Research Methodology

  • Mohamed Mahmood
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)


Over the years, citizens’ trust and confidence in their governments has continued to decline and digital government is expected to reverse this trend. An enormous amount of money has been spent worldwide, on electronic government initiatives that are focused on improving performance, reducing costs and enhancing citizens' trust and confidence in their governments. Yet, of the many initiatives that have been implemented, very few have achieved real transformation of government (i.e. fundamental changes to the way core functions of government are performed to achieve noticeable gains in performance and efficiency). As such, there is a need to understand how transformation of government as a construct affects citizens’ trust and confidence in government in the presence of factors such as, government performance and citizen satisfaction. This research empirically investigates the influence of digital transformation of government on citizens’ trust and confidence in the context of the Kingdom of Bahrain. Bahrain is a top ranking country in terms of use of ICT in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region. A conceptual model was developed and validated using an online survey targeting randomly citizens of the Kingdom of Bahrain. Based on 313 responses, the findings of this research suggest that citizens' trust and confidence in their government is positively influenced by transformation of government, mediated by government performance and citizens’ satisfaction. The study found that e-government and technology are not enough for achieving a real transformation of government, and therefore, in tackling the decline in citizens’ trust and confidence in government. Other factors were found to be important in this equation, including transparency and accountability of government functions and activities in meeting citizens' expectations. The research offer multiple policy implications and theoretical contributions, in addition to helping understand how digital transformation of government can enhance citizens' trust and confidence in government, improve government-to-citizen relationship, and increase the adoption of digital services offered by governments. From a policy perspective, this research offers a validated conceptual model that can be used as a frame of reference when planning ICT-enabled transformation projects in government. From a theoretical context, this study is the first to investigate the relationship between transformation of government and citizens' trust and confidence in government.


  1. Abhichandani T, Horan TA, Rayalu R (2005) EGOVSAT: toward a robust measure of e-government service satisfaction in transportation. In: Remenyi D (ed) Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Government (ICEG 2005). Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  2. Arbuckle JL, Wothke W (1999) Amos 4.0 user’s guide. SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, pp 1995–2005Google Scholar
  3. Avison DE, Lau F, Myers MD, Nielsen PA (1999) Action research. Commun ACM 42(1):94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baruch Y (1999) Response rate in academic studies—a comparative analysis. Hum Relat 52(4):421–438Google Scholar
  5. Bhattacherjee A (2012) Social science research: principles, methods, and practicesGoogle Scholar
  6. Blunch, N. (2012) Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS statistics and AMOS. SageGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman A. (1992) Quantitative and qualitative research: further reflections on their integration. Mixing Methods: Qual Quant Res 57–78Google Scholar
  8. Bryman A (2004) Social research methods, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryman A, Bell E (2007) Business research methods, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns AC, Bush RF (2006) Marketing research. Globalization 1:7Google Scholar
  11. Byrne BM (2016) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen W, Hirschheim R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Inf Syst J 14(3):197–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Churchill GA, Dawn I (1999) Marketing research: methodological foundations. Cengage Learning, vol 9Google Scholar
  14. Churchill GA, Lacobucci D (2004) Marketing research: methodological foundations, 9th edn. Thomson South-Western, OhioGoogle Scholar
  15. Collis J, Hussey R (2003) Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students, 2nd edn. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  16. Comrey A, Lee H (1992) A first course in factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  17. Creswell JW (2003) Research design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publication Inc., Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  18. Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications. IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dashti A, Benbasat I, Burton-Jones A (2009) Developing trust reciprocity in electronic-government: the role of felt trust. In: Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Izmir, Turkey, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  20. Denscombe, M. (2003) The good research guide MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  21. Field A (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SageGoogle Scholar
  22. Fowler FJ Jr (2002) Survey research methods. Sage Publications Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Gable GG (1994) Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. Eur J Inf Syst 3(2):112–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 4(1):7Google Scholar
  25. Green SB, Salkind NJ (2010) Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: analyzing and understanding data. Prentice Hall PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q 611–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Groves RM, Fowler FJ Jr, Couper MP (2004) Survey methodology. Wiley-IEEEGoogle Scholar
  28. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handb Qual Res 2:163–194Google Scholar
  29. Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black W (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  30. Halkett GK, Kristjanson LJ (2007) Validity and reliability testing of two instruments to measure breast cancer patients’ concerns and information needs relating to radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 2(1):43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hameed S, Al-Shawabkah A (2013) Role of e-government in improving organizational performance in the civil status and passports department of Jordan. Dev Country Stud 3(5):50–64Google Scholar
  32. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Articles p 2Google Scholar
  33. Howe KR (1988) Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ Res 17(8):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Javali SB, Gudaganavar NV, Raj SM (2011) Effect of varying sample size in estimation of coefficients of internal consistencyGoogle Scholar
  35. Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24(4):602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson B, Christensen L (2008) Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SageGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 33(7):14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaplan B, Duchon D (1988) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: a case study. MIS Q 571–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kayam O, Hirsch T (2012) Using social media networks to conduct questionnaire based research in social studies case study: family language policy. J Sociol Res 3(2):57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mahmood M, Weerakkody V (2016) Factors affecting citizens’ trust and confidence in government and its relation with transformation of government. In: 22nd Americas Conference on Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  41. Malhotra N, Birks D (2007) Marketing Research: an applied approach, 3rd edn. European Edition, Pearson EducationGoogle Scholar
  42. Myers MD, Avison D (1997) Qualitative research in information systems. Manage Inf Syst Q (21):241–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13(3):334–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merolli M, Sanchez FJM, Gray K (2014) Social media and online survey: tools for knowledge management in health research. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Australasian Workshop on Health Informatics and Knowledge Management, vol 153. Australian Computer Society, Inc., pp 21–29Google Scholar
  45. Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Inf Syst Res 12(3):240–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mingers J (2003) The paucity of multi-method research: a review of the information systems literature. Inf Syst J 13(3):233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morgeson FV, VanAmburg D, Mithas S (2011) Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of the e-government-citizen trust relationship. J Public Adm Res Theor 21(2):257–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Muthen LK, Muthen BO (2002) How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Struct Equ Model 9(4):599–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nam T, Sayogo DS (2011) Who uses e-government?: examining the digital divide in e-government use. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  50. Niehaves B, Bernd CS (2006) Criticality, epistemology and behaviour vs. design-information systems research across different sets of paradigms. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, AISGoogle Scholar
  51. Ogier J (2005) The response rates for online surveys—a hit and miss affair. In: 2005 Australasian Evaluations Forum: University Learning and Teaching: Evaluating and Enhancing the Experience, UNSW, Sydney, 28–29 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  52. Orlikowski WJ, Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Inf Syst Res 2(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pallant J (2013) SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education, UKGoogle Scholar
  54. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml Valerie A, Berry Leonard L (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retail 64(1):12–40Google Scholar
  55. Park H, Blenkinsopp J (2011) The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. Int Rev Admin Sci 77(2):254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Patterson MG, West MA, Shackleton VJ, Dawson JF, Lawthom R, Maitlis S, Wallace AM (2005) Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. J Organ Behav 26(4):379–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Punch K (2005) Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Richardson H, Robinson B (2007) The mysterious case of the missing paradigm: a review of critical information systems research 1991–2001. Inf Syst J 17(3):251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS (1991) Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. Meas Pers Soc Psychol Attitudes 1(3):1–16Google Scholar
  60. Robson C (2002) Real word research. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Said IA, Iaafar NH, Atan R (2015) Assessing accountability in government linked companies: an empirical evidence. Int Bus Manage 9(4):460–469Google Scholar
  62. Saunders MN (2011) Research methods for business students, 5th edn. Pearson Education IndiaGoogle Scholar
  63. Saunders MN, Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2011) Research methods for business students, 5th edn. Pearson Education IndiaGoogle Scholar
  64. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006) Reporting structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res 99(6):323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
  66. Sekaran U (2000) Research methods for business: a skill-building approach. Wiley, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. Sekaran U (2003) Research methods for business: a skill building approach, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Straub D, Boudreau MC, Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 13:380–427Google Scholar
  69. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Osterlind SJ (2001) Using multivariate statistics. Pearson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Teo TS, Srivastava SC, Jiang L (2008) Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. J Manage Inf Syst 25(3):99–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tolbert CJ, Mossberger K (2006) The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Adm Rev 66(3):354–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H (2013) Bridging the qualitative-quantitativeGoogle Scholar
  73. Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur J Inf Syst 4:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. Eur J Inf Syst 15(3):320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weber R (2004) The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view. MIS Q 28(1):iii–xiiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weerakkody V, El-Haddadeh R, Al-Sobhi F, Shareef MA, Dwivedi YK (2013) Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption: an empirical investigation. Int J Inf Manage 33(5):716–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yin RK (2003) Applications of case study research. SAGE, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  78. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  79. Zhang, J. (2013) Towards a citizen-centered e-government: exploring citizens’ satisfaction with e-government in China. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University. Available from ProQuest:
  80. Zikmund W, Babin B (2006) Exploring marketing research. Cengage LearningGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brunel Business SchoolBrunel University LondonUxbridge, LondonUK

Personalised recommendations