Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Social Media and Local Governments: An Overview Read chapter Read first chapter

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

7. Social Media Adoption and Use by Australian Capital City Local Governments

Authors : Wayne Williamson, Kristian Ruming

Published in: Social Media and Local Governments

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter explores social media adoption and use by Australian capital city local governments. Despite digital communication with the community being an integral part of modern local government functions, the types of digital communication being used are not commonly monitored or analyzed in the Australian context. This chapter provides an investigation of the types of social media being employed by local governments and a sentiment analysis of Twitter accounts from a sample of local governments in Sydney. The results suggest that social media is being used in a variety of forms according to the size and function of the local governments and is influenced by the level of Twitter activity undertaken by the mayor.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Social Media in Local Governments in Mexico: A Diffusion Innovation Trend and Lessons
next chapter Adopting Social Media in the Local Level of Government: Towards a Public Administration 2.0?
Footnotes
1
This chapter does not include the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern territory, because the Australian Capital Territory does not have local governments and the Northern Territory has a different government structure and functions to the states.
 
2
Brisbane is the exception to this description, as it is Australia’s largest local government and covers the central business district and a large proportion of Brisbane’s suburban areas.
 
3
Twitalyzer defines impact as a measure one’s activity in a network.
 
4
Twitalyzer defines Klout as a number between 1–100 which represents your influence. Influence is the ability to drive action. When you share something on social media or in real life and people respond, that’s influence. The more influential you are, the higher your Klout Score.
 
5
Twitalyzer describes ‘reporters’ as user who are likely to communicate outwardly but often don’t generate a specific response from their network.
 
6
Twitalyzer states that ‘casual users’ are individuals who drop in and out of Twitter on a whim, treating the network as a social channel when it suits their needs.
 
Literature
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271.CrossRef
Brabham, D. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262.CrossRef
Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132.CrossRef
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.CrossRef
Fan, Q. (2011). An evaluation analysis of e-government development by local authorities in Australia. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(14), 926–934.CrossRef
Foth, M. (2006). Analyzing the factors influencing the successful design and uptake of interactive system to support social networks in urban neighborhoods. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 2(2), 65–79.CrossRef
Gauld, R., Gray, A., & McComb, S. (2009). How responsive is e-government? Evidence from Australian and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 69–74.CrossRef
Gauld, R., Goldfinch, S., & Horsburgh, S. (2010). Do they want it? Do they use it? The ‘Demand-Side’of e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 177–186.CrossRef
Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265.CrossRef
Hofmann, S., Beverungen, D., Räckers, M., & Becker, J. (2013). What makes local governments’ online communications successful? Insights from a multi-method analysis of Facebook. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 387–396.CrossRef
Kavanaugh, A., Fox, E., Sheetz, S., Yang, S., Li, L., Shoemaker, D., Natsev, A., & Xie, L. (2012). Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 480–491.CrossRef
Kennedy, H. (2012). Perspectives on sentiment analysis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(4), 435–450.CrossRef
McMillan, S. (2002). A four-part model of cyber-activity: Some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media and Society, 4(2), 271–291.CrossRef
Mergel, I. (2013a). A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 390–400.CrossRef
Mergel, I. (2013b). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.CrossRef
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major US cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351–358.CrossRef
Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e‐government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.CrossRef
Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 504–511.CrossRef
Reddick, C. G., & Norris, D. F. (2013). E-Participation in local governments: An examination of political-managerial support and impacts. Transforming Government People, Process and Policy, 7(14), 453–476.CrossRef
Robinson, D. G., Yu, H., & Felten, E. W. (2010). Enabling innovation for civic engagement. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government: Collaboration, transparency and participation in practice (pp. 83–89). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(S1), 72–81.CrossRef
Shackleton, P., Fisher, J., & Dawson, L. (2006). E-government services in the local government context: an Australian case study. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 88–100.CrossRef
Shi, Y. (2006). E-Government web site accessibility in Australia and China a longitudinal study. Social Science Computer Review, 24(3), 378–385.CrossRef
Sobaci, M. Z., & Karkin, N. (2013). The use of twitter by mayors in Turkey: Tweets for better public services? Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 417–425.CrossRef
Teicher, J., & Dow, N. (2002). E-government in Australia: Promise and progress. Information Polity, 7(4), 231–246.
Thelwall, M. (2014). Sentiment analysis and time series with Twitter. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 83–95). New York: Lang.
Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). The internet in everyday life. Oxford, England: Blackwell.CrossRef
Williamson, W., & Parolin, B. (2012). Review of web-based communications for town planning in local government. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(1), 43–63.CrossRef
Williamson, W., & Parolin, B. (2013). Web 2.0 and social media growth in planning practice: A longitudinal study. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5), 544–562.CrossRef
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Social Media Adoption and Use by Australian Capital City Local Governments
Authors
Wayne Williamson
Kristian Ruming
Copyright Year
2016
Book
Social Media and Local Governments

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17721-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-17722-9

Copyright Year: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17722-9_7