Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T10:54:46.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maintaining the Ideals of Co-production During Rapid Digitalisation: A Comparative Case Study of Digital Restorative Services in Estonia, Finland, Ireland and Portugal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Laidi Surva Open the ORCID record for Laidi Surva [Opens in a new window]
Laidi Surva*
Affiliation:
Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia tee 3, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia
*
survalaidi@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the exceptional COVID-19 circumstances in early 2020, public service co-production went through a push towards digitalisation. Using normalisation process theory as the basis for analysis, the article looks at the immediate effects of digitalisation on restorative practices, which is a co-produced approach to delivering justice. A comparative case study conducted in Estonia, Finland, Ireland and Portugal showed that digitalisation meant a more directive role for the mediators and more responsibility for the citizens in organising the service context. The process became more business-like, which put some integral aspects of restorative justice at risk, such as trust building and feeling connected. The launch of digital restorative services depended more on service providers’ readiness to try digital solutions and less on service experience before digitalisation.

Keywords

Co-productionRestorative justiceDigitalisation

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 2023 , pp. 693 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alford, J. (1998). A public management road less travelled: Clients as co-producers of public services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 57(41), 28–137.10.1111/j.1467-8500.1998.tb01568.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolitho, J. (2015). Putting justice needs first: A case study of best practice in restorative justice. Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 3(2), 256–281. doi: 10.1080/20504721.2015.1069531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolitho, J. (2017). Inside the restorative justice black box: The role of memory reconsolidation in transforming the emotional impact of violent crime on victims. International Review of Victimology, 23(3), 233–255. doi: 10.1177/0269758017714549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolitho, J., & Bruce, J. (2017). Science, art and alchemy: Best practice in facilitating restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(3), 336–362. doi: 10.1080/10282580.2017.1348896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 1119–1138. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of co-production: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435. doi: 10.1111/puar.12465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breit, E., & Salomon, R. (2015). Making the technological transition—Citizens’ encounters with digital pension services. Social Policy & Administration, 49(3), 299–315. doi: 10.1111/spol.12093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, N., & Conboy, K. (2020). Normalising the “new normal”: Changing tech-driven work practices under pandemic time pressure. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, M. J., & Asencio, E. K. (2019). Identity processes in face-to-face and digitally mediated environments. Sociological Perspectives, 62(2), 220–239. doi: 10.1177/0731121418786247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, T. (2016). Forgiveness in restorative justice: Experienced but not heard?. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 5(1), 135–152. doi: 10.1093/ojlr/rwv066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, T., & Törzs, E. (Eds.). (2018). Connecting people to restore just relations: Practice guide on values and standards for restorative justice practices. European Forum for Restorative Justice.Google Scholar
Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2018). ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity, 23(2), 125–141. doi: 10.3233/IP-170061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders, 11, 9–29. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2015.1107797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. (2020). Report of proceedings: A Garda Youth Diversion Projects Annual Conference 2019. Department of Justice and Equality, Ireland.Google Scholar
Elonheimo, H., & Kuoppala, T. (2020). Rikos-ja riita-asioiden sovittelu 2019. Tilastoraportti, 40/2020. Helsinki: Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.Google Scholar
Fledderus, J., & Honingh, M. (2015). Why people co-produce within activation services: The necessity of motivation and trust—An investigation of selection biases in a municipal activation programme in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences. doi: 10.1177/0020852314566006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderman, C. J., Ghijsen, P. W. T., & van Diemen, R. (2011). Choosing self-service technologies or interpersonal services—The impact of situational factors and technology-related attitudes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18, 414–421. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iivari, N., Sharma, S., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday life—How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care?. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, S. J., Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2019). The importance of patient-centered care and co-creation of care for satisfaction with care and physical and social well-being of patients with multi-morbidity in the primary care setting. BMC Health Services Research, 19(13), 1–9.10.1186/s12913-018-3818-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lember, V. (2018). The role of new technologies in co-production. In Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public service delivery. Routledge.Google Scholar
Lindgren, I., Madsen, CØ, Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36, 427–436. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2020). Assessing the impact of co-production on pathways to outcomes in public services: The case of policing and criminal justice. International Public Management Journal, 23(2), 205–223. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2019.1668895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, C., & Kræmmergaard, P. (2016). Warm experts in the age of mandatory e-government: Interaction among Danish single parents regarding online application for public benefits. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 14(1), 87–98.Google Scholar
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554. doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McStravick, D. (2015). The Irish restorative reparation panel and the search for community. Idealised rhetoric or practical reality? Thesis submitted for the award of doctor of philosophy. School of Law and Government, Dublin City University. https://doras.dcu.ie/20795/1/The_Irish_Restorative_Reparation_Panel_and_the_Search_for_Community.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Murray, E., Treweek, S., Pope, C., MacFarlane, A., Ballini, L., Dowrick, C., Finch, T., Kennedy, A., Mair, F., O'Donnell, C., Ong, B. N., Rapley, T., Rogers, A., & May, C. (2010). Normalisation process theory: A framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Medicine. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2016). OECD comparative study: Digital government strategies for transforming public services in the welfare areas. http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Digital-Government-Strategies-Welfare-Service.pdf (Downloaded on 17.11.2017).Google Scholar
Ojanne, J. (2017). Katsaus suomalaisen rikos- ja riita-asioiden sovittelun historiaan. Kokeiluhankkeista lakisääteiseksi toiminnaksi. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., Vidal, I., & Kinder, T. (2014). A sustainable business model for public service organizations?. Public Management Review, 16(2), 165–172. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.872435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagliari, C. (2007). Design and evaluation in ehealth: Challenges and implication for an interdisciplinary field. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(2), doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.2.e15e15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radnor, Z., & Osborne, S. P. (2013). Lean: A failed theory for public services?. Public Management Review, 15(2), 265–287. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2012.748820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantala, K., & Karjaluoto, H. (2017). Combining Digitization with healthcare service processes: Value co-creation opportunities through standard work. In Pucihar, A., Borštnar, M. K., Kittl, C., Ravesteijn, P., Clarke, R., & Bons, R. (Eds.), Bled 2017, Proceedings of the 30th Bled eConference, digital transformation: Form connecting things to transforming our lives (pp. 471–482). University of Maribor Press.Google Scholar
Restorative Justice Services (2020). 2019 Annual report: Providing restorative responses to crime. Restorative Justice Services Ltd.Google Scholar
Seetharaman, P., Mathew, S. K., Sein, M. K., & Tallamraju, R. B. (2020). Being (more) human in a digitized world. Information Systems Frontiers. (pp. 1–4).Google Scholar
Sherman, L., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. The Smith Institute.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Angel, C., Woods, D., Barnes, G. C., Bennett, S., & Inkpen, N. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 367–395. doi: 10.1007/s11292-005-8126-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto-Acosta, P. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic: Shifting digital transformation to a high-speed gear. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 260–266. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2020.1814461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spanjol, J., Cui, A. S., Nakata, C., Sharp, L. K., Crawford, S. Y., Xiao, Y., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2015). Co-production of prolonged, complex, and negative services: An examination of medication adherence in chronically ill individuals. Journal of Service Research, 18(3), 284–302. doi: 10.1177/1094670515583824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, T., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). The dark side of co-creation and co-production. Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services. Routledge. (pp. 284–293). doi: 10.4324/9781315204956-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumathipala, S. (2020). Trust and psychological safety in a virtual healthcare team. World Family Medicine, 18(9), 53–57. doi: 10.5742/MEWFM.2020.93855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taherdoost, H. (2018). Development of an adoption model to assess user acceptance of e-service technology: E-service technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(2), 173–197. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2018.1427793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turesky, E. F., Smith, C. D., & Turesky, T. K. (2020). A call to action for virtual team leaders: Practitioner perspectives on trust, conflict and the need for organizational support. Organization Management Journal, 17, 1541–6518. doi: 10.1108/OMJ-09-2019-0798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuurnas, S. P., Stenvall, J., Rannisto, P-H, Harisalo, R., & Hakari, K. (2014). Coordinating co-production in complex network settings. European Journal of Social Work. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2014.930730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 184–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, H. K. (2010). Restoring justice. An introduction to restorative justice (4th ed.). LexisNexis Group.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 1083–1101. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikkelsø, S. (2005). Subtle redistribution of work, attention and risks: Electronic patient records and organisational consequences. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 3–30.Google Scholar
Willis, R., & Hoyle, C. (2019). The Good, The Bad, and The Street: Does ‘street culture’ affect offender communication and reception in restorative justice?. European Journal of Criminology, 19, 118–138. doi: 10.1177/1477370819887517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar