Advertisement

New Internet-Based Relationships Between Citizens and Governments in the Public Space: Challenges for an Integrated System Design

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)

Abstract

This paper deals with the recent phenomenon of original and official data about the activity of governments and public administrations distributed through the Internet by private subjects. In this paper, adopting a design research approach, we discuss four recent cases and the software artifacts that were used in them. The aim of the paper is that of deriving a descriptive design theory for a software artifact for improving citizens’ capacity to act in the public space.

Keywords

Transparency Internet Explanatory design theory Government Public administrations Citizens E-participation 

References

  1. 1.
    InternetWorldStats. (2001). Internet usage statistics the internet big picture. Retrieved Dec 22, 2011 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
  2. 2.
    Kaufmann, D., & Bellver, A. (2005). Transparenting transparency: initial empirics and policy applications. Working Paper Series, The World Bank. Retrieved Dec 22, 2011 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=808664.
  3. 3.
    Gant, D. B., Gant, J. P., & Johnson, C. L. (2002). Enhancing E-Service delivery state web portals: Delivering and financing E-Service. Technical Report. PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/state-web-portals-delivering-and-financing-e-service
  4. 4.
    Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    United Nations, & American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). (2002). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective. New York, NY: U. N. Publications.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Federici, T., & Braccini, A. M. (2012). How internet is upsetting the communication between organizations and their stakeholders: A research agenda. In: M. De Marco, D. Te’eni, V. Albano, S. Za (Eds.), Information systems: crossroads for organization, management, accounting and engineering. Springer: Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walls, J. G., Widermeyer, G. R., & Sawy, O. A. E. (2004). Assessing information system design theory in perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), 43.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baskerville, R. L., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2(5), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Federici, T., & Braccini, A. M. (2012). Internet, citizens, and public organizations: The power of service providers in fostering or hampering transparency. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Information Systems, Berlin, Germany, March 10–12.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35–42.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origin and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 67–93.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hung, H. (1998). A typology of the theories of the roles of governing boards. Corporate Governance, 6(2), 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs, and ownership structures. Journal of Finance and Economics, 3, 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Governo Italiano: Il Governo Informa (2011). Retrieved Jan 19, 2012 from http://www.governo.it/Presidenza/Comunicati/dettaglio.asp?d=61569.
  26. 26.
    DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bower, J., & Christensen, C. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 7(1), 43–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Economia e ImpresaUniversità degli Studi della TusciaViterboItaly

Personalised recommendations