Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Three‐Stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use in Government

Open access
Mergel, Ines, Bretschneider, Stuart I.·2013·Public Administration Review
DOI 10.1111/puar.12021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social media applications are slowly diffusing across all levels of government. The organizational dynamics underlying adoption and use decisions follow a process similar to that for previous waves of new information and communication technologies. The authors suggest that the organizational diffusion of these types of new information and communication technologies, initially aimed at individual use and available through markets, including social media applications, follows a three‐stage process. First, agencies experiment informally with social media outside of accepted technology use policies. Next, order evolves from the first chaotic stage as government organizations recognize the need to draft norms and regulations. Finally, organizational institutions evolve that clearly outline appropriate behavior, types of interactions, and new modes of communication that subsequently are formalized in social media strategies and policies. For each of the stages, the authors provide examples and a set of propositions to guide future research.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/puar.12021

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1108/17506161211214831 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/0040-1625(94)90001-9 · DOI
  3. Bretschneider Stuart I., 2010, The State of Public Administration: Issues, Problems and Challenges, 187
  4. 10.1287/isre.4.1.88 · DOI
  5. Caves Richard E., 1998, Industrial Organization and New Findings on Turnover and Mobility of Firms, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 1947
  6. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1145/32206.32213 · DOI
  8. 10.2307/249095 · DOI
  9. 10.1287/mnsc.24.10.1064 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Fountain Jane E., 2001, Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change
  11. Garson G. David, 2006, Public Information Technology and E‐Governance: Managing the Virtual State
  12. Godwin Bev, 2008, Social Media and the Federal Government: Perceived and Real Barriers and Potential Solutions
  13. 10.1177/1532673X9702500405 · DOI
  14. 10.1287/orsc.6.4.373 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1093/jopart/mug033 · DOI
  16. 10.1145/2037556.2037574 · DOI
  17. 10.1145/358189.358074 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Kraemer Kenneth, 2003, Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will the Time after E‐Government Be Different? Paper presented at the Heinrich Reinermann Schrift Fest, Post Graduate School of Administration, September 29
  19. 10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1080/19331681.2011.536416 · DOI
  21. 10.2307/248873 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Mergel Ines, 2011, of Public Administration, Public Management, and Public Service around the World, edited by Rosemary O'Leary, Soonhee Kim, and David Van Slyke, 177
  23. Mergel Ines, 2012, Social Media in the Public Sector: Participation, Collaboration, and Transparency in the Networked World
  24. Mergel Ines, 2012, Working the Nework: A Manager's Guide for Using Twitter in the Public Sector
  25. Neil Suzanne, 1995, edited by Brian Kahin and Janet Abbate, 276
  26. 10.1145/362280.362284 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Noveck Beth Simone, 2009, Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful
  28. O'Reilly Tim.2005.What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. September 30.http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html[accessed January 20 2013].
  29. Oxley Alan, 2011, A Best Practices Guide for Mitigating Risk in the Use of Social Media
  30. Rogers Everett M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations
  31. Rogers Everett M., 1981, Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research
  32. Rogers Everett M., 1971, Communication of Innovations: A Cross‐Cultural Approach
  33. Schumpeter Joseph A., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle
  34. Smith Aaron, 2009, The Internet's Role in the Campaign 2008
  35. 10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.2307/249575 · DOI
  37. 2011, Challenges in Federal Agencies’ Use of Web 2.0 Technologies
  38. 10.1145/2307729.2307745 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00256-1 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1177/1075547095016003002 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1016/j.chb.2004.06.005 · DOI
  42. Wyld David C., 2007, The Blogging Revolution: Government in the Age of Web 2.0

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mergel, I., & Bretschneider, S. I.
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-05
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
390-400
ISSN
  • 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-6210
DOI
10.1111/puar.12021
OpenAlex
W2093234229
Cited by
411
References
3
FWCI
207.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.