Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Social Media and Local Governments: An Overview Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Policymakers’ Perceptions on the Citizen Participation and Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector Delivery

verfasst von : Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar

Erschienen in: Social Media and Local Governments

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Public agencies are being pressured for innovation, driving service delivery towards a more personalized, outcome-driven, participative, efficient, and collaborative model. In this regard, social media has been told to be a potential powerful tool to support public engagement, intended as the improvement of public services and the establishment of relationships between government and citizens based on information sharing and dialogue. This chapter captures the perception of policymakers responsible of strategies for e-government in local governments with the aim at analyzing the following research questions: (a) Do policymakers think that Web 2.0 technologies promote the effective involvement of citizens in the improvement of public sector services? (b) Do policymakers think that Web 2.0 technologies promote the technological innovation in public services? and (c) Do policymakers think that Web 2.0 technologies promote the sharing knowledge needed to improve public sector services? To answer these research questions, an e-survey was sent to policymakers responsible of strategies for e-government in large Spanish local governments. Findings indicate that policymakers are prone for using Web 2.0 technologies to engage citizens in the process of public services delivery, but only making suggestions through consultations. No co-production or technological innovation is expected from citizens because they are expected to play a passive role more than an active one.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Designing Social Media Policy for Local Governments: Opportunities and Challenges
Nächstes Kapitel Facebook Use in Western European Local Governments: An Overall View
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Although the Likert scale has some limitations for research (Russell and Bobko 1992; Hodge and Gillespie 2003; Orvik 1972), these limitations do not invalidate conclusions about the numbers (Norman 2010) and Likert scale is suitable for attitude studies—measures simple to administer, quantify and code (Spector 1992), reliable and valid results (Matell and Jacoby 1971; Li 2013) and statistical inference is “robust” when used for parametric statistics (Norman 2010).
 
Literatur
Archives, Q. S. (2010). Recordkeeping and web 2.0. survey report. Sunnybank Hills, QLD, Australia: Author.
Asgarkhani, M. (2005). The effectiveness of e-service in local government: A case study. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(4), 157–166.
Bastida, F. J., & Benito, B. (2006). Financial reports and decentralization in municipal governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2), 223–238.CrossRef
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Berry, J., Portney, K., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Social media technology and government transparency. Computer, 43(11), 53–59.CrossRef
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010a). Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives. In S. A. Chun, R. Sandoval, & A. Philpot (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 51–58). Puebla, Mexico: Digital Government Society of North America.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010b). 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
Blank, G., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2012). The participatory web: A user perspective on Web 2.0. Information, Communication & Society, 15(4), 537–554.CrossRef
Bonham, G., Seifert, J. and Thorson, S. (2001). The Transformational Potential of E-government: The Role of Political Leadership. Paper Presented at the Electronic Governance and Information Policy (Panel 9-1), 4th Pan European International Relations Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, University of Kent, Canterbury.
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
Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cegarra Navarro, J. G., Córdoba Pachón, J. R., & Moreno Cegarra, J. L. (2012). E-government and citizen’s engagement with local affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Information Management, 32(5), 469–478.CrossRef
Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(3), 3411–3450.CrossRef
Chun, S., Shulman, S., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Marking connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1–2), 1–9.
Collison, D., Lorraine, N., & Power, D. (2003). An exploration of corporate attitudes to the significance of environmental information for stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(4), 199–211.CrossRef
European Commission. (2010). The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326.CrossRef
Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. Z. (2010). The second wave of digital era governance. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association conference 2010 annual meeting papers, September 2–5, Washington, DC.
El-Haddadeh, R., Weerakkody, V., & Al-Shafi, S. (2013). The complexities of electronic services implementation and institutionalization in the public sector. Information and Management, 50(4), 135–143.CrossRef
Emerson, T. L. N., Conroy, S. J., & Stanley, W. (2007). Ethical attitudes of accountants: Recent evidence from a Practitioners’ Survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(1), 73–87.CrossRef
Escher, T., Margetts, H., Petricek, V., & Cox, I. (2006). Governing from the centre? Comparing the nodality of digital governments. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 31 August–4 September 2006, Philadelphia, PA.
Foundation, O. (2014). eEspaña 2014 Informe anual sobre el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Información en España. Madrid, Spain: Fundación Orange.
Gallego, R., & Barzelay, M. (2010). Public management policymaking in Spain: The politics of legislative reform of administrative structure, 1991–1997. Governance, 23(2), 277–296.CrossRef
Gibson, A. (2010). Local by social: How local authorities can use social media to achieve more for less. London: NESTA.
Gomes, R., & Sousa, L. (2012). Contributions to the development of local e-government 2.0. Future Internet, 4(4), 882–899.CrossRef
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ho, A. T. K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444.CrossRef
Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. (2003). Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research, 27(1), 45–55.CrossRef
Holgersson, J., & Karlsson, F. (2014). Public e-service development: Understanding citizens’ conditions for participation. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 396–410.CrossRef
Hood, C., & Margetts, H. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
Huijboom, N., Van den Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Nielsen, M., & Millard, J. (2009). Public services 2.0: The impact of social computing on public services. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Johnston, E., & Hansen, D. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. In D. Ink, A. Balutis, & T. Buss (Eds.), American governance 3.0: Rebooting the public square? Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
Kickert, W. (1997). Public management in the United States and Europe. In W. Kickert (Ed.), Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe (pp. 15–38). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Leighninger, M. (2011). Using online tools to engage—And be engaged by—The Public. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
Li, Q. (2013). A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(5), 1609–1618.CrossRef
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen co-production in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.CrossRef
MacKinnon, R. (2008). Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice, 134(1/2), 31–46.
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371, 1–17.CrossRef
Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 657–674.CrossRef
McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.CrossRef
McNutt, K. (2012). Social media & government 2.0. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina.
Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.CrossRef
Millard, J. (2009). Government 1.5: Is the bottle half full or half empty? European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 35–50.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.CrossRef
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Paper presented at Public Management Research Conference, June 21, 2013, Madison, WI
Nam, T., & Sayogo, D. S. (2011). Government 2.0 collects the wisdom of crowds. In A. Datta, S. Shulman, B. Zheng, S. Lin, A. Sun, & E. Lim (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Social Informatics (SocInfo 2011) (pp. 51–58). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.CrossRef
Noveck, B. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions Press.
Oakerson, R. J. (1999). Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Richmond, VA: ICS Press.
Oliveira, G. H. M., & Welch, E. W. (2013). Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 397–405.CrossRef
Orvik, J. M. (1972). Social desirability for individual, his group, and society. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 7(1), 3–32.CrossRef
Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in Government: Why? and how? Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Oxley, A. (2011). A best practices guide for mitigating risk in the use of social media. Washington DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
Peters, B. G. (2001). The future of governing. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 504–511.CrossRef
Redell, T., & Woolcock, G. (2004). From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 75–87.CrossRef
Reggi, L., & Scicchitano, S. (2011). European regions financing public e-services: The case of EU Structural Funds. Working Papers 1110, Rome: University of Urbino Carlo Bo.
Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 148–157.CrossRef
Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Caba, M. C., & López Hernández, A. M. (2006). Cultural contexts and governmental digital reporting. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2), 269–290.CrossRef
Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rouban, L. (1997). The administrative modernisation policy in France. In E. Kickert (Ed.), Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe (pp. 141–156). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.CrossRef
Russell, C. J., & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 336–342.CrossRef
Saiz, M. P. (2011). La Ley de Economía Sostenible: La sostenibilidad financiera del Sector Público. Revista de Contabilidad y dirección, 13, 21–42.
Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. (2012). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(Supplement 1), 72–81.CrossRef
Schillemans, T., Van Twist, M., & Vanhommerig, I. (2013). Innovation in accountability. Learning through interactive, dynamic, and citizen-initiated forms of accountability. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(3), 407–435.CrossRef
Scott, J. K. (2006). “E” the people: Do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341–353.CrossRef
Shackleton, P., Fisher, J., & Dawson, L. (2004). E-government services: One local government’s approach. In H. Linger, J. Fisher, W. Wojtkowski, W. G. Wojtkowski, J. Zupancic, K. Vigo, & J. Arnold (Eds.), Constructing the infrastructure for the knowledge economy: Methods and tool: Theory and Practice (pp. 581–592). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.CrossRef
Smith, K. A. (2004). Voluntary reporting performance measures to the public: A test of accounting reports from U.S. cities. International Public Management Journal, 7(1), 19–48.
IAB Spain Research. (2014). V Estudio Anual de Redes Sociales. Madrid, Spain: IAB.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRef
Taylor, J. A. (2012). The information polity: Towards a two speed future? Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in The Information Age, 17(3/4), 227–237.
Thaler, M., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin.
Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2005). Gauging e-government evolution in EU municipalities. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3(6), 43–54.
Tuomi, I. (2002). Theory of innovation: Change and meaning in the age of internet. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2010). E-Government survey. Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations.
Verdegem, P., & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centered e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 487–497.CrossRef
Welch, E. W. (2012). The rise of participative technologies in government. In M. A. Shareef, N. Archer, Y. K. Dwivedi, A. Mishra, & S. K. Pandey (Eds.), Transformational government through eGov practice: Socioeconomic, cultural, and technological issues (pp. 347–367). Bingley, England: Emerald.
Metadaten
Titel
Policymakers’ Perceptions on the Citizen Participation and Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector Delivery
verfasst von
Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Social Media and Local Governments

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

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

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17722-9_3

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise