International Collaboration within Electronic Government Research Domain: A Scientometrics Analysis

Gohar Feroz Khan & Han Woo Park

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.

Department of Media and Communication, YeungNam University, Republic of Korea (gohar.feroz@gmail.com; hanpark@ynu.ac.kr)

E-government Research Domain

Studies have focused on the e-government (EG) research domain in general (Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Yildiz, 2007) or specific topics: Provided region-specific analyses (Khan, et al., 2011)E-participation (Sæbo, et al., 2008) E-government models (Andersen & Henriksen, 2006)Digital divide (Helbig, et al., 2009)E-government design science (Fedorowicz & Dias, 2010

), Information sharing in public sector (

Yang & Maxwell, 2011)Aging populations (Niehaves, 2011), and Theoretical constructs used in EG research domain (

Khan, et al., in press)

E-government Research Domain

Focused on:Methods and problems related to

the areaPolicy lessonsEG research communities, or Socio-cultural issues related to the

EG research domain

ProblemCrucial, but they shed no light on the

hidden structures and properties of EG domain:Key players and their connectivity patterns; Characteristics of scientific collaboration

networks (e.g., degree centrality, density, and clusters); and

Collaboration at the institutional level have not been analyzed and synthesized adequately

Why? & What?

They use systematic literature review (SLR) method (Kitchenham, 2004).Helpful in understanding general factsMay lead to Type 1 and Type 2 errorsLimited in revealing certain hidden structures

and network properties Need for a Social Network Approach (

Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and TH indicators (Leydesdorff, 2003).

Research Questions (RQ)

RQ1: What is pattern and network structure of collaboration at the institutional, country, and regional levels in the network of EG knowledge production?

RQ2: Based on network characteristics, who are the key players (i.e., institutions, countries, and regions) contributing to the network of EG knowledge production?

RQ3: How strong/weak are the university-industry-government relationships in the network of EG knowledge production?

Data

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.

Had a least one keyword: e-government, electronic government, paperless

government, online government, web-based government, e-governance, electronic governance, and online governance.

Papers appeared in 310 outlets

Method continue…

To analyze UIG relationships, we divided authors' affiliated institutions into three categories: “university” (U), “industry” (I), and “government” (G). 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.”

Method Continue…

SNA AnalysisTo understand Hidden structures & properties

NetDraw 2.097 (Borgatti, 2002)UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002), &NetMiner 3.3.0 (Cyram, 2008)

Triple Helix Model & its IndicatorsTo understand the UIG relations (Leydesdorff,

2003).

Method continue…TH model

T-values

T(ig) = Hi + Hg –Hig. (1)

T(uig) = Hu + Hi + Hg –Hui –Hig –Hug + Huig. (2)

We used co-authorship data to measure T-values:

Fig. 1 TH model

For example: Negative three dimensional T-values (i.e., uig) indicates a decrease in uncertainty and Indicate synergy in the UIG relations

Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)

Figure 2: The co-authorship network of countries

Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)

Country Degree Betweenness Eigenvector The U.S. 20 279.45 0.432Germany 15 161.679 0.318The UK 14 87.312 0.356Canada 12 51.25 0.333Australia 9 55.381 0.249Singapore 8 18.868 0.253France 6 42.809 0.146Greece 6 25.024 0.201Spain 6 13.263 0.174Norway 6 3.555 0.216

Table 1 Key players (countries) in terms of network centrality

Figure 3: The co-authorship network of countries: Centrality

Results: Country Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)

No. of Links Density Average Degree Clustering Coefficient 170 0.055 3.036 0.498

Table 2 Network-level characteristics of the co-authorship network at the country level

Results: Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)

Figure 4 Institution-level network in the EG research domain (only those institutions with at least three links are shown)

Results: Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)

Number of Links Density Average Degree Clustering Coefficient1,142 0.002 1.462 0.712

Table 3 Network characteristics of the institution-level network

University Degree Betweenness Local EigenvectorThe University of Maryland 14 2766.167 52The National University of Singapore 14 4876.334 63The University of Illinois 12 2521.900 49The National Technical University of Athens 12 223.000 42The University of Macedonia 11 146.000 50Korea University 10 3853.732 58The University of Arizona 10 2351.500 47The University of Manchester 9 4221.000 48The University of Georgia 9 6224.296 69The State University of New York (Albany) 9 2807.500 23The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 9 71.000 36

Results: Regional Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2)

Figure 5 The EG research domain: The regional collaboration network

Results:UIG relations & TH indicators (RQ3)

Figure 6 Number of solo and coauthored papers by TH component

Results:UIG relations &TH indicators (RQ3)

Figure 7 Longitudinal trends in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in the EG research domain

Discussion

Country-Level networksDeveloped countries lead with a well establish

collaboration networkDeveloping country participation is solo & marginal

• Except some emerging economies Singapore, China

Anomalies in the publication vs. implementation abilitye.g. Korea world leader in e-government (UN, 2010),

but publish limited research (in English)China good in publication, but bad in implementation

Discussion

We suggest use of a Hybrid index: an index that consider implementation vs. publication capabilities of nationsA 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.

Discussion

Region-Level NetworksNetwork not balance in terms of strength &

pattern of tiesDeveloping countries preferred research ties

with developed countries to those with other developing countries.• 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. Limit the transfer of knowledge and experience between

developing countries during the implementation of EG systems.

Discussion

Institution-Level AnalysisU.S. institutions dominated EG researchHowever, there were international, cross-

regional, and institution-wide clusters of institutions, and most clusters were tightly integrated.

Each cluster had a key institution In some cases the key institutions belings to

different region!Not balanced in terms of UIG relations

Discussion

TH Indicators: UIG RelationshipsLack of strong bilateral and trilateral UIG

relationships in the EG research domainGood UIG relationships are crucial for any

knowledge-based innovation systems (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2003)

However, the UG relationship was stronger than the UI, IG, and UIG relationships.

Limitations

Generalization maybe in issue.Only analyzed ISI based publicationsWe did not considered non-indexed outlets (mini tracks,

conferences, journals, case studies, etc). Invisible e-government research e.g. applied research,

confidential or politically sensitivity studies not published in scientific outlets is excluded.

Some keywords used in parts of world were misseddigital government, transformative or t-

government, and informatization

Thank You (Manana)

Comments & Questions are welcomed