Information Policy and Social Media: Framing Government—Citizen Web 2.0 Interactions

  • Paul T. Jaeger
  • John Carlo Bertot
  • Katie Shilton
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter explores the intersections of information policy and government use of social media to interact with members of the public, using the policies and initiatives of the United States federal government as a case study. Following a discussion of the opportunities and challenges that social media presents to governments as a means to interact with its citizens, this chapter details key policy instruments related to government use of social media and the access issues that these policies do not adequately address. This chapter then examines the ways in which access perspectives already used in different areas of policy and design values implemented in various e-government projects present opportunities to frame government use of social media in a manner that would be inclusive of as many members of the public as possible. This chapter concludes by presenting ways in which policy could shape more inclusive use of social media by governments.

Keywords

Editing 

References

  1. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency? E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264–271.Google Scholar
  2. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 30–40.Google Scholar
  3. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Engaging the public in open government: The policy and government application of social media technology for government transparency. IEEE Computer, 43(11), 53–59.Google Scholar
  4. Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burgstahler, S. A. (2008). Universal design of technological environments: From principles to practice. In S. Burgstahler & R. C. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 213–224). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.Google Scholar
  6. Chang A., & Kannan P. K. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. Washington DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.Google Scholar
  7. Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in Internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, 9, 313–334.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, S., & Livingston, G. (2007). Latinos online: Hispanics with lower levels of education and English proficiency remain largely disconnected from the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org.
  9. Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. General Services Administration (2010). Social media handbook. Available: http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/staffoffices/socialmediahandbook.pdf.
  11. Golbeck J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers A. (2010). Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1612–1621.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world, Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. Hanson, E. C. (2008). The information revolution and world politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Hargittai, E. (2008). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 276–297.Google Scholar
  15. Howard, A. (2011). Pew: Disability or illness hinders many Americans from using the Internet. Available: http://Gov20.govfresh.com.
  16. Jaeger, P. T. (2011). Disability and the Internet: Confronting a digital divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner.Google Scholar
  17. Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. (2010). Designing, implementing, and evaluating user-centered and citizen-centered e-government. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  18. Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. (2011). Responsibility rolls down: Public libraries and the social and policy obligations of ensuring access to e-government and government information. Public Library Quarterly, 30, 1–25. Google Scholar
  19. Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., Thompson, K. M., Katz, S. M., & DeCoster, E. J. (2012). The intersection of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public libraries. Public Library Quarterly, 31(1).Google Scholar
  20. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and new directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 389–394.Google Scholar
  21. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2004). Social information behavior and the democratic process: Information poverty, normative behavior, and electronic government in the United States. Library & Information Science Research, 26(1), 94–107. Google Scholar
  22. Kanayama, T. (2003). Leaving it all up to industry: People with disabilities and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Information Society, 19, 185–194.Google Scholar
  23. Knobel, C. P., & Bowker, G. C. (2011). Values in design. Communications of the ACM, July.Google Scholar
  24. Lazar, J., & Jaeger, P. T. (2011). Promoting and enforcing web site accessibility. Issues in Science and Technology, 17(2), 68–82.Google Scholar
  25. Lazar, J., & Wentz, B. (2011). Separate but equal web site interfaces are inherently unequal for people with disabilities. User Experience, 10(3).Google Scholar
  26. Lenhart, A. (2010). Cell phones and American adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org
  27. Lievrouw, L. A., & Farb, S. E. (2003). Information and social equity. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 499–540. Information Today.Google Scholar
  28. Mackenzie, A. (2010). Wirelessness: Radical empiricism in network cultures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Madden, M. (2010). Older adults and social media. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org
  30. Moser, I. (2006). Disability and the promises of technology: Technology, subjectivity, and embodiment within an order of the normal. Information Communication & Society, 9, 373–395. Google Scholar
  31. Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how? Washington DC: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  32. Pew Internet (2010). Government online. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx
  33. Pirolli, P., Preece, J., & Shneiderman, B. (2010). Cyberinfrastructure for social action on national priorities. Computer, 43(11), 20–21.Google Scholar
  34. Powell, A., Byrne, A., & Dailey, D. (2010). The essential Internet: Digital exclusion in low-income American communities. Policy & Internet, 2(2), article 7.Google Scholar
  35. Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 84–91.Google Scholar
  36. Shuler, J. A., Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. (2010). Implications of harmonizing e-government principles and the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). Government Information Quarterly, 27, 9–16. Google Scholar
  37. Wentz, B., & Lazar, J. L. (2011). Are separate interfaces inherently unequal? An evaluation with blind users of the usability of two interfaces for a social networking platform. Presented at iConference 2011, Seattle, WA, United States.Google Scholar
  38. White House (2009). Open government: A progress report to the America people. Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
  39. Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education, 137, 27–44.Google Scholar
  40. Zhou, T. (2010). Understanding online community user participation: A social influence perspective. Internet Research, 21, 67–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul T. Jaeger
    • 1
  • John Carlo Bertot
    • 1
  • Katie Shilton
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations