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.
The Current State of Research oneGovernment in Developing Countries:A Literature ReviewFathul WahidDepartment of Informati...
Introduction•   Heeks and Bailur (2007): 2001-2005 (84 papers)    •   Several interesting findings:          •   No papers...
Selection of literature•   Limits to prominent journals and or conference proceedings    portals:    •   (1) ScienceDirect...
Literature in the pool•   108 papers    •   39 journal + 69 conference papers    •   95 empirical + 13 conceptual papers  ...
Method of analysis (1)•   Research paradigm: (1) positivist; (2) interpretive;    (3) critical (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004; M...
Method of analysis (2)•   Knowledge framework: (1) theory-based; (2) framework-    based; (3) model-based; (4) schema-base...
Findings: research paradigmResearch paradigm   Frequency   PercentagePositivist              46         42.6Interpretive  ...
Findings: research methodResearch method   Frequency   PercentageSurvey                20         18.5Case study          ...
Findings: data collection methodData collection method             Frequency   PercentageQuestionnaire                    ...
Findings: area of applicationArea of application        Frequency   PercentageeAdministration                17         15...
Findings: knowledge frameworkKnowledge framework   Frequency   PercentageTheory-based              16         14.8Framewor...
Findings: research focusFocus of research                          Frequency   PercentageTechno-centric/online service del...
Example of eGovernment definitions•   “a web-based project to enhance communication between the    government and citizens...
Comparisons: research paradigm•   Bases of comparisons: Heeks and Bailur (2007); Grönlund and    Andersson (2006); and Wal...
Comparisons: research method•   Previous study: 23.8% papers did not reported their data    collection methods (Heeks and ...
Comparisons: knowledge framework•   Previous study: only 1.2% theory-based studies out of 84 (Heeks    and Bailur, 2007)• ...
Comparison: research focus•   Previous study: eGovernment studies was increasingly    focusing on IT (Grönlund and Anderss...
Limitation•   Focusing on state of eGovernment research and not the    research issues/themes•   Possible bias due to limi...
Future research directions•   Paying more attention to research paradigm and    methodology•   Preserving multiculturalism...
Comments and questions?Fathul Wahidfathul.wahid@uia.no                          20
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Current State of Research on eGovernment in Developing Countries: A Literature Review

572 views

Published on

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

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Current State of Research on eGovernment in Developing Countries: A Literature Review

  1. 1. The Current State of Research oneGovernment in Developing Countries:A Literature ReviewFathul WahidDepartment of Information Systems, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway andDepartment of Informatics, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesiafathul.wahid@uia.noPresented at IFIP EGOV 2012University of Agder, Norway, September 2-6, 2012
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Findings: research paradigmResearch paradigm Frequency PercentagePositivist 46 42.6Interpretive 26 24.1Critical 3 2.8Other 33 30.6 7
  8. 8. Findings: research methodResearch method Frequency PercentageSurvey 20 18.5Case study 60 55.6Experiment 1 0.9Action research 3 2.8Other 24 22.2 8
  9. 9. Findings: data collection methodData collection method Frequency PercentageQuestionnaire 21 19.4Interview 21 19.4Reflection on project experience 16 14.8Document analysis 11 10.2Literature review 1 0.9Web content analysis 6 5.6Observation 0 0.0Hunt and peck* 6 5.6Mixed 8 7.4No discernable method 18 16.7 9
  10. 10. Findings: area of applicationArea of application Frequency PercentageeAdministration 17 15.7eServices 46 42.6eSociety 10 9.3eGovernment (in general) 35 32.4 10
  11. 11. Findings: knowledge frameworkKnowledge framework Frequency PercentageTheory-based 16 14.8Framework-based 8 7.4Model-based 9 8.3Schema-based 7 6.5Concept-based 40 37.0Category-based 15 13.9Non-framework-based 13 12.0 11
  12. 12. Findings: research focusFocus of research Frequency PercentageTechno-centric/online service delivery 57 52.8Government-centric/organizational change 27 25.0Citizen-centric/better government 24 22.2 12
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 20. Comments and questions?Fathul Wahidfathul.wahid@uia.no 20

×