Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
International Collaboration within Electronic Government Research Domain: A Scientometrics AnalysisPrepared for: 2011 KAPA...
E-government Research Domain<br />Studies have focused on the e-government (EG) research domain in general (Heeks & Bailur...
E-government Research Domain<br />Focused on:<br />Methods and problems related to the area<br />Policy lessons<br />EG re...
Problem<br />Crucial, but they shed no light on the hidden structures and properties of EG domain:<br />Key players and th...
Why? & What?<br />They use systematic literature review (SLR) method (Kitchenham, 2004).<br />Helpful in understanding gen...
Research Questions (RQ)<br />RQ1:  What is pattern and network structure of collaboration at the institutional, country, a...
Data<br />Papers (e.g., journal articles and conference proceedings)  published(2000-2011) in SCI, SCI-E, SSCI, and A&HCI ...
Method continue… <br />To analyze UIG relationships, we divided authors' affiliated institutions into three categories: “u...
Method Continue…<br />SNA Analysis<br />To understand Hidden structures & properties<br />NetDraw 2.097 (Borgatti, 2002)<b...
Method continue…TH model<br />T-values<br />Fig. 1 TH model<br />We used co-authorship data to measure T-values:<br /> T(i...
Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Figure 2: The co-authorship network of countries <br />
Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Table 1 Key players (countries) in terms of network centrality<br />...
Results: Country Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Table 2 Network-level characteristics of the co-authorship network a...
Results: Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Figure 4 Institution-level network in the EG research domain (on...
Results:  Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Table 3 Network characteristics of the institution-level networ...
Results: Regional Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Figure 5 The EG research domain: The regional collaboration network...
Results:UIG relations & TH indicators (RQ3)<br />Figure 6Number of solo and coauthored papers by TH component<br />
Results:UIG relations &TH indicators (RQ3)<br />Figure 7Longitudinal trends in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationsh...
Discussion<br /><ul><li>Country-Level networks</li></ul>Developed countries lead with a well establish collaboration netwo...
Discussion<br />We suggest use of a Hybrid index: an index that consider implementation vs. publication capabilities of na...
Discussion<br />Region-Level Networks<br />Network not balance in terms of strength & pattern of ties<br />Developing coun...
Discussion<br />Institution-Level Analysis<br />U.S. institutions dominated EG research<br />However, there were internati...
Discussion<br />TH Indicators: UIG Relationships<br />Lack of strong bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in the EG ...
Limitations<br />Generalization maybe in issue.<br />Only analyzed ISI based publications<br />We did not considered non-i...
Thank You (Manana)<br />Comments & Questions are welcomed<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

KAPA_2011_Seoul_Conference_Khan & Park

368

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
368
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "KAPA_2011_Seoul_Conference_Khan & Park"

  1. 1. International Collaboration within Electronic Government Research Domain: A Scientometrics AnalysisPrepared for: 2011 KAPA-ASPA International Conference, October 28-29, 2011, Seoul Korea <br />Gohar Feroz Khan & Han Woo Park<br />Department of Media and Communication, YeungNam University, Republic of Korea (gohar.feroz@gmail.com; hanpark@ynu.ac.kr)<br />Note: This study is partially support by the SSK Program (National Research Foundation of Korea; NRF-2010-330-B00232). And an improved version of this paper is currently under review (1st round) in the GIQ journal.<br />
  2. 2. E-government Research Domain<br />Studies have focused on the e-government (EG) research domain in general (Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Yildiz, 2007) or specific topics: <br />Provided region-specific analyses (Khan, et al., 2011)<br />E-participation (Sæbo, et al., 2008)<br /> E-government models (Andersen & Henriksen, 2006)<br />Digital divide (Helbig, et al., 2009)<br />E-government design science (Fedorowicz & Dias, 2010), <br />Information sharing in public sector (Yang & Maxwell, 2011)<br />Aging populations (Niehaves, 2011), and <br /> Theoretical constructs used in EG research domain (Khan, et al., in press)<br />
  3. 3. E-government Research Domain<br />Focused on:<br />Methods and problems related to the area<br />Policy lessons<br />EG research communities, or <br />Socio-cultural issues related to the EG research domain<br />
  4. 4. Problem<br />Crucial, but they shed no light on the hidden structures and properties of EG domain:<br />Key players and their connectivity patterns; <br />Characteristics of scientific collaboration networks (e.g., degree centrality, density, and clusters); and <br />Collaboration at the institutional level have not been analyzed and synthesized adequately<br />
  5. 5. Why? & What?<br />They use systematic literature review (SLR) method (Kitchenham, 2004).<br />Helpful in understanding general facts<br />May lead to Type 1 and Type 2 errors<br />Limited in revealing certain hidden structures and network properties <br />Need for a Social Network Approach (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and <br />TH indicators (Leydesdorff, 2003). <br />
  6. 6. Research Questions (RQ)<br />RQ1: What is pattern and network structure of collaboration at the institutional, country, and regional levels in the network of EG knowledge production?<br />RQ2: Based on network characteristics, who are the key players (i.e., institutions, countries, and regions) contributing to the network of EG knowledge production?<br />RQ3: How strong/weak are the university-industry-government relationships in the network of EG knowledge production? <br />
  7. 7. Data<br />Papers (e.g., journal articles and conference proceedings) published(2000-2011) in SCI, SCI-E, SSCI, and A&HCI journals from the Web of Science database.<br />Had a least one keyword: <br />e-government, electronic government, paperless government, online government, web-based government, e-governance, electronic governance, and online governance. <br />Papers appeared in 310 outlets <br />
  8. 8. Method continue… <br />To analyze UIG relationships, we divided authors' affiliated institutions into three categories: “university” (U), “industry” (I), and “government” (G). <br />For example, a paper authored by a single university-based researcher or that coauthored by university-based researchers was classified as “U,” and a paper authored by at least one university-based researcher and one industry-based researcher was classified as “UI.” <br />
  9. 9. Method Continue…<br />SNA Analysis<br />To understand Hidden structures & properties<br />NetDraw 2.097 (Borgatti, 2002)<br />UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002), &<br />NetMiner 3.3.0 (Cyram, 2008)<br />Triple Helix Model & its Indicators<br />To understand the UIG relations (Leydesdorff, 2003). <br />
  10. 10. Method continue…TH model<br />T-values<br />Fig. 1 TH model<br />We used co-authorship data to measure T-values:<br /> T(ig) = Hi + Hg –Hig. (1)<br />T(uig) = Hu + Hi + Hg –Hui –Hig –Hug + Huig. (2)<br />For example: <br />Negative three dimensional T-values (i.e., uig) indicates a decrease in uncertainty and Indicate synergy in the UIG relations<br />
  11. 11. Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Figure 2: The co-authorship network of countries <br />
  12. 12. Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Table 1 Key players (countries) in terms of network centrality<br />Figure 3: The co-authorship network of countries: Centrality <br />
  13. 13. Results: Country Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Table 2 Network-level characteristics of the co-authorship network at the country level<br />
  14. 14. Results: Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Figure 4 Institution-level network in the EG research domain (only those institutions with at least three links are shown) <br />
  15. 15. Results: Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Table 3 Network characteristics of the institution-level network<br />
  16. 16. Results: Regional Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)<br />Figure 5 The EG research domain: The regional collaboration network <br />
  17. 17. Results:UIG relations & TH indicators (RQ3)<br />Figure 6Number of solo and coauthored papers by TH component<br />
  18. 18. Results:UIG relations &TH indicators (RQ3)<br />Figure 7Longitudinal trends in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in the EG research domain<br />
  19. 19. Discussion<br /><ul><li>Country-Level networks</li></ul>Developed countries lead with a well establish collaboration network<br />Developing country participation is solo & marginal<br />Except some emerging economies<br />Singapore, China<br />Anomalies in the publication vs. implementation ability<br />e.g. Korea world leader in e-government (UN, 2010), but publish limited research (in English)<br />China good in publication, but bad in implementation<br />
  20. 20. Discussion<br />We suggest use of a Hybrid index: an index that consider implementation vs. publication capabilities of nations<br />A hybrid index can be constructed, which may allow for a better comparison between the actual ability to implement technologies (or systems) and the theoretical ability (e.g. to publish papers) in various fields. <br />
  21. 21. Discussion<br />Region-Level Networks<br />Network not balance in terms of strength & pattern of ties<br />Developing countries preferred research ties with developed countries to those with other developing countries.<br />Such ties may be useful for knowledge transfer from developed countries to developing countries, but the lack of vertical and horizontal ties among developing countries is alarming.<br />Limit the transfer of knowledge and experience between developing countries during the implementation of EG systems.<br />
  22. 22. Discussion<br />Institution-Level Analysis<br />U.S. institutions dominated EG research<br />However, there were international, cross-regional, and institution-wide clusters of institutions, and most clusters were tightly integrated. <br />Each cluster had a key institution <br />In some cases the key institutions belings to different region!<br />Not balanced in terms of UIG relations<br />
  23. 23. Discussion<br />TH Indicators: UIG Relationships<br />Lack of strong bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in the EG research domain<br />Good UIG relationships are crucial for any knowledge-based innovation systems (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2003)<br />However, the UG relationship was stronger than the UI, IG, and UIG relationships.<br />
  24. 24. Limitations<br />Generalization maybe in issue.<br />Only analyzed ISI based publications<br />We did not considered non-indexed outlets (mini tracks, conferences, journals, case studies, etc).<br /> Invisible e-government research e.g. applied research, confidential or politically sensitivity studies not published in scientific outlets is excluded.<br />Some keywords used in parts of world were missed<br />digital government, transformative or t-government, and informatization<br />
  25. 25. Thank You (Manana)<br />Comments & Questions are welcomed<br />
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×