The IFIP’s EGOV 2012 Conference, Kristiansand, Norway, 3-7 September 2012

1. The Current State of Research on
eGovernment in Developing Countries:
A Literature Review
Fathul Wahid
Department of Information Systems, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway and
Department of Informatics, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
fathul.wahid@uia.no
Presented at IFIP EGOV 2012
University of Agder, Norway, September 2-6, 2012

2. Introduction
• Heeks and Bailur (2007): 2001-2005 (84 papers)
• Several interesting findings:
• No papers adopted interpretive paradigm
• Only one paper used theory
• More than one-quarter papers had no discernable research method
• Good practices were also identified:
• Use of a diverse range of ideas from other research domains
• Use of a range of different research methods
• Broad use of primary data
• Research questions:
1. What is the current state of research on eGovernment in the context of
developing countries?
2. What substantive changes we can observe from the development of
eGovernment research in the period of 2005-10?
2

3. Selection of literature
• Limits to prominent journals and or conference proceedings
portals:
• (1) ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com), (2) Ebsco
(http://www.ebscohost.com), (3) IEEE XPlore (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org),
(4) ACM Digital Library (http://portal.acm.org), (5) SpringerLink
(http://www.springerlink.com) plus (6) The Electronic Journal of Information
System in Developing Countries (http://www.ejisdc.org)
• Focuses on state of the eGovernment research in
developing countries
• Uses three combinations of keywords
• electronic government and developing country; eGovernment and developing
country; digital government and developing country
3

4. Literature in the pool
• 108 papers
• 39 journal + 69 conference papers
• 95 empirical + 13 conceptual papers
• 2005: 7; 2006: 8; 2007: 19; 2008: 23; 2009: 35; 2010: 16 papers
• Countries reported in the papers
• India (11 papers); South Africa (7); China, Kenya, Nigeria (6);
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Jordan (5); Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka (4); Argentina,Brazil, Egypt, Iran (3); Turkey, Colombia, Ghana,
Thailand, Uganda (2); Cape Verde, Chile, Ethiopia, Jamaica,
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia,
Mozambique, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia,
Taiwan, Tanzania, UAE, Uzbekistan, Zambia (1)
4

5. Method of analysis (1)
• Research paradigm: (1) positivist; (2) interpretive;
(3) critical (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004; Myers, 1997)
• Methodology:
• Research method: (1) survey; (2) case study; (3) experiment;
(4) action research (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004)
• Data collection method: (1) questionnaire; (2) interview;
(3) reflection on project experience; (4) document analysis;
(5) literature review; (6) observation; (7) web content analysis;
(8) hunt and peck (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)
5

6. Method of analysis (2)
• Knowledge framework: (1) theory-based; (2) framework-
based; (3) model-based; (4) schema-based; (5) concept-
based; (6) category-based (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)
• Application: (1) eAdministration; (2) eService; (3) eSociety;
(4) general eGovernment (Heeks, 2002)
• Focus of research: (1) techno-centric/online service
delivery; (2) government-centric/organizational change;
(3) citizen-centric/better government (Grönlund, 2010; Sahroui, 2007)
6

7. Findings: research paradigm
Research paradigm Frequency Percentage
Positivist 46 42.6
Interpretive 26 24.1
Critical 3 2.8
Other 33 30.6
7

8. Findings: research method
Research method Frequency Percentage
Survey 20 18.5
Case study 60 55.6
Experiment 1 0.9
Action research 3 2.8
Other 24 22.2
8

9. Findings: data collection method
Data collection method Frequency Percentage
Questionnaire 21 19.4
Interview 21 19.4
Reflection on project experience 16 14.8
Document analysis 11 10.2
Literature review 1 0.9
Web content analysis 6 5.6
Observation 0 0.0
Hunt and peck* 6 5.6
Mixed 8 7.4
No discernable method 18 16.7
9

10. Findings: area of application
Area of application Frequency Percentage
eAdministration 17 15.7
eServices 46 42.6
eSociety 10 9.3
eGovernment (in general) 35 32.4
10

11. Findings: knowledge framework
Knowledge framework Frequency Percentage
Theory-based 16 14.8
Framework-based 8 7.4
Model-based 9 8.3
Schema-based 7 6.5
Concept-based 40 37.0
Category-based 15 13.9
Non-framework-based 13 12.0
11

12. Findings: research focus
Focus of research Frequency Percentage
Techno-centric/online service delivery 57 52.8
Government-centric/organizational change 27 25.0
Citizen-centric/better government 24 22.2
12

13. Example of eGovernment definitions
• “a web-based project to enhance communication between the
government and citizens, business partners, employees and other
agencies, and information publication from the authority” (Li, 2009)
• “a way of organizing public management in order to increase
efficiency, transparency, accessibility and responsiveness to
citizens through the intensive and strategic use of information and
communication technologies in the inner management of the
public sector (intra and inter governmental relations) as well as in
its daily relations with citizens and users of public services”
(Stanforth, 2007)
13

14. Comparisons: research paradigm
• Bases of comparisons: Heeks and Bailur (2007); Grönlund and
Andersson (2006); and Walsham and Sahay (2006)
• Previous study: most eGovernment research contained no clear
statement of research philosophy (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)
• This study: research paradigms of 30.6% of the papers were not
discernable
• Previous study: no single papers that adopted interpretive
paradigm (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)
• This study: 24.1% of the studies adopted this paradigm
• Previous study: a call for critical studies (Walsham and Sahay, 2006)
• This study: only few (2.8%) critical studies
14

15. Comparisons: research method
• Previous study: 23.8% papers did not reported their data
collection methods (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)
• This study: research methodology of 22.2% of the papers was
indiscernible; data collection methods of 18 (16.7%) papers were
also difficult to identify
• Previous studies: a call for more action research and
longitudinal studies (Walsham and Sahay, 2006); around 80.0% of the
papers reported cross-sectional research (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)
• This study: only six papers employed longitudinal studies and
three that reported action research
15

16. Comparisons: knowledge framework
• Previous study: only 1.2% theory-based studies out of 84 (Heeks
and Bailur, 2007)
• This study: 14.8% studies were theory-based
• Theories used: institutional theory, theory of development, actor
network theory, structuration theory, diffusion of innovation theory,
and intellectual capital theory
• The role of theories (Sahay and Walsham, 1995; Walsham, 2006)
1. A means for researchers to communicate with practitioners
2. A means for researchers to communicate with each other
3. A means for accumulation of knowledge
4. A means for legitimacy and recognition of the field as an academic discipline
5. To guide data collection and analysis
16

17. Comparison: research focus
• Previous study: eGovernment studies was increasingly
focusing on IT (Grönlund and Andersson, 2006)
• This study:
• significant recognition of human and other contextual factors in
addition to merely technical actor
• attention to various eGovernment applications (i.e., eAdministration,
eService, and eSociety).
17

18. Limitation
• Focusing on state of eGovernment research and not the
research issues/themes
• Possible bias due to limited number of the papers under
review
• Single coder
18

19. Future research directions
• Paying more attention to research paradigm and
methodology
• Preserving multiculturalism in eGovernment research, by
adopting appropriate research paradigms
• Encouraging action research and longitudinal studies
• Improving the research quality by bringing theories in
19

20. Comments and questions?
Fathul Wahid
fathul.wahid@uia.no
20