2. Social Media
- Social media has four major potential strengths: collaboration, participation, empowerment, and time. Social media is collaborative and participatory by its very nature as it is defined by social interaction. It provides the ability for users to connect with each [other] and form communities to socialize, share information, or to achieve a common goal or interest. Social media can be empowering to its users as it gives them a platform to speak. It allows anyone with access to the Internet the ability to inexpensively publish or broadcast information, effectively democratizing media. In terms of time, social media technologies allow users to immediately publish information in near-real time .
3. Themes in Literature
|TIME PERIOD||KEY THEMES||EXAMPLES OF REPRESENTATIVE ARTICLES|
|2007–2008||Digital Divide as a barrier||Couldry 2007 ; Shi 2007 ; Shin 2007 ;|
|Carter & Weerakkody 2008 |
|Citizen Trust||Chang & Kannon 2008 ; Belanger & Carter 2008 ;|
|Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley 2008 |
|Case Studies (Experimentation)||Breindl & Francq 2008 ; Klein 2008 ;|
|Heeks & Stanforth 2007 ; Best & Kumar 2008 ;|
|Osimo 2008 ; Zappen et al. 2008 ; Gibson 2008 ;|
|Kes-Erkel & Erkel 2009 ; Chan et al. 2008 |
|2009||Identifying Key Issues||Alonso et al. 2009 ; Freeman & Loo 2009 ;|
|Alshawi & Alalwani 2009 ; Verdegem & Verleye 2009 ;|
|Lean et al. 2009 |
|Need for Strategy/Policy||Park & Cho 2009 ; Fitch 2009 ; Bekkers 2009 ;|
|Misuraca 2009 |
|2010||Participation/Digital Divide||Bertot et al. 2010 ; Ferro et al. 2010 ;|
|Ochara-Muganda & Van Belle 2010 ; Bonson et al. 2010 ;|
|Millard 2010 |
|Prescriptions for Success||Ferro et al. 2010 ; Ostling 2010 ; Parvcek & Sachs 2010 ;|
|Dadashzadeh 2010 ; Dunleavy & Margetts 2010 ;|
|Hrdinova et al. 2010 ; Taylor-Smith & Lindner 2010 |
|Case Studies (Success)||Bianchi & Cottica 2010 ; Jaeger & Bertot 2010 ;|
|Chun et al. 2010 ; Huang et al. 2010 ; Jaeger et al. 2010 |
|2011||Tools of Change||Mourtada et al. 2011 ; Ngak 2011 ; Shirky 2011 ;|
|Ghannam 2011 ; Harb 2011 ; Mergel 2011 |
|Disaster Management||Yates & Paquette 2011 ; Nakki et al. 2011 ;|
|Queensland Police Service 2011 ; Hariche et al. 2011 ;|
|Crowe 2011 |
|Prescription for Strategy & Policy||Hellman 2011 ; Charalabis & Loukis 2011 ;|
|Verdegem 2011 ; Lampe et al. 2011 ; Mcnamara 2011 ;|
|Mergel 2011 ; Njuru 2011 |
4. Brief History: 2007–2008
5. Continued History: 2009
6. Continued History: 2010
- Dadashzadeh (2010) suggests that a different approach is needed for government to successfully invest in social media. In this case, government would do well NOT to follow the lead of the corporate sector, which often haphazardly implements social media simply for the sake of using it. Government social media use should be planned, fair, promote engagement, and promote transparency .
- Focusing on process and technology, Dunleavy and Margetts (2010) stress that E-government in the digital era needs to focus on simplification and collaboration rather than dis-integration. It should produce client-focused services that are efficient, and move to embrace electronic delivery of everything .
- Ferro and Molinari (2010) state that an evolved e-government approach should involve Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools, enabling conditions, and institutional changes .
- Hrdinova et al. (2010) proposed a framework of 8 elements that must be addressed for a successful social media policy: employee access, account management, acceptable use, employee conduct, content, security, legal issues, and citizen conduct .
- Taylor-Smith and Lindner (2010) held workshops and derived a framework for e-participation that was built on easy-to-use, entertaining, and user-friendly technology incorporating citizen content-sharing through maximum outreach (multi-channel, multi-media, cross-media) that is focused on individual or personal relevance for the participants .
- Social media supports the increased reliance on human networks, the need for rapid interactive communications, the need to blur what is private and public, and the need for engaging multimedia. Whether government can use social media will depend upon how well government can see, understand, and attend to these needs. Social media is about fast, interactive communications. How will bureaucracies adapt to the increased pressures for timely responses? A very different question is how can social media provide us a way to do things in way that we have not done before? .
7. Continued History: 2011
8. Discussion and Recommendations
- 1. Citizen feedback through e-government use of social media does not result in governmental change. If true for a particular agency, how can this maxim be reversed? Is change resulting from citizen feedback a valid objective for all agencies? What are the criteria that should be used to determine when change should occur?
- 2. Governmental entities using social media do not have an agreed-upon long-term goal for the interaction they seek with citizens. If true, do they even realize it? Are there conflicting long-term goals, or are there only short-term objectives? Is there a consensus on the short-term objectives, or are those also in disagreement?
- 3. The use of social media in e-government differs by social culture and form of government. What forms of government are most likely to seek citizen feedback? What forms are most likely to request citizen reporting of criminal activity? What types of social cultures are less likely to participate in e-government?
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD e-Government Studies: The e-Government Imperative; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2003.
- Osimo, D. Web 2.0 in government: Why and how? JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies: Seville, Spain, 2008. Available online: ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/EURdoc/JRC45269.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2011).
- Gibson, R.K. New media and the revitalisation of politics. Representation 2008, 45, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kes-Erkul, A.; Erkul, R.E. Web 2.0 in the process of e-participation: The case of organizing for America and the Obama Administration. National Center for Digital Government working paper. National Center for Digital Government Working Paper Series. 2009, 1, pp. 1–19. Available online: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/ncdg/32/ (accessed on 26 November 2011).
- Magro, M.J.; Ryan, S.D.; Sharp, J.H. Using social networking for educational and cultural adaptation: An exploratory study. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 2009, 10, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Bertot, J.C.; Jaeger, P.T.; Grimes, J.M. Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Couldry, N. New media for global citizens? The future of the digital divide debate. Brown J. World Aff. 2007, 14, 249–261. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Y. The accessibility of Chinese local government web sites: An exploratory study. Gov. Inf. Q. 2007, 24, 377–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, D. A critique of Korean National Information Strategy: Case of national information infrastructures. Gov. Inf. Q. 2007, 24, 624–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, L.; Weerakkody, V. E-government adoption: A cultural comparison. Inf. Syst. Front. 2008, 10, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, A.; Kannon, P.K. Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. E-Government Technology Series, IBM Center for the Business of E-Government: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. Available online: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/chang_fall08.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2011).
- Belanger, F.; Carter, L. Trust and risk in e-government adoption. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolsaker, A.; Lee-Kelley, L. Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: A UK study. Int. J. Public Sector Manag. 2008, 21, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breindl, Y.; Francq, P. Can Web 2.0 applications save e-democracy? A study of how new internet applications may enhance citizen participation in the political process online. Int. J. Electron. Democr. 2008, 1, 14–31. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, P. Web 2.0: Reinventing democracy. CIO Insight Magazine. 2008. Available online: http://anthonydwilliams.com/wp-content/uploads/web2_reinventingdemocracy.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2011).
- Heeks, R.; Stanforth, C. Understanding e-Government project trajectories from an actor-network perspective. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 16, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Best, M.L.; Kumar, R. Sustainability failures of rural telecenters: Challenges from the Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) project. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 2008, 4, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zappen, J.P.; Harrison, T.M.; Watson, D. A New Paradigm for Designing e-government: Web 2.0 and Experience Design. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, Montreal, Canada, 18-21 May 2008; pp. 17–26.
- Chan, C.M.L.; Lau, Y.; Pan, S.L. E-government implementation: A macro analysis of Singapore’s e-government initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 2008, 25, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, J.M.; Ambur, M.A.; Amutio, M.A. Improving access to government through better use of the Web. W3C Interest Group Note 12 May 2009. Available online: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-egov-improving-20090512/ (accessed on 28 November 2011).
- Freeman, R.J.; Loo, P. Web 2.0 and E-government at the Municipal Level. In Proceedings of 2009 World Congress on Privacy, Security and Trust and the Management of e-Business, Saint John, NB, Canada, 25–27 August 2009; pp. 70–78.
- Alshawi, S.; Alalwany, H. E-government evaluation: Citizen’s perspective in developing countries. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2009, 15, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verdegem, P.; Verleye, G. User-centered e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Gov. Inf. Q. 2009, 26, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lean, O.K.; Zailani, S.; Ramayah, T.; Fernando, Y. Factors influencing intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2009, 29, 458–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Cho, K. Declining relational trust between government and publics, and potential prospects of social media in the government public relations. Proceedings of EGPA Conference 2009 The Public Service: Service Delivery in the Information Age, St. Julian’s, Malta; 2009. Available online: http://www.egpa2009.com/documents/psg1/ParkCho.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2011).
- Fitch, K. Making friends in the Wild West: Singaporean public relations practitioners’ perceptions of working in social media. Prism 2009, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Bekkers, V. Flexible information infrastructures in Dutch e-government collaboration arrangements: Experiences and policy implications. Gov. Inf. Q. 2009, 26, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misuraca, G. Futuring e-government: Governance and policy implications for designing an ICT-enabled knowledge society. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Bogota, Colombia, 10–13 November 2009; pp. 83–90.
- Ferro, E.; Molinari, F. Framing Web 2.0 in the process of public sector innovation: Going down the participation ladder. Eur. J. ePractice 2010, 9, 20–34. [Google Scholar]
- Ochara-Muganda, N.; Van Belle, J. A proposed framework for E-Government knowledge infrastructures for Africa’s transition economies. J. e-Government Stud. Best Pract. 2010, 303226, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Bonson, E.; Torres, L.; Royo, S.; Flores, F. Local E-Government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Gov. Inform. Q. 2012, March. Available online: http://www.aeca.es/pub/on_line/comunicaciones_xvicongresoaeca/cd/18f.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2011).
- Millard, J. Government 1.5—Is the bottle half full or half empty? Eur. J. ePractice 2010, 9, 35–48. [Google Scholar]
- Ostling, A. ICT in politics: From peaks of inflated expectations to voids of disillusionment. Eur. J. ePractice 2010, 9, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
- Parvcek, P.; Sachs, M. Open Government—Information Flow in Web 2.0. Eur. J. ePractice 2010, 9, 57–68. [Google Scholar]
- Dadashzadeh, M. Social media in government: From eGovernment to eGovernance. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2010, 8, 81–86. [Google Scholar]
- Dunleavy, P.; Margetts, H. The Second Wave of Digital Era Governance. In Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, USA, 2–5 September 2010; pp. 1–32.
- Hrdinova, J.; Helbig, N.; Peters, C.S. Designing social media policy for government: Eight essential elements. Center for Technology in Government: Albany, NY, USA, 2010. Available online: http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/guides/social_media_policy/social_media_policy.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2011).
- Taylor-Smith, E.; Lindner, R. Social Networking Tools Supporting Constructive Involvement Throughout the Policy-Cycle. In Proceedings of 2010 4th International Conference on Electronic Democracy, Centre for E-Government, Danube-University, Krems, Austria, 7 May 2010.
- Bianchi, T.; Cottica, A. Harnessing the unexpected: A public administration interacts with creatives on the web. Eur. J. ePractice 2010, 9, 82–90. [Google Scholar]
- Jaeger, P.T.; Bertot, J.C. Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chun, S.A.; Shulman, S.; Sandoval, R.; Hovy, E. 0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Inf. Polity 2010, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, C.; Chan, E.; Hyder, A.A. Web 2.0 and Internet social networking: A new tool for disaster management? – Lessons from Taiwan. Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 2010, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, P.T.; Paquette, S.; Simmons, S.N. Information policy in national political campaigns: A comparison of the 2008 campaigns for president of the United States and prime minister of Canada. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 2010, 7, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mourtada, R.; Salem, F. Civil Movements: The Impact of Facebook and Twitter. Arab Social Media Report, May, 2011. Available online: http://www.dsg.fohmics.net/En/Publication/Pdf_En/DSG_Arab_Social_Media_Report_No_2.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2011).
- Ngak, C. Occupy Wall Street Uses Social Media to Spread Nationwide. CBS News. 7 October 2011. Available online: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20117291-501465.html (accessed on 30 November 2011).
- Shirky, C. The political power of social media. Foreign Aff. 2011, January/February, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ghannam, J. Social media in the Arab world: Leading up to the uprisings in 2011. Center for International Media Assistance: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Available online: http://www.hirondelle.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/SocialMediaintheArabWorldCIMA2011.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2011).
- Harb, Z. Arab revolutions and the social media effect. M/C–A Journal of Media and Culture. 2011, 14, p. No. 2. Available online: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/364 (accessed on 14 February 2012).
- Mergel, I. The Use of social media to dissolve knowledge silos in government. In The Future of Public Administration, Public Management, and Public Service Around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective; O’Leary, R., Kim, S., Van Slyke, D.M., Eds.; Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Yates, D.; Paquette, S. Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2011, 31, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakki, P.; Back, A.; Ropponen, T. Social Media for Citizen Participation: Report of the Somus Project; Publication 755; VTT Technical Research Center: Espoo, Finland, 2011. Available online: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2011/P755.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2011).
- Queensland Police Service. Disaster management and social media—A case study. Queensland Police Service: Queensland, Australia, 2011. Available online: http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resources/Internet/services/reportsPublications/documents/QPSSocialMediaCaseStudy.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2012).
- Hariche, A.C.; Loiseau, E.; Mac Erlaine, R. Web-Enabled Social Cohesion: Harnessing Participation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Cohesion and Development, Paris, France, 20–21 January 2011; pp. 1–32.
- Crowe, A. The social media manifesto: A comprehensive review of the impact of social media on emergency management. J. Bus. Contin. Emerg. Plan. 2010, 5, 409–420. [Google Scholar]
- Hellman, R. The Cloverleaves of Social Media Challenges for e-Governments. In Proceedings of eChallenges e-2011 Conference, Florence, Italy, 26–28 October 2011; pp. 1–8.
- Charalabis, Y.; Loukis, E. Transforming government agencies’ approach to e-participation through efficient exploitation of social media. In Proceedings of the 2011 European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, 9–11 June 2011; pp. 1–12.
- Verdegem, P. Social media for digital and social inclusion: Challenges for information society 2.0 research and policies. TripleC 2011, 9, 28–38. [Google Scholar]
- Lampe, C.; LaRose, R.; Steinfield, C.; DeMaagd, K. Inherent barriers to the use of social media for public policy informatics. Public Sector Innov. J. 2011, 16, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Mcnamara, J. Social Media Strategy and Governance: Gaps, Risks and Opportunities; University of Technology Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2011. Available online: http://220.127.116.11/ amecks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/social-media-strategy-and-governance-report-UTS.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2012).
- Njuru, J.W. Perspectives of Kenyan students in the United States on e-government and citizen participation. J. Glob. Aff. Public Policy 2011, 1, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- Margetts, H.Z. The Internet and public policy. Policy Internet 2009, 1, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Moriera, A.M.; Moller, M.; Gerhardt, G.; Ladner, A. E-Society and E-Democracy. In Paper presented at the eGovernment-Symposium 2009, Berne, Switzerland; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Census Bureau. Section 24: Information and Communications; Table 1156; U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; p. 724. Available online: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/infocomm.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2012).
- Kuzma, J. Asian government usage of Web 2.0 social media. Eur. J. ePractice 2010, 9, 69–81. [Google Scholar]
- Landsbergen, D. Government as part of the revolution: Using social media to achieve public goals. Electron. J. e-Government 2010, 8, 135–147. [Google Scholar]
- Bertot, J.C.; Jaeger, P.T.; Munson, S.; Glaisyer, T. Social media technology and government transparency. IEEE Comput. 2010, 43, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
- LaPaze, R.E. Friending the Government: Why US Government Social Media Websites do not Function as Public Spheres and What Can be Done to Promote Civic Participation. Master’s Thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
© 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).