CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25E-Government and Public ServicesSmart Cities and TechnologiesWeb and Library Services

Application of Web 2.0 Technologies in E-Government: A United Kingdom Case Study

Open access
Sivarajah, Uthayasankar, Irani, Zahir, Jones, Stephen·2014·2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
DOI 10.1109/hicss.2014.280
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Electronic government (e-Government) has endured significant transformation over the last decade and currently, it is making further leaps by incorporating modern technologies such as second generation web (Web 2.0) technologies. However, since the development and use of this kind of technology is still at its early stages in the public sector, research about the use of Web 2.0 in this domain is still highly tentative and lacks theoretical underpinning. This paper reports the preliminary findings of an in-depth case study in the United Kingdom (UK) public sector, which explore the application of Web 2.0 technologies in the local government authority (LGA). The findings elicited from the case study offer an insight into information systems (IS) evaluation criterions and impact factors of Web 2.0 from both a practical setting and an internal organisational perspective. This paper concludes that a combined analysis of the evaluation and impact factors rather than a singular approach would better assist the decision making process that leads to effective application of Web 2.0 technologies. It also highlights the significant impact and perceived effect of adoption of such technologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/hicss.2014.280

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data ownership presents a critical and continuing challenge, specifically in the social media context.

    “Kaisler et al. (2013) also claim that data ownership presents a critical and continuing challenge, specifically in the social media context such as who owns the data on Facebook, Twitter or MySpaceare the users who update their status or tweet or have any account in these social networks (Sivarajah et al., 2015;Sivarajah, Irani, & Jones, 2014).”

    From Critical analysis of Big Data challenges and analytical methods (2017) · cites this paper as Sivarajah, Irani, & Jones, 2014

    Section 6.2.3 (page unavailable) describes controlling intellectual property over information shared through Web 2.0 as a significant challenge, which supports the general concern about data ownership. It does not address who owns users’ posts on Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace, or characterize that question as a continuing challenge. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Z. Irani, Y.K. Dwivedi and M.D. Williams, "Understanding consumer adoption of broadband: an extension of the technology acceptance model", J.Oper.Res.Soc., 60(10), 2009, pp. 1322-1334.
  2. V. Weerakkody, Y.K. Dwivedi, L. Brooks, M.D. Williams and A. Mwange, "E-government implementation in Zambia: contributing factors", International Journal of Electronic Government, 4(4), 2007, pp. 484-503.
  3. T. O'Reilly, "What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software", International Journal of Digital Economics, 65, 2007, pp. 17-37.
  4. S. Wattal, D. Schuff, M. Mandviwalla and C. Williams, "Web 2.0 and politics: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and an e-politics research agenda", MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 2010, pp. 669-688.
  5. S. Anfinnsen, G. Ghinea and S. de Cesare, "Web 2.0 and folksonomies in a library context", International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 2011, pp. 63-70.
  6. H. Ajjan and R. Hartshorne, "Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests", The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 2008, pp. 71-80.
  7. P. Drogkaris, S. Gritzalis and C. Lambrinoudakis, "Transforming the Greek e-government environment towards the e-Gov 2.0 era", 2010, pp. 142-149.
  8. D. de Kool and J. van Wamelen, "Web 2.0: A New Basis for E-Government?", Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008. 3rd International Conference on, 2008, pp. 1-7.
  9. M. Dadashzadeh, "Social Media In Government: From eGovernment To eGovernance", Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 8(11), 2010,.
  10. B.E. Dixon, "Towards E-Government 2.0: An Assessment of Where E-Government 2.0 is and Where It Is Headed", Public Administration and Management, 15(2), 2010, pp. 418-454.
  11. S. Aghaei, M.A. Nematbakhsh and H.K. Farsani, "Evolution Of The World Wide Web: From Web 1.0 To Web 4.0", International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology, 3(1), 2012, pp. 1-10.
  12. A. Kambil, "What is your Web 5.0 strategy?", J.Bus.Strategy, 29(6), 2008, pp. 56-58.
  13. Z. Irani and P.E.D. Love, "Information systems evaluation: A crisis of understanding", 2008, pp. 20.
  14. D. Mintz, "Government 2.0-Fact or Fiction?", Public Manager, 36(4), 2008, pp. 21-21-24.
  15. D. Wilson W., X. Lin, P. Longstreet and S. Sarker, "Web 2.0: A Definition, Literature Review, and Directions for Future Research", 2011, pp. 368.
  16. P. Atkinson and M. Hammersley, "Ethnography and participant observation", 1994, pp. 248-261.
  17. M.D. Myers, "Qualitative Research in Information Systems", MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 1997, pp. pp. 241-242.
  18. A. Molla, R. Heeks and I. Balcells, "Adding Clicks To Bricks: A Case Study Of E-Commerce Adoption By A Catalan Small Retailer", European Journal Of Information Systems, 15(4), 2006, pp. 424-438.
  19. T.D. Jick, "Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action", Adm.Sci.Q., 24(4), 1979, pp. 602-611.
  20. S.L. Pan and B. Tan, "Demystifying case research: A structured-pragmatic-situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies", Information and Organization, 21(3), 2011, pp. 161-176.
  21. C. Urquhart, "Qualitative research in IS",(An encounter with grounded theory: tackling the practical and philosophical issues), 2001, pp. 104-140.
  22. M.P. Gupta and D. Jana, "E-government evaluation: a framework and case study", Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 2003, pp. 365-387.
  23. Z. Irani and P.E.D. Love, "The Propagation of Technology Management Taxonomies for Evaluating Investments in Information Systems", J.Manage.Inf.Syst., 17(3), 2001, pp. 161-177.
  24. S. Shang and P.B. Seddon, "Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective", Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 2002, pp. 271-299.
  25. A. Evangelidis, "FRAMES -A Risk Assessment Framework for e-Services", Electronic Journal of e- Government, 2(1), 2004, pp. 21-30.
  26. P. Schwartz, "When good companies do bad things", Strategy & Leadership, 28(3), 2000, pp. 4-11.
  27. E. Buchanan and E. Luck, "The electronic village: The digital challenges in communication strategies for sporting organization", International Journal of Business Environment, 2(2), 2008, pp. 258-279.
  28. B. Hochstrasser, "Justifying IT investments", Conference Proceedings: Advanced Information Systems; The New Technologies in Today's Business Environment, 1992, pp. 17-28.
  29. J.C. Bertot, P.T. Jaeger and D. Hansen, "The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations", Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 2012, pp. 30-40.
  30. A. Bin Al-Tameem, P. Chittikala and P. Pichappan, "A study of AJAX vulnerability in Web 2.0 applications", Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies, 2008. ICADIWT 2008. First International Conference on the, 2008, pp. 63-67.
  31. P. DiMaggio, E. Hargittai, W.R. Neuman and J.P. Robinson, "Social Implications of the Internet", Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 2001, pp. pp. 307-336.
  32. W.H. Delone and E.R. McLean, "The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update", J.Manage.Inf.Syst., 19(4), 2003, pp. 9-30.
  33. C.M. Schweik, I. Mergel, J.R. Sandfort and Z.J. Zhao, "Toward Open Public Administration Scholarship", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 1), 2011, pp. i175-i198.
  34. P. Parycek and M. Sachs, "Open Government - Information Flow in Web 2.0", European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 2010, pp. 1-70.
  35. B.L. Myers, L.A. Kappelman and V.R. Prybutok, "A comprehensive model for assessing the quality and productivity of the information system function: towards a theory for information systems assessment", Information Resources Management Journal, 10(1), 1997, pp. 6-25.
  36. H. Chen, S. Thoms and T. Fu, "Cyber extremism in Web 2.0: An exploratory study of international Jihadist groups", Intelligence and Security Informatics, 2008. ISI 2008. IEEE International Conference on, 2008, pp. 98-103.
  37. A. Meijer and M. Thaens, "Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government", Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 2010, pp. 113-121.
  38. S. Grabner-Krauter, "Web 2.0 Social Networks: The Role of Trust", Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 2009, pp. 505-522.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., & Jones, S.
Affiliations
  • Brunel University of London (GB)
  • Cork County Council (IE)
ORCID
Venue
2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2014-01
Volume
2
Pages
2221-2230
ISSN
1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/hicss.2014.280
OpenAlex
W2169273389
Cited by
25
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
52.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Smart Cities and Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
Keywords
Web 2.0, e-government, local government, government information systems, technology adoption, impact factor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review