**EXP (2), CIT (2), LONG (1), F
Profi
filing E-Participation Research in Europe and North America 137
Table 10.7 E-Participation Research Topics in the Main Journals
Research
Information Science
Topic / Main
Public Administration
and Library Science
Communication
Journals
PAR
AS
ARPA SSCORE
ASLIB
INFSOC NEWME JCOMM
e-Democracy
18.18% 20.00% 11.11% 36.36% 16.67% 33.33% 11.11%
5.56%
e-Governance
18.18% 10.00% 11.11%
5.56%
e-Activism
e-Campaigning
46.67%
22.22%
33.33%
e-Community
9.09%
22.22% 18.18%
16.67% 11.11%
5.56%
e-Consultation
9.09%
6.67%
11.11%
11.11%
e-Decision
27.27% 40.00% 22.22%
16.6/%
5.56$
11.11%
Making
e-Deliberation
20.00% 22.22% 18.18%
6.67% 33.33% 16.67%
27.78%
e-Inclusion
9.09%
9.09%
5.56%
e-Petition
6.67%
e-Politics
9.09% 10.00%
11.11%
e-Polling
9.09%
e-Rulemaking
11.11%
e-Voting
9.09%
6.67%
5.56%
TOTAL
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
METHODOLOGIES
CS
Case Studies
HER
Hermeneutic Exploration
CONAN Content Analysis
HEU
Heuristic Approach
COMAN Comparative Analysis
LHM
Life History Method
CIT
Critical Incident Technique
LONG
Longitudinal Design
ETH
Ethnographic Studies
NON-EM Non-empirical
EVA
Evaluation Research
REG
Regression Analysis
EXPL
Exploratory Analysis
SNA
Social Network Analysis
EXP
Experimental Study
SEM
Structural Equation Model
FAC
Factorial Analysis
TREAD
Tread Analysis
FEA
Feasibility Studies
USAB
Usability Study
DEPARTMENTS
PA
Public Administration
CS
Computer Science and
Information Systems
P&PS
Public and Political Science
PRAC
Practitioners
MS
Management Science
138 Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, et al.
JOURNALS
ARPA
American Review of Public
JCOMM
Journal of Communication
Administration
AS
Administration and Society
NEWME
New Media and Society
ASLIB
Aslib Proceedings
PAR
Public Administration Review
INFSOC The Information Society
SSCORE
Social Science Computer Review
REFERENCES
Bailey, M. T. (1992). Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public adminis-
tration research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47–55.
Bingham, R. D., & Bowen, W. (1994). Mainstream public administration over
time: A topical content analysis of public administration review. Public Admin-
istration Review, 54(2), 204–208.
Bowman, J. S., & Hajjar, S. G. (1978). The literature and American public admin-
istration: Its contents and contributions. Public Administration Review, 38(2), 156–165.
Braadbaart, O., & Benni, Y. (2008). Public sector benchmarking: A survey of sci-
entifi
fic articles, 1990–2005. International Review of Administrative Sciences,
74(3), 421–433.
Chang, L., & Jacobson, T. (2010). Measuring participation as communicative
action: A case study of citizen involvement in an assessment of a city’s smoking
cessation policy-making process. Journal of Communication, 60, 660–679.
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of E-government: Are they correct?.
An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.
Forrester, J. P., & Watson, S. S. (1994). An assessment of public administra-
tion journals: The perspective of editors and editorial board members. Public
Administration Review, 54(5): 474–482.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present.
Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27–34.
Hartley, J. & Kostoff
ff, D. N. (2003). How useful are “key words” in scientifi c
fi jour-
nals?. Journal of Information Science, 29 (5), 433–438.
Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives,
philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quar-
terly, 24(1), 243–265.
Hui, G., & Hayllar, M. R. (2010). Creating public value in e-government: A public-
private-citizen collaboration framework in Web 2.0 . Australian Journal of Pub-
lic Administration, 69(S1), S120–S131.
Jaeger, P. T. (2005). Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of
electronic government. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 702–719.
Jiang, M., & Xu, H. (2009). Exploring online structures on Chinese government
portals: Citizen political participation and government legitimation. Social Sci-
ence Computer Review, 27(2): 174–195.
Johnston, P., & Stewart-Weeks, M. (2007). The connected republic. New possi-
bilities and new value for the public sector. Cisco Internet Business Solutions
Groups. Retrieved from www.ictparliament.org. Accessed in July 2011.
Kenski, K. (2005). To i-vote or not to i-vote? Opinions about Internet voting from
Arizona voters. Social Science Computer Review, 23(3), 293–303.
Klijn, E., Edelebons, J., & Steijn, B. (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its
impact and outcomes. Administration and Society, 42(2), 193–221.
Profiling E-Participation Research in Europe and North America 139
Lan, Z., & Anders, K. K. (2000). A paradigmatic view of contemporary public admin-
istration research: An empirical test. Administration and Society, 32(2), 138–165.
Lattimer, C. (2009). Understanding the complexity of the digital divide in relation
to the quality of House campaign websites in the United States. New Media and
Society, 11(6), 1023–1040.
Legge, J. S., Jr., & Devore, J. (1987). Measuring productivity in U.S. public administration and public aff
ffairs programs 1981–1985. Administration and Society,
19(2), 147–
156.
Macintosh, A. (2004) Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proceed-
ings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS-37), January 5–8, Big Island, Hawaii.
McCurdy, H. E., & Cleary, R. E. (1984). A call for appropriate methods. Public Administration Review, 44(6), 49–55.
McMillan, P., Medd. A., & Hughes. P. (2008). Change the world or the world will
change you: The future of collaborative government and Web 2.0, Deloitte Tou-
che Tohmatsu. Retrieved from www.deloitte.com
Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic defi
ficits: The poten-
tial of deliberative democracy for public administration. American Review of
Public Administration, 40(4), 376–399.
Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how? European Commis-
sion. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Retrieved from www.ec.europa.eu. Accessed in July 2011.
Pratchett, L. (2007). Comparing local e-democracy in Europe: A preliminary
report. In United Nations, E-participation and e-government: Understanding
the present and creating the future. New York: United Nations.
Quintelier, E., & Vissers S. (2009). The eff
ffect of Internet use on political participa-
tion. An analysis of survey results for 16-year-olds in Belgium. Social Science
Computer Review, 26( 4)
( , 411–427.
Raadschelder, J. C. N., & Lee, K. H. (2010). Trends in the study of public admin-
istration: Empirical and qualitative observations from Public Administration
Review, 2000–2009. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 19–33.
Robbins, M. D., Simonsen, B., & Feldman, B. (2008). Citizens and resource alloca-
tion: Improving decision making with Interactive Web-based citizen participa-
tion. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 564–575.
Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Alcaide Muñoz, L., & López Hernández, A. M. (2010).
Trends of e-government research. Contextualization and research opportuni-
ties. The International Jour
J
nal of Digital Accounting Research, 10, 87–111.
Rose, J
, J., G
,
rönlund, Å
,
., & A
,
ndersen, K
,
. V. (2
( 008). Introduction. In A. Avdic, K.
Hedström, J. Rose, & Å. Grönlund (Eds.), Understanding eParticipation—
Contemporary PhD eParticipation studies in Europe. Sweden: Örebro Univer-
sity Library.
Saebo, O., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of e-participation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428.
Sanford, C., & Rose, J. (2007). Characterizing e-participation. International Journal of Information Management, 27(4), 406–421.
Scholl, H. J. (2010). E-government: Information, technology, and transformation.
Volume 17. Advances in Management Information Systems. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.
Wilkinson, S. (1997). Focus group research. In Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, London (UK): Sage Editorial(pp. 177–199).
Wright, B. E., Manigault, L. J., & Black, T. R. (2004). Quantitative research
measurement in public administration: An assessment of journal publications.
Administration and Society, 35(6), 747–764.
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations,
and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.
11 Rational Choice Theory
Using the Fundamentals of Human
Behavior to Tackle the Digital Divide
Porche Millington and Lemuria Carter
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The introduction of the Internet and personal computers changed the way
people gather and store information. People across the globe have been
classifi
fied into two groups: the “haves” and the “have-nots.” The growth
and use of Internet-based technology has led to a disparity known as the
digital divide. Recently, calls for more research on the digital divide and its
subsequent subdivisions have been emphasized in several studies (Barzilai-
Nahon, Gomez, & Ambikar, 2008; Dewan & Riggins, 2005; van Dijk,
2006). This chapter uses rational choice theory to off
ffer a fresh perspective
on the link between human behavior and the digital divide. It presents an
overview of existing literature on rational choice theory and off er
ff s sugges-
tions for future research on the digital divide.
1 INTRODUCTION
Most research on the digital divide highlights the variation in access to tech-
nology and the Internet by socioeconomic status (Robinson, Dimaggio, &
Hargittai, 2003). The literature on the digital divide usually analyzes this
gap in terms of individual demographic factors and ignores the impact of
the social class those individuals belong to (Wattal, Hong, Mandviwalla, &
Jain, 2011). Despite government intervention and large investment, the digi-
tal divide remains a prominent debate that encompasses social, economic and
political issues (Helbig, Gil-Garcia, & Ferro, 2009). In 2009, roughly 63.5 per-
cent of American households were connected to broadband, up from just 9.2
percent in 2001 (Anonymous, 2010). According to the Department of Com-
merce, only 4 out of every 10 households with an annual household income
of $25,000 or less have Internet access at home (Anonymous, 2010; NTIA,
2011). In comparison to the 94 percent of households with higher incomes,
low-income households’ growth in access lags tremendously. The disparity in
Internet access and use is not unique to the United States. About 30 percent
of individuals in developing countries use the Internet and only 20 percent of
Rational Choice Theory 141
households in developing countries have access to the Internet (Anonymous,
2011). According to Seybert (2011), Greece and Romania continue to lack
growth in Internet access compared to neighboring countries.
Reports show that education plays a role in creating the digital divide as
well. Approximately 84 percent of households with at least one college degree
have broadband and just over 28 percent of households without even a high
school diploma are connected (Anonymous, 2010). Other factors that seem to
cause the disparity are geographic regions and ethnic groups. Statistics even
show an inequality of Internet users in older age groups. In Europe, only 40
percent of individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 use the Internet at least
once a week which is below the continent’s average of 68 percent (Seybert,
2011). Some researchers even use the phrase “grey digital divide” when dis-
cussing the disparity of Internet users in older age groups (Livermore, 2011;
Morris, 2007).
The gaps are beginning to close but researchers question if it is closing fast
enough (Fontenay & Beltran, 2008; van Dijk & Hacker, 2000). The digi-
tal divide is both an economic and social phenomenon (Wattal et al., 2011).
Numerous studies on the digital divide have taken one of two theoretical per-
spectives on technology diff
&n
bsp; ffusion: sociological or public policy (Dewan &
Riggins, 2005). The purpose of this chapter is to off er a ne
ff
w perspective on
how to bridge the digital divide. Some enthusiasts proclaim that the shrink in
the digital divide will be the key to reducing inequality because of its potential
to lower barriers to information which may lead people of all types of back-
grounds “to improve their human capital” and in turn increase their opportu-
nities (Hargittai, 2003). In order to improve human capital, researchers must
fi
find the relationship between a human’s choice to enhance his opportunity
and the tools provided to make the choice (Lehtinen & Kuorikoski, 2007).
Rational choice theory states that “the choices a person makes tend to
maximize total utility or satisfaction” (Herrnstein, 1990). Rational choice
theory is also known as optimal choice theory which serves as the fundamen-
tal principle of behavioral sciences (Simon, 1955). This chapter uses rational
choice theory to understand the impact of information communication tech-
nologies (ICT) on human behavior. By discussing the fundamentals of human
behavior, we posit that more research on the digital divide supplemented with
theories from other referent disciplines may help shed light on this phenom-
enon. In particular, we present a list of potential researcher questions that
integrate the elements of rational choice theory and the digital divide.
2 BACKGROUND
LITERATURE
2.1 Digital Divide
The most common defi
finition of the digital divide is “the gap between people
with eff
ffective access to digital information and communications technol-
ogy, and those with very limited to no access to ICT” (Wattal et al., 2011).
142 Porche Millington and Lemuria Carter
Hargittai (2003) labels those with effective access to ICT as the “haves”
and those with limited to no access to ICT as the “have-nots.”
Measurements of the digital divide often engage in simple or single fac-
tor measurements that do not illustrate the whole picture (Barzilai-Nahon
et al., 2008; Korupp & Szydlik, 2005; van Dijk, 2006; van Dijk & Hacker,
2000). The concept in fact encompasses a range of information dispari-
ties including material access, use and skill (Barzilai-Nahon et al., 2008).
For this reason, the simplistic approach continues to be criticized (Bar-
zilai-Nahon, 2006). According to Barzailai-Nahon et al. (2008), research-
ers need to develop a multifaceted concept that thoroughly measures the
divide inequality. Epstein, Nibset, and Gillespie (2011) use two “frames”
to explore the digital divide—material access and skills access. Hsieh, Rai,
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 25
