develop a comprehensive approach for a trust-
building environment regarding e-participation and (2) that trust
in e-participation can be consolidated through interrelation
among and within parties.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Applied computing → Computers in other domains →
Computing in government → E-government
KEYWORDS
Trust Model, e-Participation, Literature Review
ACM Reference format:
Burcu Demirdoven, Ecem Buse Sevinc Cubuk, Naci Karkin. 2020.
Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic literature
review to propose a model. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020),
23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece, 8 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428549
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full
citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others
than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
ICEGOV'20, September 23–25, 2020, Athens, Greece
© 2020 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-7674-7/20/09…$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428549
1. INTRODUCTION
The efforts towards citizens’ participation in democratic decision-
making processes through electronic services have revealed the
question of reliance on these novel systems, particularly identified
with the concept of “trust”. The brief overview of the literature
represents a rich pool of studies dealing with either participation
or trust, but scarce resources analyzing both of them.
The concept of trust exclusively points out to the promotion of
“cooperation and social interaction – regardless of the goals or
what is at stake – in social life” [1]. Trust in e-government issues
requires the joint action of government and citizens as the
provider and the user. These services imply engagement or
empowerment of citizens in government business through the
digitalization process.
Citizens are expected to participate wherever and whenever
possible in the context of online consultation and decision-making
processes to the extent possible. In addition, e-participation as a
supplementary mechanism of e-government has been furnished
with a complex structure of “trust” issues, still lacking the proper
conceptualization. Therefore, it is a necessity to analyze the
effects of citizens’ perceptions arising out of trust [2]. Trust is vital
in e-public services due to the high-intensity effect on the
adoption of these services [3] or the life cycle of an e-participation
process [2].
The literature still lacks the framework on decisive elements in
what ways or at what rate citizens could display e-participation
tendencies. The answer might be found by digging up through the
review of the current theoretical models developed on the use and
acceptance of technology such as theory of reasoned action
(TRA)[4], theory of planned behavior (TPB)[5], theory of
interpersonal behavior (TIB)[6], technology acceptance model
(TAM)[7], extension of TAM (ETAM)[8], Igbaria’s model (IM)[9],
social cognitive theory (SCT)[10], diffusion of innovations theory
(DOI)[11], perceived characteristics of innovating theory
341

2. ICEGOV 2020, 23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece Demirdoven, Burcu et al.
(PCIT)[12], motivational model (MM)[13], uses and gratification
theory (U&G)[14], theory of model of PC utilization (MPCU)[15],
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)[16],
compatibility UTAUT (C-UTAUT)[17].
The ongoing research on modeling e-participation implies the
complexity of the conceptual layers and the difficulty of practicing
conceptualization. The comparison of models [18] [19] [17] [20]
proves the existence of a need for a comprehensive model
consolidating trust in e-participation. This study aims to serve this
purpose by offering a proposed model with the combination of the
existing trust models obtained through employing a meta-analysis
on the relationship between trust and e-participation. The review
seeks to answers to particular research questions on:
i. the ways in which trust is addressed in e-
government studies with a particular reference to e-
participation,
ii. the importance of public trust for the adoption and
diffusion of e-government and e-participation, and
iii. the extent that the current trust-based models can
resolve the e-participation issues.
2. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND-I: PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION & e-PARTICIPATION
Classical approaches in public administration (PA) theory
evaluated the relationship between citizens and government as a
top-down and hierarchical manner. However, some notions like
governance [28], new public service [29, 30] or public value
management [31, 30] might have resulted in some structural
effects over government systems. For this very point, [33] argued
that the idea of the classical form of management was no more in
compliance with the necessities of novel types of organizational
settings that require a network of independent actors. From the
classical PA approach, what is dominant is a top-down
relationship between government and citizens, and places citizens
in a passive object position rather than promoting them as active
subjects [34]. Recently, we see a change in governments’
perception towards citizens [35]. This change in a government
position is driven by factors ranging from lack of legitimacy [41],
trust issues [1, 25] to developments in ICTs [37], and citizen
engagement [38].
The early use of technology in the administration was not
regarded as important as that it is adopted today [39]. However,
the evolution of technology use in government business including
ICTs-supplied PAs with a great extent of managerial tools is on
the agenda of many governments. For scholars, ICTs serve as main
pillars for public service provision [40]. Yet ICTs under broad e-
participation umbrella serve not only for inter-organizational
easiness towards public service provision but also transformations
yielding governance type of interactions among institutions, and
between institutions and citizens.
[41] sees ICTs as a factor shaping governance in current times.
[42] argues that governments interact with citizens and other
parties as politicians, civil servants and business with all the
possible tools in a horizontal type of relationship. [42:183] takes
attraction to the affective power of ICTs in PA since “the
technologies around this core business are fundamentally
changing, as is the case with ICTs, the core business itself is also
deeply affected”. In contrast, [43] argues that the level of
interactions between citizens and governments has not changed
dramatically after the inclusion of the internet except for some
positive outcomes due to mobile phone use. However, [44:727]
argue “what is needed then, in this emergent e-governance age, is
a realistic framework in which citizens are encouraged to engage
with politicians and civil servants”.
We evaluate that ICTs present some important features to
facilitate the transformation of PA[45] in the direction of e-
participation. Particularly the non-hierarchical characteristic of
ICTs and their inherent potentiality foster a multi-way interaction
between citizens and administration. Public authorities are in a
position to provide the citizens with customer-oriented services
in a proactive manner. [46:225] asserted that “there is recognition
that citizens should no longer be perceived as mere recipients of
services, but as active players in the whole process”. Yet, [47]
argued that success was not a default result of technology use by
its nature, but the way that tools and potentialities of technology
employed is important. Similarly, [48:238] asserted a common
opinion among scholars that “technology does not have an impact
per se” by emphasizing the value of decisions taken on how to
adopt technology in regarding frameworks. In a similar path, [49]
supports the view that computers could not attain organizational
goals per se unless there is a supportive environment. Further,
[50:22] point to a research gap addressing “how technology
development and institutional dynamics must interact in order to
make ICT a useful tool for improving government”. As [51]
asserted, the internet critically fostered the interaction capability
of citizens with government. In this context, it is reasonably
meaningful to study the effects of ICTs over policy processes.
In literature, there are studies, insufficient but growing,
particularly focusing on e-participation and its effects [60, 61]. On
the other hand, studies in broad e-government literature either
discuss the effects of e-government technologies on the
government and citizen relationships (i.e. supply-side of e-
government), or focus on the demand side of e-government, such
as the acceptance and usage level of e-government tools in
citizens’ side. Thus, another functionality of e-participation easily
augmented via ICTs is the improvement of public service
provision. e-Participation mechanisms might help to develop the
public service provision by gathering various inputs from citizens
as shareholders or to alleviate the problems unintentionally
caused by the malfunctioning of the public provision system in
general. It should be noted that service provision in general and
public service provision, in particular, is different from that of any
other commodity provision. Any implication regarding public
service as a stable commodity that is provisioned without
gathering users’ expectations and opinions [62] moves away from
the notion of service provision. For such a misinterpretation, e-
participation mechanisms might help to provide public services
aligned with the necessities and needs of users. It is a critical
question in regard to the limits to be posed for public participation
in general and e-participation in specific terms: to what extent the
342

3. Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic
literature review to propose a model
ICEGOV 2020, 23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece
public participatea, or in which services public are supposed to
participate [63]. The limits to be posed for participation, or
formulating the frameworks where participation would be
realized are matters of conditionality. Any universal answer to
these inquiries would definitely be conditional to time, place and
political cultures. The extent and scope of participation could be
framed by the functionality of e-petitioning systems. Therefore, e-
petitioning mechanisms under the broad umbrella of e-
participation feed the public service provision process back with
the requests, complaints, and proposals raised by citizens as inputs
into the system. Though it seems that e-participation and e-
petition seem interrelated, this interrelatedness does not stem
from a cause and effect relationship. However, any presence of
these two notions would support the development of the other.
There are some papers evaluating this interrelatedness a little bit
further taking for granted that e-petitioning is a means of e-
participation [60]. Petitions are seen as the functional tool to
convey the views of the public to those holding the power, thus
providing the public with participation means of input provision
into policy-making [66].
In this context, [64:627] expediently asserted that “improved
decision-making is perhaps the most promising element”. [65:374-
375] interrelated the transparency notion with “an informed
citizenry that is able to engage in political discourse and shape the
future directions of the government” in a particular country
context. [25] found that citizen perception of satisfaction with the
e-participation process is directly related to the perception of
transparency, and thus trust. Likewise, [38] pointed to “a more
informed citizenry” in the context of complicated situations of
decision-making processes.
Previous studies put light on the reasons 0public demands for
transparency and participation. These demands put forward ICTs
use with some preliminary results. For example, [67] argued that
e-government is not conditional on information infrastructure but
also on governance. Besides, [68:376] asserted that (American) PA
has to develop an effective way to engage with citizens for
“modern network and collaborative governance structures”.
Similarly, [69] regards public participation as essential for the
functioning of the democracy, but participation without necessary
information as meaningless. Besides, there is also literature
pointing to dissent on public participation in government affairs
[70, 71]. For instance, [52] argued that the Internet made the
sample policies more exclusive in addition to finding that the
internet empowers the influence and authority.
We briefly presented a literature analysis on participation. It
is clear that there is a growing literature on participation matters
[53, 54, 55]. Regarding public participation and public input into
policymaking, we see that there are relatively more studies on
citizen input into decision making for environmental, or spatial
planning issues [56, 72].
Yet the experiences, for now, have shown mixed and often
limited overall results in terms of participation in public policy
processes. For example, a case concerning the dynamic
participative budget in the City Hall of Belo Horizonte, Brazil
observed a decrease in public participation, whereas the objective
was to increase participation [57]. The reason for this decrease is
actually underlined with supposed interest-value conflict mainly
embedded within political cultures. ICTs does not guarantee to
make the necessary transformation per se, but it may ease or
facilitate what is already present. Furthermore, [58:118] found
that e-participation is “a work-in-progress, with some skepticism”
assisted by ICTs for better public participation. [59:203] argues
that governmental encouragement to use ICTs to increase public
participation in related to governance mechanisms fails to satisfy
expectations in many cases.
3. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND-II: TRUST
The concept of trust has been handled in different disciplines,
mostly in interpersonal and organizational senses. The wide
comprehension of the concept has rarely sorted the constitution
of a common ground for the conceptualization out [2]. Trust can
be seen as either a socially cognitive element followed by a
personal assessment of others [21] or a value per se qualifying
individuals’ perceptions and behaviors towards others [22]. This
study considers trust within the framework of e-participation that
enables citizens to utter their demands easier and influences
public policies in an effective manner [23]. Trust in e-
participation, therefore, ensures a bi-directional relationship
between the government and citizens. It is, thus, functional to
foster the context of citizens’ acceptance of ICTs-enabled public
services. A prospective model should focus on a reliable mutual
communication system improving “relational trust” between the
government and citizens. The progressive participation in e-
government systems has transformed the government and
citizens to become relational partners from the ruler and the ruled.
Bıth sides need its partner’s reliability, cooperation, and integrity
with the mediating effect of relevant data as Government 2.0
proposes.
Citizens’ changing attitudes towards the role of government
with technological advancements have, on the other hand,
induced paradigm-shifting innovation in the traditional model of
PA. In the ideal type of new e-government model, citizens play an
active role in governance with the use of ICTs to electronically
participate in the process. ICTs are the means of the transmission
of information and knowledge that the parties involved in the
process believe that this knowledge is used in the right way, with
the right aims. However, this new model also complicates to
predict the outcomes of the process.
Some may be curious about the opinions of other participants,
while others may want to influence public policies. E-
participation practices should be designed to meet the needs and
expectations of citizens. So, e-participation is not only about the
citizen engagement in already existing services, but it requires a
coproduction of services with the citizens as relational partners to
promote relational trust in e-participation. Unless responsive
programs to directly communicate with government employees
and high-quality interactions were reinforced, the citizens would
lack the belief in safe and fair management of citizen inputs. E-
participation should guarantee that participants can better
monitor PA [24] in spite of one-dimensional control of the
343

4. ICEGOV 2020, 23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece Demirdoven, Burcu et al.
government on citizens. In short, e-participation should propound
a matter, a reasonable aim, to citizens.
Trust in e-participation consequently legitimates the definition
of [1] combining the four essential elements: beliefs,
trustworthiness, matters at hand, and unknown outcomes, shortly
called as “relational trust”. With respect to these elements,
relational trust refers to “a belief about another person’s
trustworthiness with respect to a particular matter at hand that
emerges under conditions of unknown outcomes” [1]. Relational
trust in e-participation is, thus, that the relational partners (the
government and citizens) believe both parties are trustworthy in
e-government issues despite the potential of unpredictable results.
The prior researches have represented the need for relational
trust in e-participation. The failure in the implementation of e-
participation projects has led some researchers to argue that ICTs
do not always have to promote citizen participation. [23]
addressed the results of three failed projects in Serbia, which are
more inclined towards democratic innovations. Although each
project directly aims to contribute to the progress of e-
participation, the number of participating citizens has not been at
the desired level. The top-down direction of projects, rather than
maintaining a bidirectional relationship, has resulted in citizen
confusion about how the state would use this collected personal
data. Unlike the traditional PA, electronically serving PA should
build bi-relational governance with other shareholders than the
government to build trust in social and political contexts [23].
In the US, an interactive game called Community PlanIt (CPI)
has been developed to promote and increase local participation.
CPI has reinterpreted trust mechanisms as citizen trust towards
each other and towards the government and local authorities. The
game has provided citizens an opportunity to interact, discuss and
reach a common decision so that citizens are also relational
partners of each other expected to avoid trust problems. Acting in
unity would produce trust in the government since the sense of
civil society has moved to online social networks transforming to
“lateral trust”. Lateral trust acknowledges the trustworthiness of
others for specific purposes such as providing productive inputs
or taking measures for future situations (developing some form of
public policy) [25].
[24] identifies citizen’s trust in the government with the
transparency of government that the new PA form requires
collaborative governance. Citizens are not only seen as customers
but also as collaborative partners to ensure more democratic and
effective governance. The government should create
opportunities to increase citizen participation to revive active
participation in decision-making and policy-making mechanisms
while diminishing the problems of representation. Because
technological developments have the ability to establish a bond
between citizens and the government, frames trust in the context
of five dimensions: “satisfaction with e-participation applications,
satisfaction with government responsiveness to e-participants, e-
participants development through the participation, perceived
influence on decision making and assessment of government
transparency” [24].
[26] conducted a trust survey on social media including 20
cities from Canada and the USA conducted a trust survey on social
media. The findings revealed tight control over content, account
creation, and employee and audience participation in order to
eliminate technology and content-based risks in cities seeking to
comply with federal and state legislation. The study states the
nature of trust is mutual between the government and citizens
preceded by transparency and accountability [26].
4. REVIEW METHODOLOGY
The study has two-stage research design: a systematic literature
review on the relationship between trust and e-participation and
a setting-a-conceptual-model retrieved from the findings of the
review. To conduct a systematic analysis of the empowerment of
e-participation through consolidating trust in e-government
activities, we searched for just peer-reviewed articles and
conference papers, particularly indexed by Digital Government
Reference Library (DGRL). To this end, we decided to search for
articles in all-years period in order to capture in what ways is the
concept of trust discussed within the context of e-government
issues, particularly in e-participation. We selected the concepts of
“trust” and “e-participation” for the title-search of the related texts
and then employed a search within terms list of the DGRL 15.0
database including relevant terms such as digital government, e-
governance, e-government, e-inclusion, and e-engagement to
generate binary combinations with “trust”. The title search stage
provided a total of 22 articles, from which we have picked 11
articles with the criterion of revealing trust in technology
adoption and e-participation models.
We eliminated articles that were not directly related to our
research questions of
“RQ1. In what ways is trust addressed in e-government studies
with a particular reference to e-participation?”,
“RQ2. How important is the public trust for the adoption and
diffusion of e-government and e-participation?”, and
“RQ3. To what extent can the current trust-based models resolve
the e-participation issues?”
Also used in article selection, there are some other shared or
diverging points and dimensions as a) theoretical/conceptual
background, b) methodology and research design, c) year of
publishing, and d) article type
5. REVIEW SUMMARY
Table 1: 11 articles selected from the article pool defined
with regard to research questions.
Paper by Paper Info Scope/context & Practical Conclusions
Azab, N. &
ElSherif,
M., (2018)
Empirical
Conference Paper
Social Media
Analysis
Conceptual
framework on six
trust dimensions:
efficiency,
accessibility,
responsiveness,
transparency,
The relation btw social capital and trust in
government, btw social capital and social media,
and the measurement of trust
Gathering citizens’ opinions assisting a clear
view of the right balance of the trust
components perceived by the citizens.
Ref: Azab, N. & ElSherif, M.2018. A Framework
for Using Data Analytics To Measure Trust in
Government through the Social Capital
Generated over Governmental Social Media
Platforms. dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th
Annual International Conference on Digital
344

5. Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic
literature review to propose a model
ICEGOV 2020, 23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece
effectiveness, and
participation
Government Research: Governance in the Data
Age, 11,1-9.
Khan, S.,
Ab Rahim,
N. Z. &
Maarop,
N., (2019)
Literature Review
Technology
Acceptance Model
(TAM) and
citizen’s trust
A model identifying individual characteristics,
government factors, risk factors and social
media characteristics as multiple antecedents of
citizen’s trust in government social media
services.
An integrated model about citizens’ trust factors
in e-government adoption, social networking
sites and related studies about government
social media services
Ref: Khan, S., Ab Rahim, N. Z. & Maarop,
N.2019. A Review on Antecedents of Citizen’s
Trust in Government Social Media Services. 3C
Tecnología, Special Issue on “Recent Trends in
Computer Science and Electronics”, 28:2,109-
120.
Santamari
a, A.,
(2016)
Empirical
Case Study
Public
Participation,
e-Participation,
and Trust
A generic eParticipation framework enriched
with trust management techniques
The public sector will have a tool allowing the
expert users to build and perform any process of
eParticipation, covering demographics aspects,
integrating leaders and citizens, making
decisions in a collaborative environment.
Ref: Santamaria, A.2016. Trust-Enhanced
Approach to the e-Participation Life Cycle.
Electronic Government and Electronic
Participation. The authors and IOS Press.352-
360.
Song, C. &
Lee, J.,
(2016)
Empirical
“Government
Online 2009”
survey conducted
by the Pew
Research Center’s
Internet and
American Life
Project
Social Media,
Perceived
Transparency and
Trust
A theoretical model of social media in
government and trust in government
emphasizing the role of citizens’ perceptions of
government transparency in making
connections btw social media in government
and trust in government
Use of government social media associated with
perceptions of govt. transparency, perceptions
of govt. transparency are related to trust in govt.
and perceptions of govt. transparency mediate
the relationship btw the use of govt. social
media and trust in government.
Ref: Song, C. & Lee, J.2016. Citizens’ Use of
Social Media in Government, Perceived
Transparency, and Trust in Government. Public
Performance &
Management Review, 39:2, 430-453.
Scherer, S.
&
Wimmer,
M., (2014)
Evaluative Review
Literature Review
Trust and e-
Participation
Trust in e-participation contexts through
combining two models: a) Integrative Model of
Organizational Trust and b) Interdisciplinary
Model of Trust Constructs to 1) investigate trust
along the whole lifecycle of e-participation
projects with a) and 2) to consider different
trust perspectives with b).
For the model, the participant is the trustor, so
the views of other roles as e.g. trust of
administrative agencies in the input of the
general public necessary for starting an e-
participation initiative need to be investigated.
Ref: Scherer, S. & Wimmer, M.2014.
Conceptualising Trust in E-Participation
Contexts. 6th In- ternational Conference on
Electronic Participation (ePart), Dublin,
Ireland,64-77.
Gordon, E.
&
Baldwin-
Philippi, J.,
(2014)
Empirical Study
Design-based
Research (in-game
actions, interviews
and focus groups
with players)
Civic Learning in
a Digital
Landscape, Trust,
e-Participation
If and how Community PlanIt (CPI) can move
citizen participation beyond isolated
transactions.
CPI encourages reflective attitudes and
mediates relationships of trust needed for
functional and continued civic engagement. A
well-designed game encourages people to
reflect on specific policy or planning decisions
and the roles played within the overall civic
process.
Ref: Gordon, E. & Baldwin-Philippi, J. 2014.
Playful Civic Learning: Enabling Reflection and
Lateral Trust in Game-based Public
Participation. International Journal of
Communication 8, 759–786.
Nulhusna,
R.,
Sandhyad
uhita, P.,
Hidayanto,
A. N. &
Phusavat,
K., (2017)
Descriptive
Experiment,
Survey Study
Information
Systems (IS)
Success Model
with the
expansion of the
trust dimension
into multi-
dimensional trust
A major challenge in the success of e-
Government implementation, public
participation via continual use intention and
electronic Word of Mouth (eWoM), and control
by examining the impact of e-Government
quality on public trust and towards continual
use intention and eWoM.
A sig. correlation btw systems quality & info.
quality and trust, a substantial relationship btw
dispositional trust and institutional trust &
interpersonal trust, a sig. correlation btw
institutional and interpersonal trust, a direct
relationship btw institutional trust and
continual use intention & eWoM, a sig.
correlation btw interpersonal trust and
continual use intention.
Ref: Nulhusna, R., Sandhyaduhita, P.,
Hidayanto, A. N. & Phusavat, K. 2017. The
Relation of e-government Quality on Public
Trust and Its Impact Towards Public
Participation.Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy, Emerald Publishing
Limited.
Wimmer,
M.A.,
Scherer, S.
& Appel,
M., (2015)
Empirical
Research
Theory Building,
Case study, and
Design Science
Research
e-Participation
and Trust
Predictors and consequences of trust in e-
participation, and a 'trust by-design' approach
to design and implement e-participation
projects.
Interdisciplinary cooperation from psycho.,
communication, IS & e-government
demonstrated in the draft of the trust model for
e-participation.
Ref: Wimmer, M.A., Scherer, S. & Appel, M.
2015. The Role of Trust in E-Participation:
Predictors, Consequences, and Design.
Electronic Government and Electronic
Participation,
The authors and IOS Press. 3-10.
Kollmann,
T., Kayser,
I. &
Stöckmen
n, C.,
(2015)
Empirical study
Model testing
Technology
Acceptance Model
(TAM), Social
Engage Theory,
Perceived Risk
and Trust
The role of perceived risk and trust in the
acceptance of social networks for e-
participation.
Financial, time, psychological, social and overall
risk are significant determinants. Trust in tech.
& trust in govt. are significant facets, while trust
in Facebook not significantly load on the
second-order construct. Trust in a perceived risk
model with TAM determinants increases the R2
in intention to use.
Ref: Kollmann, T., Kayser, I. & Stöckmenn, C.
2015. ‘What Matters Most? Investigating the
Role of Perceived Risk and Trust in the
Acceptance of Social Networks for Political
Communication. Electronic Government, An
International Journal, Vol. 11, 4, 306–321.
Kim, S. &
Lee, J.,
(2012)
Descriptive
experiment
Survey data
analysis and
Measurement
Model
e-Participation,
Citizen
Development, and
Trust
The relationship btw e-participation and trust in
local govt. w/ 5 dimensions: satisfaction w/ e-
participation applications, satisfaction w/
government responsiveness to e-participants, e-
participants’ development through
participation, perceived influence on decision
making, and assessment of govt. transparency.
Dimensions are associated w/ application
development, govt. transparency, e-
participant’s perceptions of influencing govt.
decision making, trust in local govt.
Ref: Kim, S. & Lee, J. 2012. E‐Participation,
Transparency, and Trust in Local Government.
Public Administration Review,72, 6, 819-828.
Santamari
a-Philco,
A. &
Wimmer,
M.A.,
(2018)
Empirical research
DSRM of
Wieringa,
Empirical cycle
Trust, e-
Participation,
e-Government
The factors that influence the procedure, the
technology, and the perceived risk and/or the
benefits of electronic participation.
The variables generating trust: trust in tech.,
contributions, conditions of participation and
quality of info. About the process flow. The
variables of the e-participation process: quality
of info. About the process flow, moderation and
info. about
345

6. ICEGOV 2020, 23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece Demirdoven, Burcu et al.
Ref: Santamaria-Philco, A. & Wimmer, M.A.
2018.Trust in e-participation: an empirical
research on the influencing factors. dg.o '18:
Proceedings of the 19th Annual International
Conference on Digital Government Research:
Governance in the Data Age, 64, 1-10.
6. DISCUSSION
Based on the systematic analysis of the current models evaluating
the relation between trust and e-participation, a structured model
on relational trust in participation has been developed about the
trust-building environment and process in e-government
activities. The model illustrated in Figure 1 provides an integrated
scheme for the consolidation of relational trust between relational
partners in the e-participation process. The existing literature
states that the prospective trust models should combine the pillars
of trust in e-participation in a holistic image: trust factors,
respective actors and trust-building processes. The previous
models and frameworks focus on the significant factors affecting
citizens’ trust in e-government issues and the necessary process
to be followed or the communication between the government
and citizens separately. The proposed model, therefore, expects to
fill this gap in the literature by combining three separately
important pillars of trust in e-participation with the integration of
required values such as transparency, accountability, cooperation,
responsiveness. While figuring the process to ensure relational
trust in e-participation, the model also shows the Government-to-
Citizen (G2C), Citizen-to-Government (C2G) and Citizen-to-
Citizen (C2C) relation as the relational partners of the process.
Figure 1: Relational Trust Model in e-Participation
The research on the trust models for e-participation has
revealed that against the backdrop of improving trust in e-
participation, the parties of electronic services satisfy with the
constructed system [59]. The prospective application, therefore,
requires a design approach to develop a well-fitted prototype for
the needs and expectations of the parties. The authoritative body
is not the only responsible for the improvement of the
applications. The public institutions and officials internally audit
(G2G) the weaknesses and strengths of the applications to
feedback the authority responsible for the application in return
for the quality testing and risk managing. The other relational
partner, citizens get involved in the application and cooperate
(C2C) with each other in line with the same purpose of the
government. The model approaches trust in e-participation as a
bi-directional relationship between the government and citizens
within the context of a reliable mutual communication system.
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS
The citizen trust issue is a polysemous concept, not
etymologically but contingently that can refer to different but
related meanings depending on the subjects, channels, and
interactions in hand. There is a need for a holistic view of separate
construal in the literature and a comprehensive approach to
establishing an environment of trust in the matter of e-
participation. This study presents the results of a systematic
review of 11 selected peer-reviewed articles (out of a pool of 22
articles) about public trust in e-participation. The study contains
two main contributions. First, it provides a general picture of the
literature on the relationship between trust and e-participation.
Secondly, the study proposes an integrative model of the trust-
building environment. The model aims to offer practical solutions
by combining the existing models on trust in e-participation.
The review indicates that the interaction between trust and e-
participation can be successful if there is a mutual relationship
between the government and citizens as well as among citizens.
Transparency, accountability, and responsiveness are the most
important pillars of the trust-building process in e-participation
issues. These pillars corroborate the feeling of trust that enables
citizens to exchange opinions, reach a common opinion, organize
and involve in policymaking.
The analysis signifies relationality as a founding principle for
trust formation and consolidation that “relations are not the
property of agents but of the relational systems of agents built up
connected pairs of interacting agent” [27]. While citizens’
behavior can be unpredictable, theorists and modelers aim to
avoid the same problems of indeterminacy. The government,
therefore, supports instant-active participation through feedbacks
that facilitate management mechanisms. The relational trust must
be correlatively re-created at instants, not only by creating
technical infrastructure. Thus, sustainability appears to be vital to
relational trust.
Internet services and technologies are so intensely involved in
all daily life activities so that the rejections and barriers to
technology acceptance should be solved by again technology
itself. Since distrust of technological advancements in public
service delivery may be the reason to avoid e-participation, the
solution is in the adoption of technology-based systems and
processes.
This study has some coverage-respective and methodological
models. The first limitation is the restriction to concentrate on the
government, e-government and public as a whole with their all
sub-parts rather than separately defining the roles and effects of
government organizations, policymakers, public groups, etc. In
addition, the relation between trust-related concepts such as
transparency, accountability or responsiveness is not reviewed in
the literature. The last limitation is about the database selection
that the study includes articles indexed in the DGRL.
Future studies need to examine the establishment of relational
trust in e-participation processes and activities through empirical
studies to answer to what extent the relational trust model is able
346

7. Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic
literature review to propose a model
ICEGOV 2020, 23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece
to solve the challenges of citizens’ trust to electronically
participate in the administrative processes.
REFERENCES
[1] Blaine G. Robbins. 2016. What is Trust? A Multidisciplinary Review, Critique,
and Synthesis. Sociology Compass, 10, 10, 972-986.
[2] Sabrina Scherer and Maria A. Wimmer. 2014. Trust in E-Participation:
Literature Review and Emerging Research Needs. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
(ICEGOV2014), ACM Press, New York, NY, 61-70.
[3] Panagiota Papadopoulou, Maria Nikolaidou, & Drakoulis Martakos. 2010.
What is Trust in E-Government? A Proposed Typology. In Proceedings of the
2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE
Computer Society, Washington, DC, 1-10.
[4] Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
Social Behavior (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
[5] Icek Ajzen. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 2, 179-211.
[6] Harry C. Triandis. 1978. Some Universals of Social Behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 1, 1-16.
[7] Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User
Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319-340.
[8] Eric Maillet, Luc Mathieu, & Claude Sicotte. 2015. Modeling Factors Explaining
the Acceptance, Actual Use and Satisfaction of Nurses Using an Electronic
Patient Record in Acute Care Settings: An Extension of the UTAUT.
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84, 1, 36-47.
[9] Magid Igbaria, Stephen J. Schiffmann, & Thomas J. Wieckowski. 1994. The
Respective Roles of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Fun in the Acceptance
of Microcomputer Technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 13, 6, 349-
361.
[10] Albert Bandura. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social
cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[11] Everett M. Rogers. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). The Free Press, New
York, NY.
[12] Mumtaz A. Hameed, Steve Counsell, & Stephen Swift. 2012. A Conceptual
Model for the Process of IT Innovation Adoption in Organizations. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 29, 3, 358-390.
[13] Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, & Paul R. Warshaw. 1992. Extrinsic and
Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22, 14, 1111-1132.
[14] Thomas E. Ruggiero. 2000. Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century.
Mass Communication & Society, 3, 1, 3-37.
[15] Ronald L. Thompson, Christopher A. Higgins, & Jane M. Howell. 1991.
Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization. MIS
Quarterly, 15, 1, 125-143.
[16] Viswanath Venkatesh, Micheal G. Morris, & Gordon B. Davis. 2003. User
Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS
Quarterly, 27, 3, 425-478.
[17] Hamed Taherdoost. 2017. A Review of Technology Acceptance and Adoption
Models and Theories. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, 960-967.
[18] Evan T. Straub. 2009. Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future
Directions for Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 2 , 625-
649.
[19] G. D. Manoja N. Samaradiwakara and Chandra Gunawardena. 2014.
Comparison of Existing Technology Acceptance Models Theories and Models
to Suggest a Well Improved Theory/Model. International Technical Sciences
Journal, 1, 1, 21-36.
[20] PC Lai. 2017. The literature Review of Technology Adoption Models and
Theories For the Novelty Technology. Journal of Information Systems and
Technology Management, 14, 1, 21-38.
[21] . Russell Hardin. 2002. Trust & Trustworthiness (1st ed.). Russell Sage
Foundation, New York, NY.
[22] .Eric M. Uslaner. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust (1st ed.). Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[23] Ivana Damnjanović. 2018. Democratic Innovations in Serbia: a Misplaced
Trust. Contemporary Politics, 25, 1, 1-17.
[24] Eric Gordon and Jessica Baldwin-Philippi. 2014. Playful Civic Learning:
Enabling Reflection and Lateral Trust in Game-based Public Participation.
International Journal of Communication, 8, 759-786.
[25] Soonhee Kim, & Jooho Lee. 2012. E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in
Local Government. Public Administration Review, 72, 6, 1-10.
[26] Lois Evans, Patricia Franks, & Hsuanwei M. Chen. 2018. Voices in the Cloud:
Social Media and Trust in Canadian and US Local Government. Records
Management Journal, 28, 1, 18-46.
[27] John Scott. 2017. Social Network Analysis (4th ed.). SAGE, London.
[28] Gerry Stoker. 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. International
Social Science Journal, 50, 155, 17–28.
[29] Robert B. Denhardt, & Janet V. Denhardt. (2003). The New Public Service: An
Approach to Reform. International Review of Public Administration, 8, 1, 3-10.
[30] Janet V. Denhardt, & Robert B. Denhardt. (2015). The New Public Service
Revisited. Public Administration Review, 75, 5, 664-672.
[31] Richard Shaw. 2013. Another Size Fits all? Public Value Management and
Challenges for Institutional Design, Public Management Review, 15, 4, 477-500.
[32] .Gerry Stoker. (2006). Public Value Management: A New Narrative for
Networked Governance?, The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 1,
41-57.
[33] Kenneth Hanf, & Fritz W. Scharpf (eds.). 1978. Interorganizational
policymaking: limits to coordination and central control. SAGE Modern politics
series, London, UK.
[34] Eran Vigoda. 2002. From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance,
Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public
Administration Review, 62, 5, 527-540.
[35] .Polya Katsamunska. 2012. Classical and Modern Approaches to Public
Administration. Economic Alternatives, 1, 74-81.
[36] Yvonne Rydin, & Mark Pennington. 2000. Public Participation and Local
Environmental Planning: The collective action problem and the potential of
social capital. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and
Sustainability, 5, 2, 153-169.
[37] .Deirdre Curtin, & Albert J. Meijer. 2006. Does transparency strengthen
legitimacy?. Information Polity, 11, 2, 109-122.
[38] Julia Abelson, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, John Eyles, Patricia Smith, Elisabeth
Martin, & Francois-Pierre Gauvin. 2003. Deliberations about deliberative
methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.
Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2, 239-251.
[39] Mete Yildiz. 2007. E-government research: Reviewing the literature,
limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 3, 646-
665.
[40] . Babita Gupta, Subhasish Dasgupta, & Atul Gupta. 2008. Adoption of ICT in a
government organization in a developing country: An empirical study. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 2, 140-154.
[41] M. Shamsul Haque. 2002. E-governance in India: its impacts on relations
among citizens, politicians and public servants. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 68, 2, 231-250.
[42] Ignace Snellen. 2002. Electronic Governance: Implications for Citizens,
Politicians and Public Servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences,
68, 2, 183-198.
[43] Alexander Schellong. 2009. Citizen Government Interaction: The Promise of
the E-Channel, In A. Meijer et al. (eds.), ICTs, Citizens and Governance: After
the Hype!, 13-20, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[44] Ailsa Kolsaker, & Liz Lee-Kelley. 2008. Citizens’ attitudes towards e-
government and e-governance: a UK study. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 21, 7, 723-738.
[45] Eric W. Welch, Charles C. Hinnant, & M. Jae Moon. 2005. Linking Citizen
Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 15, 3, 371-391.
[46] . Luca Buccoliero, & Elena Bellio. 2010. Citizens Web Empowerment in
European Municipalities. Journal of E-Governance, 33, 225-236.
[47] Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, Mutaz M. Al-Debei, Guy Fitzgerald, Tony Elliman.
2012. A business model perspective for ICTs in public engagement.
Government Information Quarterly, 29, 2, 192-202.
[48] Kim V. Andersen, & Helle Z. Henriksen. 2006. E-government maturity models:
Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly 23,
2, 236–248.
[49] Wisdom J. Tettey. 2002. ICT, Local Government Capacity Building, and Civic
Engagement: An Evaluation of the Sample Initiative in Ghana. Perspectives on
Global Development and Technology, 1, 2, 165-192.
[50] Jacqueline M. Klopp, Elizabeth M. Marcello, George Kirui, & Henry Mwangi.
2013. Negotiating e-politics: Initiating e-government in a municipal council in
Kenya. Information Polity 18, 1, 21–42.
[51] Christopher G. Reddick. 2005. Citizen interaction with e-government: From
the streets to servers?. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 1, 38–57.
347

8. ICEGOV 2020, 23-25 September 2020, Athens, Greece Demirdoven, Burcu et al.
[52] R. Karl Rethemeyer. 2007. Policymaking in the Age of Internet: Is the Internet
Tending to Make Policy Networks More or Less Inclusive?. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 17, 2, 259-284.
[53] Thomas Webler. 1999. The craft and theory of public participation: a
dialectical process. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 1, 55-71.
[54] .Euripidis Loukis, Yannis Charalabidis, & Jeremy Millard. 2012. From the
Special Issue Editors: European Research on Electronic Citizen Participation
and Engagement in Public Policy Making, Information Systems Management,
29, 4, 255-257.
[55] Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Vishanth Weerakkody, and Marijn Janssen. 2012. Moving
towards maturity: challenges to successful e-government implementation and
diffusion. SIGMIS Database 42, 4, 11-22.
[56] .Joel Fredericks, & Marcus Foth. 2013. Augmenting public participation:
enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0,
Australian Planner, 50, 3, 244-256.
[57] .Maria A.V.C. Cunha, Taiane R. Coelho, & Marlei Pozzebon. 2013. The Use of
ICT in Public Decision-Making Participation. ECIS 2013 Complete Research
Paper 20, http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr/20.
[58] J. Norman Baldwin, Robin Gauld, & Shaun Goldfinch. 2012. What Public
Servants Really Think of E-Government. Public Management Review, 14, 1,105-
127.
[59] Hossana Twinomurinzia, Jackie Phahlamohlaka, & Elaine Byrne. 2012. The
small group subtlety of using ICT for participatory governance: A South
African experience. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 2, 203–211.
[60] .Ralf Lindner, & Ulrich Riehm. 2009. Electronic Petitions and Institutional
Modernization International Parliamentary E-Petition Systems in Comparative
Perspective, JeDEM - EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government, 1, 1, 1-11.
[61] Andreas Jungherr, & Pascal Jürgens. 2010. The Political Click: Political
Participation through E-Petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, 2, 4, 131-165.
[62] Y. Taher., Willem-Jan van den Heuvel, S. Koussouris, & C. Georgousopoulos.
2010. Empowering Citizens in Public Service Design and Delivery: A Reference
Model and Methodology. In M. Cezon and Y. Wolfsthal (Eds.), ServiceWave
2010 Workshops LNCS 6569, 129-136, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg Berlin.
[63] Øystein Sæbø, Jeremy Rose, Leif Skiftenes Flak. 2008. The Shape of
eParticipation: Characterizing an Emerging Research Area. Government
Information Quarterly, 25, 400-428.
[64] Henning S. Hansen, & David C. Prosperi. 2005. Citizen Participation and
Internet GIS – Some Recent Advances. (Editorial). Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems, 29, 6, 617-629.
[65] Paul T. Jaeger, & John C. Bertot. 2010. Transparency and technological change:
Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information.
Government Information Quarterly, 27, 4, 371-376.
[66] Catherine Bochel. 2013. Petitions Systems: Contributing to Representative
Democracy?. Parliamentary Affairs, 66, 4, 798-815.
[67] Satish Krishnan, & Thompson S. H. Teo. 2012. Moderating Effects of
Governance on Information Infrastructure and E-Government Development.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 10,
1929-1946.
[68] Tina Nabatchi. 2010. Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: The
Potential of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration. The American
Review of Public Administration, 40, 4, 376-399.
[69] Eileen M. Searson, & Melissa A. Johnson. 2010. Transparency laws and
interactive public relations: An analysis of Latin American government Web
sites. Public Relations Review, 36, 2, 120-126.
[70] .Deborah Oughton. 2008. Public participation - potential and pitfalls. Energy &
Environment, 19, 3-4, 485-496.
[71] Renée A. Irvin, & John Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision
Making: Is It Worth the Effort?. Public Administration Review, 64, 1, 55–65.
[72] Sukumar Ganapati. 2011. Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information
Systems Applications in E-Government. Public Administration Review, 71, 3,
425-434.
[73] Rizqa Nulhusna, Puspa Sandhyaduhita, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto & Kongkiti
Phusavat. 2017. The relation of e-government quality on public trust and its
impact towards public participation, Transforming Government: People, Process
and Policy, 11, 3, 393-418.
[74] .Sabrina Scherer & Maria Wimmer. 2014. Conceptualising Trust in E-
Participation Contexts, 6th International Conference on Electronic
Participation (ePart), Dublin, Ireland, pp. 64-77.
348