Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Collnet seoul-2013-2


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Collnet seoul-2013-2

  1. 1. Social Media Use in Public Sector: A comparative study of Korean and US government agencies Authors: Gohar Feroz Khan, Ho Young Yoon, Han Woo Park Presenter: Gohar Feroz Khan School of Industrial Management Korea University of Technology & Education (KoreaTECH), 1600 Chungjol-ro Byungcheon-myun Cheonan city, 330-708, South Korea / for: ATHS panel during the 8th International Conference on Webometrics,Informatics and Scientometrics & 13th COLLNET Meeting, 23-26 October 2012,Seoul,South Korea
  2. 2. Table of ContentsIntroduction Web 2.0 & Social Media S-governmentCultural PerspectiveResearch QuestionMethodResultsDiscussion
  3. 3. IntroductionSocial Media Based on Web 2.0 ConceptHelps to maintain social and professional ties e.g., Facebook and LinkedIn facilitate knowledge sharing e.g., Wikipedia and blogs create awareness e.g., Twitter
  4. 4. Social Media & Web 2.0One way Web 1.0communication All SNS Web 2.0 are webEnforce Two waycommunication 2.0, but not Social Media all web 2.0 are SNS!Enforce social context SNS, blogs, wikis (Khan, working paper)
  5. 5. ICT based government full picturePaper-Based Traditional GovernmentStatic ICTs & Web E-Government1.0 Based Mobile ICTs BasedWeb 2.0 & SocialMedia Based Government 2.0 S-government M- governmentKhan, working paper
  6. 6. Why S-government? Participative Greater S-government Collaborative Transparency Low Cost/ Convenience
  7. 7. Social Government studiesMany studies in mono-cultural settings the U.S. (Golbeck et al., 2010; Whalen, 2012) Korea (Cho & Park, 2012) and the Netherlands (Effing et al., 2011) But, limited studies in cross-cultural settings
  8. 8. Cultural DimensionsCross-cultural use of social media in public sector Collectivist V.S Individualistic (Hofstede, 1984) use of social mediaSocial Media use patterns and strategies in East V.S West?
  9. 9. Korea V.S. the USAKorea is a hierarchical, collectivistic, and feminine society that avoids uncertainty and emphasizes collectivismthe U.S. is a non-hierarchical, individualistic, and masculine society that accepts uncertainty and emphasizes individualism
  10. 10. Research Questions (RQs) What is the nature of social media use in the public sector in Western (USA) and Asian (Korean) cultures? What are the social media strategies of government agencies in Western (USA) and Asian (Korean) cultures?
  11. 11. MethodData We obtained the data (Tweets) from Twitter accounts maintained by government agencies in Korea (40 agencies) and the U.S. (32 agencies). We collected the data between February and August 2011 Tweets Profile information (the numbers of followings, followers, lists, and Tweets)
  12. 12. MethodAnalysis Webometrics and Social Network Analysis Key word analysis Out-link analysisTools Webometrics Analyst NodeXL
  13. 13. Results Follow-Following Network Social media are not yet a preferred medium of inter- country communicationsFigure 1: Follow-following network diagram of Korean and US public sector organizations
  14. 14. ResultsFollow-Following Network PropertiesTable 1. Network Level Properties of Korean Twitter Networks No. of No. of Density Average Average Average Clustering Nodes Links Geodesic Degree Centrality Coefficient Distance 40 1348 0.86 1.0 33 3.6 0.86Table 2. Network Level Properties of US Twitter Networks No. of No. of Density Average Average Average Clustering Nodes Links Geodesic Degree Centrality Coefficient Distance 32 255 0.26 1.45 7.9 12 0.50
  15. 15. Table 3. Correlation analysis Correlations USA Korea (1) Followings-followers -0.104 0.996** Korean government institutions (2) Followings-tweets 0.07 0.356* strategically pursued reciprocal (3) Followers-tweets 0.524** 0.339* relationships with their followers (4) Followings-listed -0.097 0.865** (5) Followers-listed 0.956** 0.877** (6) Tweets-listed 699** 0.202 Followings-Favorites 0.348 0.204 Followers-Favorites -0.111 0.183 Tweets-Favorites 0.37 0.245 Listed-Favorites -0.094 0.069 Descriptive Statistics Reciprocity Ratio 3.96% 80.98%*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
  16. 16. Out-links-Korea Figure 2. Outlink diagram (Korean)
  17. 17. Out-links-USA
  18. 18. Keywords shared by ministries (USA)
  19. 19. Keywords shared by ministries(Korea)
  20. 20. ConclusionDifferent usage patterns observed in Collectivist V.S Individualistic settingsKorean ministries Well connected Re-enforce collective agenda E.g. through re-tweeting common contents Avoid uncertainty E.g. mostly link government sources of information Return Favor E.g. if you follow me, I will follow you
  21. 21. ConclusionUS Ministries Sparsely connected Individualist Use e.g. retweeted messages that specifically fit the purpose of each department Embrace uncertainty e.g. Link private sources of information to inform the public of its activities Do not Return Favor e.g. if you follow me, I may not follow you
  22. 22. ConclusionOther findings Interactions based on social media in the public sector appear to be informational in nature • e.g. social media is used to provide links to other sources of information, including news sites, blogs, and government websites, and to raise awareness of public policies. However, future research should investigate the potential use of social media beyond its informational use (e.g., for transactions).
  23. 23. Thank You (Manana)Comments & suggestions are welcomed
  24. 24. References Cho, S. and H. Park (2012). "Government organizations’ innovative use of the Internet: The case of the Twitter activity of South Korea’s Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries." Scientometrics 90(1): 1-15. Effing, R., J. van Hillegersberg, et al. (2011). Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems? Electronic Participation. E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh and H. de Bruijn, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. 6847: 25-35. Golbeck, J., J. M. Grimes, et al. (2010). "Twitter use by the U.S. Congress." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(8): 1612-1621. Khan, G.F, working paper. Govt. 2.0 explained: implementation scenarios, model, relationships, and more. Whalen, R. (2012). Organizational Structure as a Multiplex Network: The case of the US federal government. International Communication Association (ICA)-2012 Communication and Community. Phoenix, AZ.