future research areas

Future Research Directions

• Open Access
• First Online: 24 October 2024

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Ilaria Mariani 5 ,
• Marzia Mortati 5 ,
• Francesca Rizzo 5 &
• Alessandro Deserti   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1049-7650 5  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ((BRIEFSPOLIMI))

556 Accesses

This chapter explores areas for future research that extend beyond the scope of the current investigation, looking at the role of DT as a transformative approach for enhancing e-participation. Ultimately, it summarises how the work contributes to the current discourse.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

• E-Participation
• Design thinking
• Operational challenges
• Future research

In light of the discourse so far presented, the implications and significance of our findings are specifically discussed to explore how DT principles and practices can address identified barriers to e-participation in digital public services. This work originated from challenges observed in e-participation literature, pointing out the difficulties in addressing user expectations. These barriers underline the need for targeted strategies to enhance effective and informed citizen engagement in e-participation, with DT offering key insights into addressing current issues and supporting public organisations in overcoming existing barriers.

7.1 Future DT-Related Research Areas

This chapter specifically explores areas for future research that extend beyond the scope of the current investigation. These span from investigating the long-term effects of DT implementation in public organisations, exploring additional DT practices that may strengthen and enhance e-participation, the conduction of case study analysis to assess the real-world impact of DT, and analysis on how to mitigate selection and technical biases which may reinforce the presence of echo chambers, further polarising the discourse and marginalising non-dominant voices.

Such research directions are explored in the following paragraphs.

7.1.1 Assessing DT Effectiveness and Impact on e-participation

The analysis conducted throughout this book underscores the relevance of further studies aimed at establishing a coherent framework to assess the effectiveness and impact of DT practices in e-participation. This framework should offer validated theoretical models and practical tools for monitoring and measuring the impact of DT adoption in various dimensions of e-participation. The importance of such a framework has been recognised for some time. In 2008, Macintosh and Whyte ( 2008 ) proposed an evaluation framework aimed at understanding e-participation applications and learning from these experiences. Even then, they noted the potential benefits of further developing their framework. This need has become increasingly urgent over time due to changes triggered by technological advancements and participatory habits. The ongoing need to develop a comprehensive set of theoretical and practical instruments that enable inclusive engagement highlights a significant gap. There is a clear demand for integrated fieldwork and methodologies that assess e-participation’s social acceptance, incorporating diverse metrics such as user satisfaction, engagement levels, and policy impact. This area remains ripe for further investigation.

This book contributes to the ongoing discourse on assessing e-participation by introducing additional dimensions that enrich the discourse from a conceptual perspective. By integrating DT principles, it highlights the need for theoretical and practical instruments for measuring the efficacy of these practices in real-world settings. This approach encourages the consideration of integrating quantitative and qualitative metrics such as the depth of user involvement, the inclusiveness of participation processes, and the transformative impact of these initiatives on public trust and policy development.

7.1.2 Investigating the Impact of DT Implementation in Public Organisations

The implementation of DT in public organisations entails more than its timely application; it requires comprehensive and long-term institutionalisation. This process embeds DT deeply into both the structural and cultural frameworks of public governance, transforming it from a sporadic or project-based initiative into a sustained, routine activity within public administration (McGann et al. 2018 ). Structurally, institutionalisation involves integrating DT into the formal infrastructure and procedures of public institutions. However, to transcend imposition and permeate the cognitive and behavioural layers of the organisation, aligning the values, norms, and behaviours of public officials with DT principles, a cultural shift is essential (Beckman and Barry 2007 ). Achieving this cultural acceptance becomes strategic to frame DT as a valued and deeply ingrained approach that enhances responsiveness and desirability.

Specific research should focus on the sustained effort and consequences of implementing DT principles and practices in public organisations and its effects on supporting e-participation integration, over an extended period. A longitudinal analysis might also shed light on the persistence of improvements in citizen engagement and the evolution of services and policies due to the adoption of DT practices, and to what extent such implementation requires the upskilling or even development of new expertise within organisations running e-participation initiatives.

To bridge this gap between theoretical frameworks and practical outcomes, future research should focus on empirical case studies and explore public organisations that have implemented DT principles and practices in their e-participation initiatives. Such case studies can provide practical insights and concrete evidence on the transformative potential derived from embedding DT in designing e-participation practices and their influence on digital public services. In these terms, case studies can help document the application, challenges, and outcomes of DT-driven e-participation practices and initiatives, observing and measuring, for instance, tangible results such as increased citizen engagement and representation of multiple voices, service quality improvements, and policy efficacy. Additionally, attention should be posed on exploring the scalability of such initiatives and their adaptability across different governance contexts.

7.1.3 Tailoring DT Approaches to Context-Specific Barriers and Regulation Frameworks

Following the discourse on context-specificity, while this work has outlined a theoretical framework for leveraging DT principles and practices to enhance e-participation, the application and operationalization of DT requires to be finely tuned to meet the unique challenges, needs, and opportunities within specific e-governance contexts. It follows that DT contribution in enhancing e-participation cannot be assumed to be universal due to the significant influence of a variety of contextual factors. These include cultural specificities, regulatory frameworks, technological infrastructure, and political conditions, each of which can deeply impact how DT methodologies can be applied and how successful they can be in different settings.

As previously mentioned, a “one size fits all” approach is not only inappropriate but also undesirable when exploring e-participation, across diverse (e-)governance contexts. Each setting presents unique cultural dynamics that makes what works in one cultural setting ineffective in another due to differing social norms, values, and conditions (Åström et al. 2012 ; Müller and Skau 2015 ; Panopoulou et al. 2014 ). For instance, participatory techniques encouraging open confrontation and debate may be well-received in cultures with a tradition of direct and open debate, hence resonating well with the habits of the loci, but less so in contexts where indirect communication are more rooted and established. Similarly, regulatory frameworks vary widely, with some governments offering more flexibility and openness to innovative citizen engagement methods than others. The technological landscape also plays a crucial role. Regions with robust digital infrastructures can support more sophisticated and articulated e-participation applications, while those with limited technological access require adaptations to simpler, more accessible tools. Ultimately, also political conditions further affect e-participation. In politically stable environments, there might be more predisposition for long-term planning and experimentation of e-participation initiatives. In contrast, regions experiencing stronger resistance to new governance methods might face certain barriers to the adoption and effectiveness of these innovations.

DT can act as an agent of change within different settings. In more rigid or outdated regulatory frameworks, it can support deriving the needs on which to build innovative approaches through small-scale pilot projects. In such contexts, DT can provide evidence and trust, and build the case for more substantial reforms. This method of “change by doing” can gradually shift cultural, political, and regulatory environments towards more open and flexible governance structures. In more progressive settings that are open to digital transformation, DT can accelerate and enhance the integration of new e-participation technologies and methodologies. By facilitating collaboration between technology experts, government officials, and citizens, DT can be applied to push the boundaries of what is possible, encouraging the exploration of cutting-edge technologies and practices. Furthermore, DT’s systemic and inclusive approach can help avoid that the integration of new technologies exacerbate existing inequalities or create new divides.

Recognising the role of diverse contextual factors in affecting citizen engagement and the efficacy of public service delivery, it becomes evident how specific research should focus on customising and tailoring DT practices to the distinct circumstances found across different e-governance environments. This involves not merely applying DT as a standardised model but adapting its methodologies to align with the local conditions—be they cultural, technological, or political. Specific research could explore the provision of actionable insights that significantly enhance the practicality and impact of citizen engagement initiatives.

Limited research has so far explored how to tailor approaches that help overcome barriers inherent in diverse administrative and cultural landscapes, facilitating more effective and sustainable citizen engagement strategies. This direction would encourage a more granular exploration of how DT can contribute to addressing specific governance challenges, ultimately leading to more robust and adaptive e-participation frameworks that are better aligned with the needs and expectations of various communities.

7.1.4 Exploring Additional DT Methods and Techniques

While the current work identifies specific DT practices that can enhance e-participation, there might be other DT methods and techniques that may also hold significant potential for enriching e-participation but not explored within the scope of this work. Future research could build on this foundational knowledge by delving deeper into existing DT toolboxes, exploring a broader array of methods and techniques. This exploration would uncover additional practices that could further streamline and improve e-participation processes. Beyond merely cataloguing a repertoire of DT tools, the research could systematically explore how each method enhances facets of e-participation. Such an inquiry would not only validate and possibly extend the practices already discussed but also identify innovative and more desirable ways to engage citizens and public officials more effectively. Potential methods could include advanced prototyping tools, deeper user research methodologies, or novel ideation techniques that foster more dynamic and inclusive participation. By operationalising these diverse DT methods, future studies may offer additional insights into how DT can be integrated into public engagement strategies, ensuring that the technological solutions align seamlessly with user needs and governance objectives.

7.2 Future Research Areas, Beyond DT

The paragraph above specifically explores DT-related areas for future research that extend beyond the scope of the current investigation. Next, the discussion shifts to identify additional future research areas that move beyond the DT confines, broadening the horizon for further inquiry in the field of e-participation.

7.2.1 Examining Appropriateness of e-participation

The existing literature underscores a noted gap regarding the appropriateness of e-participation in varying situations. While most studies have focused on the degree of engagement, they often overlook the critical aspect of how suitable e-participation is within specific social, cultural, or regulatory frameworks. The effectiveness of e-participation requires moving beyond mere information dissemination and routine consultations, towards proactive strategies that involve experts and decision-makers, tailored to resonate with societal, cultural, and regulatory norms.

Social capital factors like trust in government, community commitment, and a sense of community ownership significantly influence citizen engagement in e-participation (Van Dyne and Pierce 2004 ), far more than technological factors such as perceived usefulness and ease of use (Choi and Song 2020 ). Choi and Song’s study ( 2020 ) highlights the direct correlation between higher levels of trust in government and strong community and the extent to which citizens are more likely to engage in e-participation. E-participation should, therefore, be designed to resonate with these social dynamics, potentially by facilitating more transparent interactions between citizens and government (Alharbi et al. 2016 ; Lee and Kim 2018 ). Future studies could explore the relationship between the effectiveness of e-participation initiatives and the social fabric of the community rather than just the technological infrastructure in explaining citizen’s participation.

It could be valuable to explore how e-participation can be tailored to meet the unique challenges arising from different communities, ensuring cultural congruence and increased citizen engagement. Current research poses attention to the relevance of localising e-participation efforts to reflect the specific cultural and social makeup of the community, which can increase participation rates by making initiatives more relevant to the everyday lives of citizens (Oni et al. 2017 ). In light of this, specific attention could be posed to adopt design-driven and user-centred approaches to support deeper understanding and integration of the diverse, multi-level needs of a community, ensuring that the design of e-participation platforms not only addresses technological aspects but also aligns closely with the social, cultural, and behavioural contexts of the users.

Moreover, the relevance of e-participation also hinges on community commitment and the sense of ownership among citizens. Ideally, this sense of ownership can motivate citizens to use e-participation tools as a means of contributing to community development. Future studies should explore how e-participation can be effectively tailored to meet the unique challenges arising from different communities, ensuring cultural congruence. This approach requires a nuanced understanding of how various factors, including local governance structures, societal norms, and technological access, impact the effectiveness of e-participation initiatives. By focusing on the contextual suitability of e-participation, research can pave the way for more sophisticated and inclusive digital governance strategies that are directly aligned with the needs and expectations of diverse populations.

7.2.2 Exploring Generative AI Potential

Generative AI (GenAI) presents untapped potential for enhancing e-participation supporting both its practices and the platform usage. GenAI's capability to generate natural language outputs and visual content from textual descriptions offers novel ways to facilitate decision-making processes and foster more inclusive, productive participation in deliberative processes (von Brackel-Schmidt et al. 2024 ). Although GenAI has made significant strides, it has yet to be integrated in the e-participation domain. It holds particular promise for deliberative democracy, as it can help address barriers to participation that arise when specific skills are needed to effectively contribute to the process. These barriers often manifest as disparities in participants’ ability to use digital tools, produce relevant texts, or create appropriate visual representations of ideas, prototypes, and visions (Tappert et al. 2024 ). In the domain of GenAI, models like GPT can produce outputs that closely resemble human responses to prompts typically presented in natural language interfaces. This capability not only enriches participant perspectives by offering diverse viewpoints but also aids in envisioning future scenarios and interpreting data.

This potential is being currently explored through direct experimentation, such as the work by von Brackel-Schmidt and colleagues ( 2024 ). The researchers present a case involving 64 participants from multiple backgrounds tasked with collaboratively envisioning the future of The Hamburg metropolitan city in 2040. This case demonstrates that participants, irrespective of their backgrounds, could rapidly visualise their concepts for the city’s future without requiring specific artistic or technical skills. They designed prompts using ChatGPT, then visualised through DALL-E 2, showing a practical application of GenAI chaining in urban planning. The accessibility and intuitive nature of GenAI’s natural language interfaces indeed offer a viable and user-friendly solution to bridging the skill gap among participants, thus mitigating disparities and promoting more inclusive participation (Jiang et al. 2022 ). While the integration of GenAI into e-participation frameworks heralds significant potential advancements, it concurrently presents challenges that require consideration. The main challenge concerns the capacity to harness the full spectrum of GenAI’s capabilities while balancing the possible unintended consequences detrimental to the integrity of participatory processes (Belanche et al. 2024 ; Sætra 2023 ). For instance, GenAI’s ability to fabricate persuasive yet factually inaccurate content represents a relevant risk, particularly in the manipulation of deliberative discourse and possible dissemination of misleading information or fake news. Such risks are profoundly pertinent to the deliberative context, where the truthfulness, accuracy, and quality of information are of prime importance.

Ongoing research lines are already exploring GenAI to produce analytics and reports that support both online and in-person deliberation, or summarise their outcomes, enhancing real-time moderation and ensuring outputs are inclusive, transparent, and foster trust. However, a critical aspect that requires thorough exploration is maintaining a “human in the loop” approach. This approach ensures that human oversight is integrated into the GenAI workflows, providing a check against the potential biases and errors that AI systems might propagate.

To operationalise this, research should explore the development of systems where GenAI outputs are not only automatically generated but also reviewed and supervised by human moderators, thus refining and validating AI-generated contents before being used in decision-making processes or disseminated among participants. Furthermore, implementing feedback mechanisms would nurture continuous and real-time input from users, enhancing the training of the GenAI models. Models would largely benefit from such mechanisms, since they would be exposed to a diverse array of human interactions, new information, or changing dynamics in deliberative discussions.

7.2.3 Preventing Biases and the Creation of Echo Chambers

In e-participation, biases can emerge in two principal forms: selection bias and technical bias, each contributing significantly to the creation of echo chambers (Ross Arguedas et al. 2022 ) that skew discussions and exacerbate polarisation.

As previously introduced, selection bias occurs when the demographics participating in e-participation platforms are not representative of the wider community, often due to barriers such as digital literacy, access to technology, or simply varying levels of interest and motivation to engage. As such, selection bias poses a significant challenge in public deliberation processes, particularly where participation is influenced by physical accessibility or the digital divide, thus emerging as a key issue in need of exploration. As traditional in-person participation often excludes large segments of the population due to logistical constraints, e-participation also comes with barriers to participation, prompting the need of exploring how to enhance scalability and reach while mitigating exclusion means and inadvertent biassed outcomes. The dilemma is that larger, unfiltered participant groups often do not equate to balanced representation (Hartz-Karp and Sullivan 2014 ). Essentially, the ease of scaling up participation through digital means can attract participants who are already digitally savvy or particularly motivated by the topic, which may not provide a balanced view of the wider community’s opinions. Furthermore, disadvantaged groups may prefer traditional representative democracy over deliberative approaches, which can amplify the voices of privileged segments, reinforcing existing biases in mini-publics (Talukder and Pilet 2021 ; Escobar and Elstub 2017 ). The challenge lies therefore in avoiding capturing the most vocal or most connected users but truly representing the diverse spectrum of society. Experimentation could explore strategies to engage diverse population segments, as demonstrated by the #MyFrance2022 initiative, which successfully broadened participation through targeted outreach and awareness campaigns.

Technical bias, on the other hand, arises from the algorithms, training data, and data processing techniques employed by digital platforms (Friedman and Nissenbaum 1996 ; Mittelstadt et al. 2016 ). These algorithms, often designed to enhance user engagement, can inadvertently prioritise and amplify certain types of interactions and information. For instance, summarisation algorithms can oversimplify complex discussions, potentially filtering out nuanced or minority opinions in favour of more dominant voices. Predictive algorithms, intended to anticipate user preferences and tailor content accordingly, can also contribute to this issue by creating feedback loops that reinforce users’ existing beliefs. Furthermore, algorithms feeding users content based on past engagement can reinforce existing beliefs and viewpoints, limiting exposure to differing opinions and fostering environments where like-minded individuals reinforce each other’s views.

Selection biases in participants and technical biases in developing e-participation platforms can inadvertently reinforce echo chambers, where similar viewpoints are amplified (confirmation bias and groupthink), and dissenting voices are marginalised or excluded. To mitigate these risks, future research should explore strategies for designing more inclusive algorithms that actively counteract biases by ensuring that they are trained on diverse data sets. This includes not only demographic diversity but also diversity in thought and opinion. Moreover, there should be an emphasis on transparency in how these algorithms operate and how they are applied within e-participation platforms, allowing users to understand and possibly challenge the way information is being curated and presented. Such approaches would help to break down echo chambers and foster a more genuinely representative and democratic e-participation environment.

Future research could vet into devising methodologies to effectively counteract both selection and technical biases from the initial stages of e-participation platform development, avoiding the formation of echo chambers. To move beyond theoretical discussions, the experimentation should concern actionable plans for operationalising concepts of better inclusion by design, also deriving practical recommendations for meaningful integration of diverse groups. The direction for future research should therefore consider better exploring the echo chambers phenomenon in e-participation and current deliberative processes, with the aim of actively designing strategies for breaking or preventing these cycles.

7.2.4 Exploring Asynchronous and Hybrid Interactions

This last paragraph transitions into a domain primarily rooted in design exploration rather than research directions. It examines the need to explore ways for blending traditional face-to-face deliberation methods with digital tools, thereby preserving the immediacy and depth of conventional methods. The emphasis here is on the proactive design and testing of innovative methods and models with the potential to transform the current landscape of e-participation.

Conventional deliberation typically occurs in face-to-face meetings, characterised by a structured agenda and short, frequent interactions among participants. However, such meetings inherently limit participant numbers, excluding those who cannot travel or commit to specific times, often across diverse geographical areas. This limitation restricts participation, especially for those unable to travel or align with the set schedule. In contrast, online deliberation leverages digital tools to transcend physical constraints, offering a broader, less resource-intensive participation opportunity, under the condition of having digital means to access it. Furthermore, digital settings often provide a longer timeframe for deliberation with a process composed of multiple phases, which can accommodate participants across different time zones and personal schedules. This structure is particularly advantageous for managing the high volume of inputs typical in online forums, ensuring that discussions are comprehensive and that more individuals have the opportunity to contribute meaningfully and at their convenience.

Digital tools integral to online deliberation—such as forums for commenting, voting mechanisms, and polls—support a range of interactive activities. While these tools can operate in real-time, digital deliberation predominantly unfolds asynchronously, allowing participants time for thoughtful reflection between contributions. This extended period can deepen discourse quality, though it may reduce the immediacy and dynamic interaction of face-to-face discussions. Spacing out interactions and decision-making steps fosters a thorough examination of topics, but this extended timeline might diminish the spontaneity found in live debates. Thus, strategic use of digital tools not only expands participation but also promotes a more deliberate, reflective engagement, potentially leading to more considered outcomes. Despite these advantages, e-participation is not seen as fully comparable to on-site participation by several scholars (Borchers et al. 2024 ; Maaroufi et al. 2021 ; Velhinho and Almeida 2023 ). Current e-participation management typically organises synchronous communication across several weeks, aiming to mitigate interaction challenges due to delayed responses (Schrammeijer et al. 2022 ). However, this can lead to contributions that are often insufficient and vague (Roman and Fellnhofer 2022 ).

Although digital tools are primarily designed for online deliberation, significant potential exists to enhance in-person assemblies and discussions, fostering hybrid forms of participation. Currently, little attention is drawn on integrating digital tools into traditional in-person deliberation processes. Yet, as the vTaiwan case illustrates, in-person interactions remain crucial and can be substantially enriched by digital enhancements. Organisers of deliberative activities could benefit from experimenting with methodologies that seamlessly blend virtual and in-person deliberations, tailoring their integration to different participation phases to maximise outcomes. A hybrid approach could augment the benefits of face-to-face interactions—such as immediate feedback, nuanced communication, and stronger relational connections—with the efficiency and reach of digital tools. To support such hybrid deliberations, digital platforms should be equipped with functionalities that facilitate real-time interaction but also robust data analysis, including features like live summaries, clustering, visualisations, and analytics, providing immediate insights during meetings and aiding more informed, dynamic discussions.

Building on the insights presented, future research should delve into how the DT approach to iterative design and experimentation can pioneer new e-participation models which blend or integrate asynchronous and hybrid interactions. The field is in need of adaptable e-participation frameworks that not only blend the immediacy of face-to-face engagement with the broad accessibility of online platforms but also include by-design the tailoring of integrations to the unique cultural, social, and technological contexts of different communities. These models should be robust and versatile enough to address specific local needs while providing generalizable insights that can inform broader e-participation strategies. Such exploratory research will be crucial in identifying best practices for designing participation processes that are both inclusive and effective, paving the way for more dynamic and responsive democratic engagements. Additional studies should be conducted to vet into the benefits and mostly the challenges and obstacles hindering such models, being aware and considerate of the high context-dependency of participatory practices.

This exploration could rely on DT principles and practices, and engage a diverse array of stakeholders in co-designing alternative methodologies that harness both the immediacy of in-person activities and the expansive reach of online interactions. These frameworks should be designed as adaptable templates that organisations can customise based on specific needs and contexts before implementation.

7.3 Limits of the Study

While this work offers promising insights for addressing current challenges, it also acknowledges some limitations . In particular, the scope of the work primarily focuses on the alignment between e-participation barriers and DT practices. This focus leaves out of the current scope a closer and contextual investigation of practical challenges that public organisations may face when operationalizing DT in e-participation. Exploring such limits more closely can significantly complement the results presented. Another limit regards the scale and context of this work. It mainly draws from a Western context, which may limit the generalisability and scalability of findings to other regions. It is therefore recognised that additional effort should regard the exploration of the applicability of DT principles in e-participation within diverse global settings to provide a more comprehensive understanding of its potential impact. In this regard, the effectiveness of DT principles and practices in e-participation can be contingent on multiple factors such as the political context, technological infrastructure, and the level of actual stakeholder engagement.

7.4 Conclusions

Overall, this work has addressed a specific set of challenges and barriers emerged from the scientific literature on e-participation, focusing predominantly from a citizen-centred perspective (Oliveira and Garcia 2019 ). It paves the way for future research that shifts the emphasis towards public administrations, contributing to the ongoing discourse on digital governance and public sector innovation. This study has stressed the meaningfulness of adopting a systemic and adaptive DT approach, tailored to the unique complexities and specificities that characterise the contemporary public sector alongside the evolving needs of citizens and communities.

Efforts have been specifically directed towards bridging the theoretical foundations of how DT can enhance e-participation with its potential practical applications, informing the development and implementation of novel or revised practices and tools. The result is a comprehensive hybrid framework for public organisations that outlines a clear, actionable pathway for integrating DT into public sector strategies to make e-participation more effective, inclusive, and deliberative. This orientation is aimed at making the insights and methods discussed not only conceptually robust but also directly applicable in real-world settings, empowering public organisations to enact meaningful and sustainable changes in the way they engage with citizens.

Ultimately, a necessary clarification to be made regards the points of view adopted so far, which portrays DT and the broader design approach not as a prescriptive approach. Rather than providing detailed guidelines or procedures on achieving desired outcomes, this book champions an exploratory and iterative approach that encourages flexibility and adaptability, allowing solutions to emerge organically from the process rather than being imposed from the outset. Thus, this book intends to serve as a dynamic scaffold, supporting multiple and multi-level stakeholders in navigating the many-sided challenges they face, providing them with the necessary knowledge to plan digital stakeholder engagement creatively and effectively, enhancing the overall quality of digitally-enhanced or boosted democratic participation.

This book provides a structured and comprehensive approach for public administrations and technology providers, facilitating the development and refinement of e-participation strategies and tools. For public administrations, it delineates a framework for embedding DT principles and practices to enhance public sector innovation, focusing on operative applications to improve the efficacy and inclusiveness of e-participation. For technology providers, the book serves as a guide to understanding and embedding the requirements of digital governance, aligning their offerings with the needs of the public sector, so that technological solutions not only meet technical demands of public engagement but support the more complex dynamics of digitally-enhanced democratic participation. Ultimately, this perspective shifts the emphasis from seeking predetermined solutions to fostering a culture of innovation and experimentation in conducive and participatory environments where multi-stakeholder engagement is central to nurture effective outcomes.

Alharbi A, Kang K, Hawryszkiewycz, I (2016) The influence of trust and subjective norms on citizens intentions to engage in E-participation on E-government Websites. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00746

Åström J, Karlsson M, Linde J, Pirannejad A (2012) Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Gov Inf Q 29(2):142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.008

Article   Google Scholar  

Beckman SL, Barry M (2007) Innovation as a learning process: embedding design thinking. Calif Manage Rev 50(1):25–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415

Belanche D, Belk RW, Casaló LV, Flavián C (2024) The dark side of artificial intelligence in services. Serv Ind J 44(3–4):149–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2024.2305451

Borchers M, Gierlich-Joas M, Tavanapour N, Bittner E (2024) Let citizens speak up: designing intelligent online participation for urban planning. In: Mandviwalla M, Söllner M, Tuunanen T (eds) Design science research for a resilient future. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 18–32

Google Scholar  

Choi J-C, Song C (2020) Factors explaining why some citizens engage in E-participation, while others do not. Gov Inf Q 37(4):101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101524

Escobar O, Elstub S (2017) Forms of mini-publics: an introduction to deliberative innovations in democratic practice. New Democracy Foundation. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/research/research-notes/399-forms-of-mini-publics

Friedman B, Nissenbaum H (1996) Bias in computer systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 14(3):330–347. https://doi.org/10.1145/230538.230561

Hartz-Karp J, Sullivan B (2014) The unfulfilled promise of online deliberation. J Public Deliberation 10(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.191

Jiang E, Olson K, Toh E, Molina A, Donsbach A, Terry M, Cai CJ (2022) PromptMaker: Prompt-based Prototyping with Large & nbsp; Language & nbsp; Models. In: Extended abstracts of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503564

Lee J, Kim S (2018) Citizens’ e-participation on agenda setting in local governance: do individual social capital and e-participation management matter? Public Manag Rev 20(6):873–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1340507

Maaroufi MM, Stour L, Agoumi A (2021) Contribution of digital collaboration and e-learning to the implementation of smart mobility in Morocco. In: Motahhir S, Bossoufi B (eds) Digital technologies and applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 609–619

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Macintosh A, Whyte A (2008) Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transform GovMent: People, Process Policy 2(1):16–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506160810862928

McGann M, Blomkamp E, Lewis JM (2018) The rise of public sector innovation labs: Experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sci 51(3):249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9315-7

Mittelstadt BD, Allo P, Taddeo M, Wachter S, Floridi L (2016) The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data Soc 3(2):2053951716679679. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679

Müller SD, Skau SA (2015) Success factors influencing implementation of e-government at different stages of maturity: a literature review. Int J Electron GovAnce 7(2):136–170. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2015.069495

Oliveira C, Garcia ACB (2019) Citizens’ electronic participation: A systematic review of their challenges and how to overcome them. Int J Web Based Communities 15(2):123–150. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2019.101042

Oni AA, Oni S, Mbarika V, Ayo CK (2017) Empirical study of user acceptance of online political participation: integrating civic voluntarism model and theory of reasoned action. Gov Inf Q 34(2):317–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.003

Panopoulou E, Tambouris E, Tarabanis K (2014) Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives. Inf Organ 24(4):195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.08.001

Roman M, Fellnhofer K (2022) Facilitating the participation of civil society in regional planning: implementing quadruple helix model in finnish regions. Land Use Policy 112:105864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105864

Ross Arguedas A, Robertson C, Fletcher R, Nielsen R (2022) Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: a literature review. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism

Sætra HS (2023) Generative AI: Here to stay, but for good? Technol Soc 75:102372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102372

Schrammeijer EA, van Zanten BT, Davis J, Verburg PH (2022) The advantage of mobile technologies in crowdsourcing landscape preferences: Testing a mobile app to inform planning decisions. Urban for & Urban Green 73:127610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127610

Talukder D, Pilet JB (2021) Public support for deliberative democracy. A specific look at the attitudes of citizens from disadvantaged groups. Innovation: Eur J Soc Sci Res 34(5):656–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1978284

Tappert S, Mehan A, Tuominen P, Varga Z (2024) Citizen participation, Digital agency, and urban development. Urban planning, vol 9 (2024). Citizen participation, digital agency, and urban development. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7810

Van Dyne L, Pierce JL (2004) Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. J Organ Behav 25(4):439–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.249

Velhinho A, Almeida P (2023) POLARISCOPE—A platform for the co-creation and visualization of collective memories. In: Marcus A, Rosenzweig E, Soares MM (eds) Design, user experience, and usability. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 273–285

von Brackel-Schmidt C, Kučević E, Leible S, Simic D, Gücük GL, Schmidt FN (2024) Equipping participation formats with generative AI: a case study predicting the future of a metropolitan city in the year 2040. In: Nah FFH, Siau KL (eds) HCI in business, government and organizations). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 270–285

Download references

Some of the reasoning presented in this work derive from knowledge and insights from the project “AI4GOV, Artificial Intelligence for Public Services”, Action No. 2020-EU-IA-0064, co-financed by the EU CEF Telecom (No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2020/2265375) [ ai4gov-hub.eu ; ai4gov-master.eu ]. The opinions expressed herewith are solely of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of any EU institution.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Ilaria Mariani, Marzia Mortati, Francesca Rizzo & Alessandro Deserti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilaria Mariani .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2025 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Mariani, I., Mortati, M., Rizzo, F., Deserti, A. (2025). Future Research Directions. In: Design Thinking as a Strategic Approach to E-Participation. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72160-1_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72160-1_7

Published : 24 October 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-72159-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-72160-1

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research