Is E-Government Research a Flash in the Pan or Here for the Long Shot?

  • Hans Jochen Scholl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4084)


It has been questioned whether or not Electronic Government Research (EGR) qualifies as a legitimate discipline. This paper proposes that EGR might even want to avoid developing into a traditional discipline and restricting itself to a narrow set of accepted procedures. Rather EGR might best be served by drawing upon multiple disciplines spanning the whole spectrum of hard-pure, hard-applied, soft-pure, and soft-applied sciences. In so doing, EGR might best thrive as a multi-, inter-, or even as a transdiscipline.


Interdisciplinary Research Shared Vision Information System Research Transdisciplinary Research Traditional Discipline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anonymous, Calls on eGovernment (2005a), (Retrieved January 27, 2006)
  2. 2.
    Anonymous. Digital government society mission statement (January 26, 2005b), (Retrieved January 27, 2006)
  3. 3.
    Anonymous. The National Science Foundation Digital Government Research Program: Linking it research with government mission and studying its impact on democracy and governance (2006), (Retrieved January 27, 2006)
  4. 4.
    Applegate, L.M., King, J.L.: Rigor and relevance: Careers on the line. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 17–18 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailey, K.D.: Fifty years of systems science: Further reflections. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 22(5), 355–361 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balsiger, P.W.: Supradisciplinary research practices: History, objectives and rationale. Futures 36(4), 407–421 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becher, T., Trowler, P.: Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.W.: The identity crisis within the is discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties1. MIS Quarterly 27(2), 183–194 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biglan, A.: The characteristics of subject matter in different academic fields. Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3), 195–203 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Black, L.J., Cresswell, A.M., Luna, L.F., Pardo, T.A., Martinez, I.J., Thompson, F., et al.: A dynamic theory of collaboration: A structural approach to facilitating intergovernmental use of information technology (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bozeman, B., Bretschneider, S.: Public management information systems: Theory and prescriptions. Public Administration Review 46, 475–489 (1986); special issueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bretschneider, S.: Management information systems in public and private organization: An empirical test. Public Administration Review 50, 536–545 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bretschneider, S.: Information technology, e-government, and institutional change. Public Administration Review 63(6), 738–741 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., Williams, R.: Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the fifth framework programme. Futures 36(4), 457–470 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cresswell, A.M., Pardo, T.A., Thompson, F., Canestraro, D.S., Cook, M., Black, L.J., et al.: Modeling intergovernmental collaboration: A system dynamics approach (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cushing, J., Pardo, T.: Guest editors’ introduction: Research in the digital government realm. Computer 38(12), 26–32 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davenport, T.H., Markus, M.L.: Rigor vs. Relevance revisited: Response to benbasat and zmud. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 19–23 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Delcambre, L., Giuliano, G.: Digital government research in academia. Computer 38(12), 33–39 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Fuller, M.A., Schneider, C.: Research standards for promotion and tenure in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30(1), 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Despres, C., Brais, N., Avellan, S.: Collaborative planning for retrofitting suburbs: Transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity in action. Futures 36(4), 471–486 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Epton, S.R., Payne, R., Pearson, A.W.: Managing interdisciplinary research. Wiley, Chichester [West Sussex] (1983)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feyerabend, P.K.: Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands (1975)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Forrester, J.P., Watson, S.S.: An assessment of public administration journals: The perspective of editors and editorial board members. Public Administration Review 54(5), 474–482 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fountain, J.E.: Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gibbons, M.: The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Golembiewski, R.T.: Public administration as a developing discipline. M.Dekker, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grönlund, A.: Democracy in an it-framed society. Communications of the ACM 44, 23–26 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grönlund, A.: State of the art in e-Gov research: A survey. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) EGOV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3183. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grönlund, A.: State of the art in e-Gov research: Surveying conference publications. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 1(4), 1–25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heilprin, L.B.: The library community at a technological and philosophical crossroads: Necessary and sufficient conditions for survival. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986-1998) 42(8), 566 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hjorland, B.: Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content. And relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52(9), 774–778 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horlick-Jones, T., Sime, J.: Living on the border: Knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4), 441–456 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hovy, E.: Using an ontology to simplify data access. Communications of the Acm 46(1), 47–49 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang, W., Siau, K., Wei, K.K.: Electronic government strategies and implementation. Idea Group Pub., Hershey PA (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Klein, H.K., Myers, M.D.: A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67–88 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klischewski, R.: Information integration or process integration? How to achieve interoperability in administration. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) EGOV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3183, pp. 57–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kubicek, H., Millard, J., Westholm, H.: Methodology for analysing the relationship between the reorganisation of the back office and better electronic public services. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) EGOV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2739, pp. 199–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuhn, T.S.: The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lattuca, L.R.: Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty, 1st edn. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville (2001)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Layne, K., Lee, J.: Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 18(2), 122–136 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee, A.S.: Rigor and relevance in mis research: Beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 27–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lyytinen, K.: Empirical research in information systems: On the relevance of practice in thinking of is research. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 25–27 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lélé, S., Norgaard, R.B.: Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55(11), 967 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Markus, M.L., Lee, A.S.: Special issue on intensive research in information systems: Using qualitative, interpretive, and case methods to study information technology-foreward. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 35–38 (1999)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mervis, J.: Risky business. Science 306(5694), 220–221 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morillo, F., Bordons, M., Gomez, I.: Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(13), 1237–1249 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    National Academies (U.S.). Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research., Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (U.S.), National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), National Academy of Engineering., & Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Facilitating interdisciplinary research, The National Academies Press, Washington (2005) Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Norris, D.F.: Building the virtual state. Or not? A critical appraisal. Social Science Computer Review 21(4), 417–424 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Norris, D.F., Kraemer, K.L.: Mainframe and pc computing in American cities: Myths and realities. Public Administration Review 56(6), 568–576 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pantel, P., Philpot, A., Hovy, E.: Data alignment and integration [US government]. Computer 38(12), 43–50 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rabin, J., Hildreth, W.B., Miller, G.: Handbook of public administration, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ramadier, T.: Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urban studies. Futures 36(4), 423–439 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Saracevic, T.: Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(12), 1051–1063 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Scholl, H.J.: E-Government: A special case of business process change. Paper presented at the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS36), Waikoloa, HI, January 6-10 (2003)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Scholl, H.J.: The dimensions of business process change in electronic government. In: Huang, W., Siau, K., Wei, K.K. (eds.) Electronic government strategies and implementation, pp. 44–67. Idea Group Pub., Hershey PA (2004a)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Scholl, H.J.: Involving salient stakeholders: Beyond the technocratic view on change. Action Research 2(3), 281–308 (2004b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Scholl, H.J.: E-government-induced business process change (BPC): An empirical study of current practices. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 1(2), 25–47 (2005a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Scholl, H.J.: Motives, strategic approach, objectives & focal areas in e- Gov-induced change. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 1(1), 58–77 (2005b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Scholl, H.J.: Organizational transformation through e- Government: Myth or reality? In: Wimmer, M.A., Traunmüller, R., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, K.V. (eds.) EGOV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3591, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2005c)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Klein, T.J.: Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4), 515–526 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Webber, S.: Information science in 2003: A critique. Journal of Information Science 29(4), 311–330 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wilson, W.: The study of administration (1886), (Retrieved Febuary 14, 2006)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Jochen Scholl
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations