Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Innovation (2) (remove)
Institute
At the beginning of 2020, with COVID-19, courts of justice worldwide had to move online to continue providing judicial service. Digital technologies materialized the court practices in ways unthinkable shortly before the pandemic creating resonances with judicial and legal regulation, as well as frictions. A better understanding of the dynamics at play in the digitalization of courts is paramount for designing justice systems that serve their users better, ensure fair and timely dispute resolutions, and foster access to justice. Building on three major bodies of literature —e-justice, digitalization and organization studies, and design research— Designing for Digital Justice takes a nuanced approach to account for human and more-than-human agencies.
Using a qualitative approach, I have studied in depth the digitalization of Chilean courts during the pandemic, specifically between April 2020 and September 2022. Leveraging a comprehensive source of primary and secondary data, I traced back the genealogy of the novel materializations of courts’ practices structured by the possibilities offered by digital technologies. In five (5) cases studies, I show in detail how the courts got to 1) work remotely, 2) host hearings via videoconference, 3) engage with users via social media (i.e., Facebook and Chat Messenger), 4) broadcast a show with judges answering questions from users via Facebook Live, and 5) record, stream, and upload judicial hearings to YouTube to fulfil the publicity requirement of criminal hearings. The digitalization of courts during the pandemic is characterized by a suspended normativity, which makes innovation possible yet presents risks. While digital technologies enabled the judiciary to provide services continuously, they also created the risk of displacing traditional judicial and legal regulation.
Contributing to liminal innovation and digitalization research, Designing for Digital Justice theorizes four phases: 1) the pre-digitalization phase resulting in the development of regulation, 2) the hotspot of digitalization resulting in the extension of regulation, 3) the digital innovation redeveloping regulation (moving to a new, preliminary phase), and 4) the permanence of temporal practices displacing regulation. Contributing to design research Designing for Digital Justice provides new possibilities for innovation in the courts, focusing at different levels to better address tensions generated by digitalization. Fellow researchers will find in these pages a sound theoretical advancement at the intersection of digitalization and justice with novel methodological references. Practitioners will benefit from the actionable governance framework Designing for Digital Justice Model, which provides three fields of possibilities for action to design better justice systems. Only by taking into account digital, legal, and social factors can we design better systems that promote access to justice, the rule of law, and, ultimately social peace.
Translating innovation
(2017)
This doctoral thesis studies the process of innovation adoption in public administrations, addressing the research question of how an innovation is translated to a local context. The study empirically explores Design Thinking as a new problem-solving approach introduced by a federal government organisation in Singapore. With a focus on user-centeredness, collaboration and iteration Design Thinking seems to offer a new way to engage recipients and other stakeholders of public services as well as to re-think the policy design process from a user’s point of view. Pioneered in the private sector, early adopters of the methodology include civil services in Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as Singapore. Hitherto, there is not much evidence on how and for which purposes Design Thinking is used in the public sector.
For the purpose of this study, innovation adoption is framed in an institutionalist perspective addressing how concepts are translated to local contexts. The study rejects simplistic views of the innovation adoption process, in which an idea diffuses to another setting without adaptation. The translation perspective is fruitful because it captures the multidimensionality and ‘messiness’ of innovation adoption. More specifically, the overall research question addressed in this study is: How has Design Thinking been translated to the local context of the public sector organisation under investigation? And from a theoretical point of view: What can we learn from translation theory about innovation adoption processes?
Moreover, there are only few empirical studies of organisations adopting Design Thinking and most of them focus on private organisations. We know very little about how Design Thinking is embedded in public sector organisations. This study therefore provides further empirical evidence of how Design Thinking is used in a public sector organisation, especially with regards to its application to policy work which has so far been under-researched.
An exploratory single case study approach was chosen to provide an in-depth analysis of the innovation adoption process. Based on a purposive, theory-driven sampling approach, a Singaporean Ministry was selected because it represented an organisational setting in which Design Thinking had been embedded for several years, making it a relevant case with regard to the research question. Following a qualitative research design, 28 semi-structured interviews (45-100 minutes) with employees and managers were conducted. The interview data was triangulated with observations and documents, collected during a field research research stay in Singapore.
The empirical study of innovation adoption in a single organisation focused on the intra-organisational perspective, with the aim to capture the variations of translation that occur during the adoption process. In so doing, this study opened the black box often assumed in implementation studies. Second, this research advances translation studies not only by showing variance, but also by deriving explanatory factors. The main differences in the translation of Design Thinking occurred between service delivery and policy divisions, as well as between the first adopter and the rest of the organisation. For the intra-organisational translation of Design Thinking in the Singaporean Ministry the following five factors played a role: task type, mode of adoption, type of expertise, sequence of adoption, and the adoption of similar practices.