Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government
Page 22
tions, prior research on the e-participation fi
field of research has highlighted
because of their low maturity and heterogeneity.
In this chapter, we perform a critical integrative review of prior litera-
ture on this fi
field in order to profi
file e-participation research between 2000
and 2010. In this regard, the objective of the chapter is to compare and to
identify tendencies in terms of research and the methodology used about
e-participation in Europe and North America, off
ffering a framework to help
public administrators and researchers evaluate the fi
field on e-participation
and providing an overview of the current state of the art, highlighting
potential opportunities for future research.
1 INTRODUCTION
In recent years, Web 2.0 technologies have introduced new ways for gov-
ernment to interact with citizens, such as emails, chats, online meetings
and discussion forums, online transactions, blogs, e-voting systems, e-pe-
titions, online polls or the citizen input box (Jiang & Xu, 2009), allow-
ing citizens greater involvement in public aff
ffairs and encouraging public
managers to use these possibilities to create more aff or
ff dable, participatory
Profi
filing E-Participation Research in Europe and North America 121
and transparent public sector management models (McMillan, Medd, &
Hughes, 2008). Web 2.0 also promotes an informed citizenry vis-à-vis
voting decisions and improves information transparency (Osimo, 2008),
trying to achieve an increase public confi
fidence in government (Klijn,
Edelebons, & Steijn, 2010), monitoring the behavior of public manag-
ers and politicians (Hui & Hayllar, 2010), and promoting the democratic
process by off
ffering debate and discussion on important issues of public
concern (Jaeger, 2005). In addition, it allows citizens to participate in
online lobbies (Quintelier & Vissers, 2009), to become involved in public
sector management and to be informed about laws, regulations, policies
and services (Osimo, 2008).
Elected politicians and candidates also see Web 2.0 as an opportunity to
communicate with the public, giving citizens a more active advisory role in
public affa
ff irs (Hui & Hayllar, 2010). Social networks like MySpace and Face-
book, multimedia services such as YouTube, and personal microblogs and
blogs like Twitter and Blogger have become essential tools for this process,
allowing direct contact with voters (Johnston & Stewart-Weeks, 2007).
Nonetheless, despite the signifi
ficance of the e-participation process in
public administrations, research in this fi
field has highlighted its immaturity
and heterogeneity (Saebo, Rose, & Flak, 2008). Therefore, in the belief
that scientifi
fic evidence results from the aggregation and accumulation of
knowledge derived from prior research (Rodríguez et al., 2010), we con-
sider it necessary to perform a critical integrative review of the literature
in this fi
field. Accordingly, our aim is to identify research trends and meth-
odologies concerning e-participation in Europe and the United States, and
to assist researchers in the development and direction of future analyses
in this respect. In short, we hope to off
ffer scholars a more profound under-
standing of the scope and significance of this fi eld
fi
.
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. The next section
presents a review about bibliometric studies in public administration, e-gov-
ernment and e-participation. In Section 3, the research methodology used is outlined, after which the results obtained from our empirical research are
analyzed. Finally, our main conclusions are summarized and some ques-
tions on future trends in this area are highlighted for discussion.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ABOUT BIBLIOMETRIC STUDIES
The academic literature in the fi
field of public administration contains many
studies that have set out to analyze theoretical developments and to provide
a better understanding of methodological approaches (Bingham & Bowen,
1994), making a comparative examination of the research topics addressed
in diff eren
ff
t publications (Bowman & Hajjar, 1978), or analyzing doctoral
dissertations in order to evaluate the usefulness of the main approaches and
concepts used (McCurdy & Cleary, 1984).
122 Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, et al.
In the fi
field of e-government, and until recently, very few bibliomet-
ric studies had been carried out. Yildiz (2007) discusses the limitations
of prior research in this area and points out the need for empirical stud-
ies which would lead to new theoretical arguments, together with new
concepts and categories. Heeks and Bailur (2007) focus their analysis on
perspectives regarding e-government, research philosophy and the use of
theory. Recently, Rodríguez Bolivar, Alcaide Muñoz, and López Hernán-
dez (2010) off
ffer a view of e-government, providing a deeper understanding
of the methodological scope available, analyzing the contributions made
and indicating possible directions for future analyses in this fi
field.
Regard e-participation, although there are several definitions of this
term, the generally accepted term refers to ICT-supported participation in
processes involved in government and governance; processes may concern
administration, service delivery, decision making and policy making (Rose,
Grönlund, & Andersen, 2008). Its broad defi
finition has given place to wider
e-participation research topics and to structure e-participation into ten key
dimensions (Macintosh, 2004)–see Tables 10.1 and 10.2 in Appendix 10.1.
As for the bibliometric analysis performed in the fi
field of e-participation,
the studies by Saebo et al. (2008) and Sanford and Rose (2007) provided a
starting point in the fi
field of e-participation, through an analysis that identi-
fi
fied the main research topics and established a basis for inquiries into the
model and the literature currently available. However, this research was
carried out in 2006 and does not provide a comparison between research
interests in the United States and Europe. Therefore, we intend to go fur-
ther, performing a thorough review, in the hope that researchers may make
use of our results to establish relationships and further develop this topic,
and also exploit possible synergies.
3 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF E-PARTICIPATION RESEARCH
The e-participation represents the expansion, transformation and greater
involvement of citizens in public life and consultation processes (Rob-
bins, Simonsen, & Feldman, 2008), increasing transparency, enhancing
accountability and limiting the scope for arbitrary decisions and abuse
of power (Osimo, 2008). In fact, e-participation would be useful if it was
used
as a transformative tool of democracy, making institutions work
better (Pratchett, 2007) and improving the relationship between govern-
ment and citizens (Coursey & Norris, 2008; Scholl, 2010). Nevertheless,
research into this topic remains at an incipient, dispersed stage, lacking
a clear literature base or research approach. A study of diff eren
ff
t e-partic-
ipation experiences in the United States and Europe could enhance our
understanding of the instruments used to promote the participation of
citizens in public affairs and thus facilitate a resolution of democratic defi-
cits (Nabatchi, 2010), improving the effi
fficiency, acceptance and legitimacy
of political processes.
Profi
filing E-Participation Research in Europe and North America 123
3.1 Sample Selection
In compiling the substantial body of academic studies carried out in this
fi
field of research, we analyzed English-language academic and/or profes-
sional journals with major international impact (Braadbaart & Yusnan-
darshah, 2008), because journals provide a fi
filter, establishing the nature
and scope of the ideas presented to the academic community (Forrester &
Watson, 1994) and are a valid indicator of the quality of academic produc-
tivity (Legge & Devore, 1987).
Following Lan & Anders (2002), the present study excludes the analysis
of editorials, brief communications, letters to the editor, symposiums, arti-
cles of a professional nature, and book reviews, as they off
ffer a limited view
of the subject addressed. Nevertheless, we have taken into account articles
included in special editions of journals, since these reflect more extensive
research in certain subjects and the need to study them further.
Regarding the selection of articles, a two-phase search was carried out:
in the fi
first of these, a systematic search was made of the ABI/INFORM,
ScienceDirect, Scopus, EmeraldInsight, Springerlink, and Business Source
Premier databases, using descriptors and keywords such as e-democracy,
e-participation, electronic democracy, electronic participation, e-governance and participation, and digital democracy (Sandford & Rose, 2007; Saebo et al., 2008). This initial search indicated that the main body of
e-participation research articles had been published in journals listed in the
multidisciplinary fi
fields of information science and library science, public
administration, and communication.
In the second phase, a search was performed of e-participation studies
included in leading world journals listed in connection with these subjects.
Unlike Wright, Manigualt, and Black (2004), we reviewed all the articles
in each of the journals listed for these subjects. To do this, the title and the
abstract (Lan & Anders, 2000), the keywords (Hartley & Kostoff, 2
ff
003) and
the introduction of the articles setting out the research goals were taken as rel-
evant factors. In the few cases in which the application of these discrimination
criteria was not enough, we read the entire article. This exhaustive selection
procedure was conducted separately by the three authors, to check the reliabil-
ity of the coding (Lan & Anders, 2000). After selecting all articles, each author
did his own cataloguing separately; the authors then met on several occasions
to discuss the results, and to reach an agreement where discrepancies arose.
As a consequence of this somewhat laborious process, from a database
initially composed of 13,247 articles published in thirty-six periodical pub-
lications listed in JCR in the fi el
fi ds of information science and library science
(ten), public administration (eighteen), and communication (eight) during the
period January 2000–December 2010, 189 met the selection criteria estab-
lished, and focused on e-participation in the three fi e
fi lds analyzed– Information
Science and Library Science, Communication and Public Administration-,
with fi
fifty-two articles in information science journals, sixty-three articles in
public administration journals, and seventy-four articles in communication
124 Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, et al.
journals. Fifty-two articles were excluded as they dealt with e-participation in
other countries or constituted generic literature reviews. In the two groups of
results analyzed below (i.e., research into e-participation in the United States
and Europe), four of the articles take into account data for both geographic
areas. Therefore, we review seventy-seven articles examining e-participation
in the United States and sixty-four articles examining this question from the
standpoint of Europe (see Table 10.3 in Appendix 10.1).
3.2 Research
Methodology
Articles included in the database were classifi e
fi d, using MS Excel, by year
of publication, journal title, the authors’ institutional affi
l
ffi iation (departments
and universities), the main subject addressed, and the principal methodology
used. When the articles examined multiple methods, double counting was
avoided by focusing exclusively on the main methodology used. To ensure
the effi c
ffi acy of this approach, it was essential to identify the main aim of the
paper. In addition, to determine the number of departments and universities
of origin, each article was considered as a single unit, and divided among the
number of authors.
To determine the subjects addressed and methodologies applied, the authors
conducted a content analysis of each article separately, which provides a rela-
tively systemic and comprehensive summary or overview of the dataset as a
whole (Wilkinson, 1997). The categories were selected from those previously
used in e-participation by Sanford and Rose (2007), and an exploratory quali-
tative analysis was performed, in which the issues discussed in academic papers
were identifi e
fi d and catalogued. When articles dealt with several research top-
ics, double counting was performed because it could give a wider overview of
the state of the art in this fi e
fi ld of knowledge. During this phase, QSR Nvivo 8
software was used to automate item coding. This empirical work provided a
basis for the development and advancement of knowledge, through a careful
synthesis of and refl e
fl ction upon the contributions made in this interdisciplin-
ary academic fie
fi ld.
4 DISCUSSION
OF
THE RESULTS
4.1 Comparative
Analysis of Results from
E-Participation Research in United States vs. Europe
The great interest on the use of diff eren
ff
t online tools for citizen participation
is refl e
fl cted in a gradual increase in the amount of research carried out in the
fi e
fi ld of e-participation in recent years (see Figure 10.1), especially regarding e-democracy (37.50 percent), e-deliberation (31.25 percent), e-decision maki
ng (28.13 percent), and e-campaigning (26.04 percent) (see Table 10.4 in
Appendix 10.1). Although the general tendency in the publication of research
studies is similar in the United States and Europe, growth has been slightly
stronger among studies focusing on the United States, published since 2008.
Profi
filing E-Participation Research in Europe and North America 125
Figure 10.1 Time sequence for articles on e-participation (2000–2010).
Figure 10.1 shows there was a reduction in the number of articles published during 2005 but was followed by a sharp rise in 2010. This increase
was probably due to the interest in determining how greater use is made
of social networks in the course of political campaigns (Lattimer, 2009),
together with the current need felt by citizens to present their concerns
about policy proposals, creating online groups enabling interaction among
members with views in common, thus producing exchanges of opinion and
understanding (Klijn et al., 2010).
On the chronological evolution of research topics (Table 10.4 in
Appendix 10.1), the area of electronic deliberation in the United States
shows a clear upward trend in recent years, mainly due to the poten-
tial shown by e-deliberative processes to engage citizens in a modern,
collaborative governmental structure (Nabatchi, 2010). This trend
can also be seen in studies of advances in electronic decision making
in Europe since 2008. In addition, since 2004 researchers have shown
particular interest in the use made by politicians of interactive tools
and social networking to achieve greater involvement by citizens in elec-
tion campaigns, both in the United States and in Europe. However, less
attention has been paid to e-voting, although this system could play an
important role in revitalizing the electorate, and arouses many concerns
(Kenski, 2005).
On the other hand, numerous articles dealing with e-democracy and
e-governance have been published since 2003, although in the last 4
years the rate has tended to decrease, probably due to the greater focus
on specifi
fic aspects of e-participation. In addition, there are issues that
have been somewhat neglected, such as e-activism (1.04 percent), spe-
cialized forms of participation in support of a particular proposition or
126 Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, et al.
e-petition (2.08 percent), participation in party and group political pro-