Digital Contact‐Tracing Adoption in the COVID‐19 Pandemic: IT Governance for Collective Action at the Societal Level
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a need for rapid, population-wide digital contact tracing. One solution, Bluetooth-enabled digital proximity tracing using smartphones, promises to preserve individual privacy while helping to contain society-wide viral outbreaks. However, this digital solution works effectively only if adopted by the majority of the population. This poses a collective action problem: everyone would benefit from wide-spread proximity tracing, but the benefits for the individual are indirect and limited. To facilitate such collective action at the societal level, this paper conceptualises the option space of IT governance actions for proximity tracing adoption along two dimensions: decision-making entities (who will govern the roll-out) and accountability enforcement (how strictly will adoption and use be enforced). Examining coherent governance approaches that arise from the framework, we show that there are no globally ideal approaches but only locally contextualised ones that depend on immediate health risk, prior experience with pandemics, societal values and national culture, role of government, trust in government and trust in technology in each society. The paper contributes specific propositions for governing digital contact tracing in the COVID-19 pandemic and general theoretical implications for IT governance for collective action at the societal level.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Collective action comes with expectations and implicit social contracts that break down when governance is lacking or inconsistent.
“Finally, collective action comes with expectations and implicit social contracts that break down when governance is lacking or inconsistent (Riemer et al. 2020).”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Riemer et al. 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 48 · Cited by 100
- Authors
- Riemer, K., Ciriello, R., Peter, S., & Schlagwein, D.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Riemer, Kai
- Venue
- European Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-09-23
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 731-745
- ISSN
- 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-9344
- OpenAlex
- W3087523680
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 17.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- digital contact tracing, COVID-19 pandemic, IT governance, collective action, smartphone adoption, public trust in government, trust in technology, pandemic preparedness, public health technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review