Users’ co-production at the intersection of public policy and digital technology: The case of COVID-19 digital contact tracing

Journal title STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI
Author/s Dario Pizzul
Publishing Year 2025 Issue 2024/2
Language English Pages 27 P. 73-99 File size 514 KB
DOI 10.3280/SO2024-002004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Digital contact tracing (DCT) during COVID-19 represented an unprecedented use of digital technology for public policy purposes. Smartphone contact tracing apps (CTAs) became widely developed tools in several countries to help contain the virus's spread. Among the many actors involved in the design and implementation of DCT, users played a significant role. The rich literature on co-production emphasizes that users can impact public service implementation in various ways, from design to management and evaluation. Existing literature also calls for further reflections on users' co-production of public services involving digital technologies. Therefore, this contribution aims to explore how users of CTAs in Europe engaged with the co-production of DCT by focusing on their direct opportunity to evaluate these apps through user reviews. The analysis focuses on the German, French, and Italian CTAs. A corpus of more than 100,000 user app reviews, posted over a full year, was analyzed using basic automated techniques. Manual thematic analysis was then applied to a selection of reviews to explore the matter further. The findings reveal that users mainly addressed the technical aspects of their experience with the CTAs, such as bugs and errors. These results suggest that users primarily engaged with the technical side of DCT when reviewing CTAs. This opens up the possibility for improving the user experience if the digital components of the public intervention are modified accordingly, leveraging the affordances of digital technologies.

Keywords: digital contact tracing; contact tracing apps; COVID-19; co-production; public policy; technology design.

  1. Abrahams N., Hubbell B., Jordan J. (2000), Joint Production and Averting Expenditure Measures of Willingness to Pay: Do Water Expenditures really Measure Avoidance Costs?, in «American Journal of Agricultural Economics» 82, (2), pp. 427-437. DOI: 10.1111/0002-9092.00036
  2. Anadu E., Harding A. (2000), Risk Perception and Bottled Water Use, in «Journal AWWA» 92, (11), pp. 82–92.
  3. Antonelli M., Greco F. (2013), L’acqua che mangiamo. Cos’è l’acqua virtuale e come la consumiamo, Edizioni Ambiente, Milano.
  4. Baldino N., Sauri D. (2018), Characterizing the Recent Decline of Water Consumption in Italian Cities, in «Investigaciones Geográficas» 69, pp. 9-21.
  5. Bartoletti R., Cecchelin G. (2016), Narrazioni e pratiche della natura in città: gli orti urbani tra cortili e foreste domestiche, in «Studi Culturali» 13, (1), pp. 39-60. DOI: 10.1405/83211
  6. Beck, U. (1986), Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main; trad. it (2000) La società del rischio. Verso una seconda modernità, Carocci, Roma.
  7. Bettini L. (2015), L’acqua intelligente. Una gestione sostenibile ed economica è possibile, Edizioni Ambiente, Milano.
  8. Brouwer S., Hofman-Caris R., van Aalderen N. (2020), Trust in Drinking Water Quality: Understanding the Role of Risk Perception and Transparency, in «Water» 12, (9), 2608.
  9. Brouwer S., Pieron M., Sjerps R., Etty T. (2019), Perspectives Beyond the Meter: A Q-study for Modern Segmentation of Drinking Water Customers, in «Water Policy» 21, (6), pp. 1224–1238.
  10. Ceccarini L. (2008), Consumare con impegno, Laterza, Roma-Bari.
  11. Doria M.F. (2006), Bottled Water versus Tap Water: Understanding Consumers’ Preferences, in «Journal of Water and Health» 4, (2), pp. 271-276.
  12. Douglas M. (1973), Natural Symbols, Random House, London.
  13. Douglas M. (1966), Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London; trad. it. (2014) Purezza e pericolo. Un’analisi dei concetti di contaminazione e tabù, il Mulino, Bologna.
  14. Falahee M., MacRae A. (1995), Consumer Appraisal of Drinking Water: Multidimensional Scaling analysis, in «Food Quality and Preference» 6, (4), pp. 327-332. DOI: 10.1016/0950-3293(95)00035-6
  15. Fischler C. (1988), Food, Self and Identity, in «Social Science Information» 27, (2), pp. 275–92. DOI: 10.1177/053901888027002005
  16. Forno F., Graziano P.R. (2016), Il consumo critico. Una relazione solidale tra chi acquista e chi produce, il Mulino, Bologna.
  17. Giddens A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge; trad. it. (1994) Le conseguenze della modernità, il Mulino, Bologna.
  18. Grondin J., Levallois P., Moret S. & Gingras S. (1996), The Influence of Demographics, Risk Perception, Knowledge, and Organoleptics on Water Consumption Patterns, in «Atti della conferenza annuale di AWWA» Denver, pp. 537-546.
  19. Halkier B., Katz-Gerro T., Martens L. (2011), Applying Practice Theory to the Study of Consumption: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, in «Journal of Consumer Culture» 11, (1), pp. 3–13. DOI: 10.1177/1469540510391765
  20. Kopytoff I. (1986), The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process, in Appadurai A. (a cura di), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 64-91.
  21. Latour B. (1991), Nous n’avons jamais été modernes, Paris, La Découverte; trad. it. (1995) Non siamo mai stati moderni. Saggio di antropologia simmetrica, Eleuthera, Milano.
  22. Legambiente (2018), Acque in bottiglia 2018. Un’anomalia tutta italiana, 31 marzo [online] www.legambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/dossier-acque_in_bottiglia_2018.pdf [consultato il 17 maggio 2024].
  23. Leonini L., Sassatelli R. (a cura di) (2008), Il consumo critico, Laterza, Roma-Bari.
  24. Levallois P., Grondin J., Gingras S. (1999), Evaluation of Consumer Attitudes on Taste and Tap water Alternatives, in «Quebec Water Sciences and Technology» 40, (6), pp. 135-139.
  25. Luhmann N. (1979), Trust and Power, John Wiley, New York.
  26. Oncini F., Forno F. (2021), Testing the Waters: A Sociological Analysis of Domestic Water Use and Consumption, in P. Turrini, A. Massarutto, M. Pertile, A. de Carli (eds.), Water Law, Policy and Economics in Italy. Between National Autonomy and EU Law Constraints, Cham Switzerland, Springer, pp. 81-103.
  27. Ormerod K. J., Scott C.A. (2012), Drinking Wastewater: Public Trust in Potable Reuse, in «Science, Technology, & Human Values» 38, (3), pp. 351–373. DOI: 10.1177/0162243912444736
  28. Rayner S. (1993), Risk Perception, Technology Acceptance, and Institutional Culture: Case Studies of some New Definitions, in B. Rück (ed.) Risk Is a Construct: Perceptions of Risk Perception, Knesebeck, Munich, 1993, pp. 197-220.
  29. Reckwitz A. (2002a), Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A development in Culturalist Theorizing, in «European Journal of Social Theory» 5, (2), pp. 243-263. DOI: 10.1177/1368431022222543
  30. Reckwitz A. (2002b), The Status of the “Material” in Theories of Culture: From “Social Structure” to “Artefacts”, in «Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour» 32, (2), pp. 195-217. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5914.00183
  31. Sahakian M., Wilhite H. (2014), Making Practice Theory Practicable: Towards more Sustainable Forms of Consumption, in «Journal of Consumer Culture» 14, (1), pp. 25-44. DOI: 10.1177/146954051350560
  32. Salvatore A., Sassatelli R. (2004), Trust and Food. A Theoretical Discussion, in Consumer Trust in Food. A European Study of the Social and Institutional Conditions for the Production of Trust, The TRUSTINFOOD project (2002-2004).
  33. Schatzki T., Knorr Cetina K., Von Savigny E. (2001), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London, Routledge.
  34. Shove E., Pantzar M., Watson M. (2012), The Dynamics of Social Practices: Everyday Life and How It Changes, Sage, London.
  35. Slovic P. (1993), Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy, in «Risk Analysis» 13, (6), pp. 675–682.
  36. Warde A. (2005), Consumption and Theories of Practice, in «Journal of Consumer Culture» 5, (2), pp. 131-153. DOI: 10.1177/1469540505053090
  37. Warde A. (2014), After taste: Culture, Consumption and Theories of Practice, in «Journal of Consumer Culture» 14, (3), pp. 279-303. DOI: 10.1177/1469540514547828
  38. Wilk R. (2002), Consumption, Human Needs, and Global Environmental Change, in «Global Environmental Change» 12, (1), pp. 5-13.
  39. Wilk R. (2006), Bottled water: The Pure Commodity in the Age of Branding, in «Journal of Consumer Culture» 6, (3), pp. 303–32. DOI: 10.1177/1469540506068681

Dario Pizzul, Users’ co-production at the intersection of public policy and digital technology: The case of COVID-19 digital contact tracing in "STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI " 2/2024, pp 73-99, DOI: 10.3280/SO2024-002004