Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discussing the Foundations for Interpretivist Digital Government Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 38))

Abstract

As the research domain of digital government continues to develop as an important body of scholarly research, it is important to understand the core theoretical and philosophical basis of the discipline. Yet, in the domain of digital government, such an understanding does not exist. Therefore, there is currently a need for critical discussion about the concrete role of research philosophy in digital government research. This paper makes a first step in driving such a discussion by presenting arguments and discussion on the relevance of an interpretivist research philosophy for the domain of digital government. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of an interpretivist ontology and epistemology for digital government, discusses relevant theories and methods, and concludes with an overview of what is essential for conducting and carrying out interpretivist digital government research. This paper’s contributions represent one of the first concentrated efforts to lay out initial foundations for the role of interpretivism, and research philosophy more generally, for digital government research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Though the area of research started with the name “e-Government,” there has been increased movement to refer to it now as “digital government.” So, for this reason, this paper will use the term “digital government.” Though they are used colloquially to mean the same thing, fundamentally, e-Government is more commonly associated with “out-dated” (e.g., email and the Internet) technologies and techno-centrism, whereas “digital government” is meant to be more all-encompassing and future-oriented, able to include new and rapid technological developments under its umbrella. Similarliy, digital government and digital governance are used synonymously but are slightly different. Digital governance is concerned with the steering and organization of processes, institutions, regulations, etc., of, for, or with the digital. Digital governance is not focused only on the “government” but is inclusive of other stakeholders such as civil society, businesses, and citizens. Digital government, on the other hand, is rather concerned on the digitalization of government itself, for example, for service delivery or internal digitalization. The domain is named digital government, it encompasses research on both digital governance and digital government, favoring neither over the other, acknowleding the importance and relevance of both.

  2. 2.

    These are: post-industrialism (represented by Daniel Bell); postmodernism (represented by Jean Baudrillard, Mark Poster, Paul Virilio); flexible specialization (represented by Michael Piore, Charles Sabel, Larry Hirschhorn); the information mode of development (represented by Manuel Castells); neo-Marxism (represented by Herbert Schiller); regulation theory (represented by Michel Aglietta, Alain Lipietz); flexible accumulation (represented by David Harvey); reflexive modernization (represented by Anthony Giddens); the public sphere (represented by Jurgen Habermas, Nicholas Garnham).

References

  • Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 205–224).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldiabat, K. M., & Le Navenec, C. (2011). Philosophical roots of classical grounded theory: Its foundations in symbolic interactionism. Qualitative Report, 16, 1063–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, A. D., & Urquhart, C. (2010). The affordances of actor network theory in ICT for development research. Information Technology & People, 23, 352–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841011087806

  • Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016). Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apolitical. (2019). Digital government: The 100 most influential people 2019. In Apolitical. Accessed October 28, 2020. https://apolitical.co/lists/digital-government-world100/

  • Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-government really have a problem? Government Information Quarterly, 32, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2014.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2003). Interpreting British Governance. Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, T. (1998). Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.1998.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32, 196–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (1st ed.). Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1998). The Information age: Economy, society and culture. Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2002). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charalabidis, Y., & Lachana, Z. (2020a). On the science foundation of digital governance and transformation. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 214–221). Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charalabidis, Y., & Lachana, Z. (2020b). Towards a science base for digital governance. In The 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 383–389). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, S. S., Vidiasovab, L., Parkhimovichc, O., et al. (2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devadoss, P. R., Pan, S. L., & Huang, J. C. (2003). Structurational analysis of e-government initiatives: A case study of SCO. Decision Support Systems, 34, 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00120-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19, 230–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410210748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draheim, D., Pappel, I., & Lauk, M., et al. (2020). On the narratives and background narratives of e-Government. Hawaii International Conference System Science, 2114–2122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., & O’Leary, B. (1987). Theories of the state: The politics of liberal democracy. Red Globe Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (1st ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fountain, J. (2006). Central issues in the political development of the virtual state. In M. Castells & G. Cardoso (Eds.), The network society: From knowledge to policy. Center for transatlantic relations (pp. 149–181). Johns Hopkins U.-SAIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganapati, S., & Reddick, C. G. (2012). Open e-government in U.S. state governments: Survey evidence from Chief Information Officers. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1987). The nation-state and violence: Volume 2 of a contemporary critique of historical materialism. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Meanings of pragmatism: Ways to conduct information systems research. Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2016). E-government design research: Towards the policy-ingrained IT artifact. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly Management Information System, 30, 611–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, Å. (2010). Ten years of E-Government: The ‘end of history’ and new beginning. International Conference on Electronic Government, 6228, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14799-9_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. (2009). Ontology. In Encyclopedia of database systems (pp. 1963–1965). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (2011). Interpreting interptretivism interpreting interpretations: The new hermeneutics of public administration. Public Administration, 89, 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01907.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C., Lister, M., & Marsh, D. (2006). The state: Theories and issues. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeks, R., & Stanforth, C. (2007). Understanding e-Government project trajectories from an actor-network perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse, 18, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630970180302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. R., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly Management Information System, 32, 127–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, R. C. (2013). A structured analysis of e-government studies: Trends and opportunities. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, R. (1986). The state in modern society. Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly Management Information System, 23, 67–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Rosenberg, M. (1955). The language of social research: A Reader in the methodology of social research. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2007). Grounded theory analysis of e-government initiatives: Exploring perceptions of government authorities. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lips, M. (2012). E-government is dead: Long live public administration 2.0. Information Polity (Int J Gov Democr Inf Age), 17, 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, G. B. (1988). The hermeneutics of postmodernity: Figures and themes. Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, P., Kelder, J.-A., & Perry, A. (2005). Social constructionism with a twist of pragmatism: A suitable cocktail for information systems research. In 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney (pp. 1–7).

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, K. (2020). Open government data co-created public services. Tallinn University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, K., & Draheim, D. (2020). On complex adaptive systems and electronic government: A proposed theoretical approach for electronic government studies. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36, 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002

  • Merriam-Webster. (2021). Transform|definition of transform by Merriam-Webster. In Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 13, 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transform

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. (pp. 1–17). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2003). Political philosophy: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, A., Janssen, M., & Weerakkody, V. (2015). E-government theories and challenges: Findings from a plenary expert panel. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 160–166). Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nam, T. (2014). Determining the type of e-government use. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehaves, B. (2011). Iceberg ahead: On electronic government research and societal aging. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D. F. (2003). Building the virtual state … or not? A critical appraisal. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303256728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D. F. (2010a). E-Government 2020: Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose. Public Administration Review, 70, s180–s181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02269.x

  • Norris, D. F. (2010b). E-government… not e-governance… not e-democracy not now! not ever? ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 339–346). ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2006). Governance, government and the state. In C. Hay, M. Lister, & D. March (Eds.), The state: Theories and issues (pp. 209–221). HarperCollins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (2011). Structuration theory in information systems research. In The handbook of information systems research (pp. 206–249). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puron-Cid, G. (2013). Interdisciplinary application of structuration theory for e-government: A case study of an IT-enabled budget reform. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S46–S58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinwald, A., & Kraemmergaard, P. (2012). Managing stakeholders in transformational government—A case study in a Danish local government. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (1st ed.). HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Chapter 2: Research philosophy and qualitative interviews. In Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed., p. 288). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samier, E. (2005). Toward a Weberian public administration: The infinite web of history, values, and authority in administrative mentalities. Halduskultuur Administrative Culture, 60–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2010). Electronic government: A study domain past its infancy. In H. J. Scholl (Ed.), E-government: information, technology, and transformation (pp. 11–32). M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2007). Discipline or interdisciplinary study domain? Challenges and promises in electronic government research. In H. Chen (Ed.), Digital government (pp. 19–40). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2014). The EGOV research community: An update on where we stand. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer & F. Bannister (Eds.), Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, Dublin, Ireland (pp. 1–16).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2016). Making sense of indices and impact numbers: Establishing leading EGOV scholars’ “signatures.” In Electronic Government: Proceeding of 15th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference EGOV 2016 (pp. 3–18).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2020). Digital government: Looking back and ahead on a fascinating domain of research and practice. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3352682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T. A. (1993). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyu, S. H. P., & Huang, J. H. (2011). Elucidating usage of e-government learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanforth, C. (2007). Using actor-network theory to analyze E-government implementation in developing countries. Information Technologies & International Development, 3, 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1162/itid.2007.3.3.35

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and an action research program. Occasional Paper, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tursunbayeva, A., Franco, M., & Pagliari, C. (2017). Use of social media for e-Government in the public health sector: A systematic review of published studies. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1995.9

  • Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects. In Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 466–480). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. S., & Shih, Y. W. (2009). Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.07.001

  • Webster, F. (2006). Theories of the information society (1st ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, F. (2014). Theories of the information society (4th ed.). Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9, 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Leung & B. V. Street (Eds.), The Routledge companion to english studies (pp. 332–346). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yazan, B. (2015). The qualitative report three approaches to case study methods in education. Yin, Merriam, and Stake.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz, M., & Saylam, A. (2013). E-government discourses: An inductive analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hertie School Centre for Digital Governance, Berlin, Germany

    Keegan McBride

  2. ITMO University Centre for e-Government Technologies, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Keegan McBride & Yuri Misnikov

  3. Information Systems Group, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Dirk Draheim

Authors
  1. Keegan McBride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuri Misnikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dirk Draheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keegan McBride .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Aegean, Samos, Greece

    Yannis Charalabidis

  2. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Leif Skiftenes Flak

  3. Danube University Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria

    Gabriela Viale Pereira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McBride, K., Misnikov, Y., Draheim, D. (2022). Discussing the Foundations for Interpretivist Digital Government Research. In: Charalabidis, Y., Flak, L.S., Viale Pereira, G. (eds) Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 38. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92945-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation