Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US Governments

  • F. Dianne Lux Wigand
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 25)


The goal of this chapter is to compare the adoption of Web 2.0 information and communication technologies (ICT) by government agencies in Canada and the United States and to explore their respective impact on e-government. Governments at all levels recognize the need to develop and enhance multimedia and multichannel communication strategies to communicate with citizens and provide services as well as enable interaction among employees and to cross agencies’ boundaries. Governments have discovered that Web 2.0 communication channels can have an unexpected reach, and occupy a new and quite possibly an essential space in electronic communications. Government agencies, needing to or requiring to communicate with the public, are finding that Web 2.0 technologies are an effective, efficient, timely, and valuable way to get the word out. This chapter shows that Web 2.0 use is creating entirely new online communities that defy traditional communication reach and organizational boundaries. Web 2.0 ICT can enable collaborative work with external stakeholders as well as within and among agencies. By examining specific examples of Web 2.0 use in Canadian and US governments, analyzing the insights gained, and reflecting on observations and recommendations, both public administrators and IT professionals are provided with a framework to evaluate the benefits and challenges of adopting these new ICT and applications. The fundamental questions are the following: What is Web 2.0? How have government agencies in Canada and the United States adopted these technologies to encourage interaction and collaborative work?


Government Agency Technology Acceptance Model Early Adopter Collective Intelligence Government Information 
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.


  1. Accenture. (2006). Leadership in customer service: Building the trust. Retrieved from
  2. Accenture. (2007). Leadership in customer service: Delivering on the promise. Retrieved from
  3. Accenture. (2009). Web 2.0 and the next generation of public service. Retrieved from
  4. Arellano, N. (2008). Canada embarks on major Web 2.0 initiative., 28 May 2008. Retrieved from
  5. Atlee, T., & Por, G. (2000). Collective intelligence as a field of multi-disciplinary study and practice. Retrieved from
  6. Baumgarten, J., & Chui, M. (2009). E-government 2.0. McKinsey on Government, Summer(4). Retrieved from
  7. Bowen, D. (2009). Local government use of Web 2.0 and social networking tools. Public Technology Institute. Retrieved from
  8. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Canadian Internet Project. (2008). Retrieved from
  10. Chang, M., & Kannan, P. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from
  11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drapeau, M., & Wells, L. (2009). Social software and national security: An initial net assessment. Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University. Retrieved from
  13. Elliot, N., Overby, C. S., Greene, M., & Wise, J. (2009). Canadian social technographics revealed: How marketers can leverage Canadians’ love of social technologies. Retrieved from
  14. Flew, T. (2008). New media: An introduction. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. GCPEDIA. (2009). Wikipedia. Retrieved from
  16. Godwin, B. (2008). Matrix of Web 2.0 technology and government. and Web best practices, GSA office of citizen services. Retrieved from
  17. Godwin, B., Campbell, S., Levy, J., & Bounds, J. (2008a). Examples of agencies using online content and technology to achieve mission and goals. Federal Web Managers Council. Retrieved from
  18. Godwin, B., Campbell, S., Levy, J., & Bounds, J. (2008b). Social media and the federal government: Perceived and real barriers and potential solutions. Federal Web Managers Council. Retrieved from
  19. Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). (2003). OECD. The e-government imperative. Paris: OECD e-government studies.Google Scholar
  20. O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software? Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17–36.Google Scholar
  21. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Retrieved from
  22. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2007). Information searches that solve problems: How people use the Internet, libraries and government agencies when they need help. Retrieved from
  23. Pew Internet and American Life Project Tracking Surveys. (2009). Retrieved from
  24. Pilieci, V. (2008). Government finally opts to be internet friendly, creates own version of Wikipedia. The Gazette (Montreal), Wednesday, 19 November 2008. Retrieved from
  25. PoliTwitter Blog. (2009). How do Canadian politicians on twitter compare to other countries? Retrieved from
  26. Results for Canadians: A management framework for the government of Canada. (2002). A report for the treasury board of Canada. Retrieved from
  27. Rogers, E. M. with Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovation: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  29. Taylor, P. W. (2009). All-a-twitter about Web 2.0. Center for Digital Government. Retrieved from
  30. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  32. (2009). Retrieved from
  33. Wigand, R. T. (2007). Web 2.0: Disruptive technology or is everything miscellaneous? In A. Huizing & E. J. de Vries (Eds.), Information management: Setting the scene (pp. 269–284). Oxford, England and Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of GovernmentUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations