“Different theory, different result? Examining how different theories

could lead to different conclusions in e-government 2.0 research”

IS 601 Term paper presentation

16. December 2009 Marius Johannessen

2

agenda

• Why this topic?

• Government 2.0

• Theories examined

• Causal structures

Why this topic/purpose of essay

• Explore how different theories fit with government 2.0 research

• introduce new theories to myself

• Examine consequences of theory use in research

• knowledge gathering

• types of knowledge varying between theories?

Government 2.0

• Emerged during Obama’s campaign

• Often used in blogs, media, government

• Not frequently used in research, but some references exist

• not about technology, but “the underlying concepts of listening, interacting and networking” (or a dozen other similar concepts)

• Possible definition:

• “the use of web 2.0 applications and concepts in government”

• But what kind of government?

Government 2.0

Government-to-Citizen (G2C); Citizen-to-Government (C2G); Government to- Business (G2B); Business-to-Government (B2G); Government-to-Government (G2G); Government-to-Nonprofit (G2N); Nonprofit to-Government (N2G); Government-to-Employee (G2E)

web 2.0

Theories examined – Organizational Culture

• Organizational culture seen as impacting ”everything”

• OCT in IS

• Org. culture impact on:

• Development, adoption, use,

management and strategy

• Knowledge management

• Knowledge sharing

Organizational Culture and gov2.0

• Examine how organizational culture in government institutions affects web 2.0

• resisting climate?

• Ready for necessary cultural changes?

• Should we introduce web 2.0, or is government culture too far from web 2.0

concepts?

• Tool for change management

• Define the cultural elements that needs to be in place for government 2.0 to

function properly

• The organizational cognition theme, where organizational culture is all about knowledge creation and gathering, could be applied to show government officials how web 2.0 can function as a Knowledge Management tool.

Theories examined – Diffusion of Innovation

• examines how innovations are distributed over time

• Adopters are usually grouped into the following five categories:

• innovators - venturesome, educated, multiple info sources

• early adopters - social leaders, popular, educated

• early majority - deliberate, many informal social contacts

• late majority - skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status

• laggards - neighbors and friends are main info sources, fear of debt

• DOI in IS:

• Lots and lots of adoption/acceptance studies

• Model creation and merging

Diffusion of Innovation and gov2.0

• more pragmatic approach than OCT/Social Capital.

• examine the system rather than the context.

• studies of willingness to adopt web 2.0 in government would provide interesting insights to the current situation in government and the public.

• A multi-model approach would perhaps provide more comprehensive knowledge of the various issues facing government when adopting web 2.0

Theories examined – Social Capital

• Civic virtues embedded in social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them

• A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital

• Social Capital in IS• Mainly two categories: impacts of IT on

accumulation and creation of social capital

• the role of Social Capital in the development and use of IT.

• Typical research topics: knowledge sharing, e-learning, and IT as a mediator in rural and geographically dispersed communities

Social Capital and gov2.0

• Social Capital can be used to examine societal factors related to adoption of web 2.0 (why should gov’t adopt web 2.0?)

• a tool for explaining why web 2.0 applications have become so popular in such a short amount of time.

• Mapping group characteristics and norms using Social Capital constructs can help explain why communication evolves the way it does within a given community.

• The best use of Social Capital is perhaps to view Social Capital as a philosophy rather than a theory

Causal Structure

• Causal Agency: • What is the driver of change?

• technology, society/org, or both?

• Logical structure• Variance theory: static, clear on

cause-effect relationships

• Process theory: allows for chance and

randomness. outcomes may not occur

even when necessary conditions are

met

• Level of analysis• Micro: individuals, small groups

• Macro: organizations,society

Markus & Robey, 1998

Causal Structure of theories

Causal agency Logical structure Level of analysis

Organizational culture theory Organizational imperative Process theory Macro

Diffusion of innovation Emergent perspective Variance theory Macro

Social capital Organizational or technological imperative Process theory Mixed

Merry x-mas!

Some q’s:

Have I missed something?

Are there other topics that could be explored using the theories presented?

Do you agree with my classification of the causal structures?