Qualitative Data Analysis of Issue Interrelations and Interdependencies for E-Government Research Planning

  • Maria A. Wimmer
  • Melanie Bicking
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5693)


Science and technology roadmapping is currently a popular method to develop long-term strategies for e-government. In the scope of the EC-co-funded research project eGovRTD2020, an innovative methodology has been developed, which combines scenarios and roadmapping to support long-term strategic policy-making for e-government research. This approach bases on systematically analyzing qualitative data throughout the whole roadmapping process based on individual issues and their interrelations. The paper explores the complex analysis of the network of relations and interdependencies between these issues. We introduce a concept for the systematic analysis of interlinks between single issues, which helps improving the quality of analysis and advances the consolidation of results to form well grounded strategic policy-making. A case example extracted from the project serves as proof of concept.


Qualitative data analysis roadmapping strategic policy planning e-government 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bicking, M., Bowern, M., Cook, M.: State-of-play in eGovernment research and implementation in Europe and worldwide. In: [3], pp. 37–56 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blaxter, M.: Criteria for evaluation of qualitative research. Medical Sociology News 22, 68–71 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Codagnone, C., Wimmer, M.A. (eds.): Roadmapping eGovernment Research: Visions and Measures towards Innovative Governments in 2020. MY Print snc di Guerinoni Marco & C, Clusone (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Klerk, P.: Transparency, Confidence-Building and Verification and the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy. In: International Topical Workshop on Proliferation-Resistance in Innovative Reactors and Fuel Cycles, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) & LNCV, Como, July 2-6 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Firth, L., Mellor, D., Pang, J.: Qualitative research across cultures: data quality issues. In: Qualitative market research: approaches and applications, pp. 127–140. Icfai University Press, Hyderabad (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huntingford, J., Frosini, P.: Knowledge and Innovation for Regional Growth. Recommendations based on European good Practices. ERIK (European Regions Knowledge based Innovation) Network 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janssen, M., Wimmer, M.A., Bicking, M., Wagenaar, R.W.: Scenarios of governments in 2020. In: [3], pp. 55–84 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lenk, K., Traunmüller, R.: Öffentliche Verwaltung und Informationstechnik - Perspektiven einer radikalen Neugestaltung der öffentlichen Verwaltung mit Informationstechnik. R.v.Decker’s Verlag, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], vol. 2 (June 2000), (Date of access: May 9, 2008)
  11. 11.
    Pucihar, A., Bogataj, K., Wimmer, M.A.: Gap analysis methodology for identifying future ICT related eGovernment research topics - case of ontology and semantic web in the context of eGovernment. In: Markus, M.L., Hampe, J.F., Gricar, J., Pucihar, A., Lenart, G. (eds.) Proceedings of 20th Bled eConference eMergence: Merging and Emerging Technologies, Processes, and Institutions, Digital Proceedings, (accessed: 5th June 2009)
  12. 12.
    Pucihar, A., Bogataj, K., Wimmer, M.A., Janssen, M., Malinauskiene, E., Bicking, M., Petrauskas, R., Klein, M., Ma, X., Amadori, G., Traunmüller, R.: Gap analysis: the process and gap storylines. In: [3], pp. 85–120 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reichertz, J.: Objective Hermeneutics and Hermeneutic Sociology of Knowledge. In: Flick, U., et al. (eds.) Companion to Qualitative Research. Sage, London (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steinke, I.: Kriterien qualitativer Forschung. Ansätze zur Bewertung qualitativ-empirischer Sozialforschung. Juventa, Weinheim (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.: Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 19, 418 et. seq. (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wimmer, M.A.: The Role of Research in Successful E-Government Implementation. In: Zechner, A. (ed.) E-Government Guide Germany. Strategies, Solutions and Efficiency, pp. 79–87. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wimmer, M.A., Stadach, M., Morland, P.: Glossary. In: Zechner, A. (ed.) E-Government Guide Germany. Strategies, Solutions and Efficiency, pp. 431–456. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria A. Wimmer
    • 1
  • Melanie Bicking
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Information SystemsUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations