The widely shared definition of e‐Government. An exploratory study
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470911004066 |
| Published date | 13 November 2009 |
| Pages | 968-985 |
| Date | 13 November 2009 |
| Author | Guangwei Hu,Wenwen Pan,Mingxin Lu,Jie Wang |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
The widely shared definition of
e-Government
An exploratory study
Guangwei Hu
Department of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
Wenwen Pan
Department of Business Administration,
Nanjing College for Population Program Management, Nanjing, China
Mingxin Lu
Department of Information Management, Nanjing University,
Nanjing, China, and
Jie Wang
Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide details of a study on the widely shared definition of
e-government and to help scholars – especially young scholars – to understand the scope and
meaning of the field.
Design/methodology/approach – From 1998-2007, a ten-year time-span, 632 articles from the
three world-leading academic databases, including Wiley InterScience, Elsevier ScienceDirect, and SCI
Expanded, were retrieved and 324 were analyzed using CATA software (Concordance 3.20), to identify
the vocabulary that was used frequently by e-government scholars. Then the distinct vocabulary was
used to construct the widely shared definition of e-government.
Findings – In those 324 articles, 57 words generated from the text analysis formed the basis for
imputing a widely shared definition of the field of e-government. The definition was conceptualized by
six elements.
Research limitations/implications – Two limitations of the pool of articles selected may be
noted. First, articles were drawn from three leading academic databases in an effort to
distinguish e-government from other fields; but such an approach omitted any consideration of
how e-government definitions varied from different academic fields. Second, because the pool of
articles was drawn only from these three, journals excluded by these databases were thus
omitted.
Originality/value – The study is unique in that it discusses the definition of e-government by an
exploratory approach. The universal shared definition extracted could serve as either a screen or a
magnet for future research. And the methodology could be applied to several academic fields,
including administration and management, library and information science, e-records management,
computer science, etc.
Keywords Government,Information science, Comparative tests
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm
EL
27,6
968
Received 7 August 2008
Revised 13 October 2008
Accepted 23 October 2008
The Electronic Library
Vol. 27 No. 6, 2009
pp. 968-985
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0264-0473
DOI 10.1108/02640470911004066
1. Introduction
An academic field has socially negotiated boundaries and only exists if a critical mass
of scholars believes it to exist and adopts a shared conception of its essential meaning
(Astley, 1985). However, such shared meaning is far from assured since various forces
can dilute or blur its consensus. These forces might include heterogeneity of members’
training, the intellectual pull and hegemony of adjacent fields, and an ever-shifting
body of knowledge and theory (Astley, 1985; Whitley, 1984).
E-government represents a case of an academic field whose meaning might be
blurry and lacking. The field is comparatively young, having been re-conceptualized
and relabeled – from “reinventing government’ movement – by the National
Performance Review (NPR) Report in 1993 (Yildiz, 2007). Its disciplines of interest
overlap with several other vigorous fields, including library and information scien ce,
e-records management, digitization, computer science, management science, software
engineering etc., and its participant members have been trained in widely varying
traditions – some in academic institutions, some in government departments, some in
libraries, some in enterprise departments, and so on. It is of little surprise, then, that the
published, approbatory definitions of e-government are various. And we can anticipate
that asking e-government scholars to define the field might elicit an array of responses.
How, then, does the field of e-government maintain its collective identity and
distinctiveness? The answer, we anticipate, is that there is a strong explicit essence of
the field, even though there may be ambiguity about its widely shared definition.
E-government really is a young, rapidly expanding field. However, there is a
substantial need for discussion and reflection regarding the very nature of the fie ld;
scholars – especially young scholars – need a signpost to help them understand the
scope and meaning of the field. What does it mean to be doing research in
e-government? What does it take to be seen as an e-government scholar? While prior
analyzes have examined the rise and fall of specific theories or research topics within
e-government (e.g. Fountain, 2001, p. 4; Hughes, 2004, pp. 75-8; Relyea, 2002; Yildiz,
2007; Anthopoulos et al., 2007; Mnjama and Wamukoya, 2007), in this paper we pursue
a more fundamental objective: to identify the widely shared meaning of the field.
To achieve this objective, we conducted an exploratory study. We collected a large
number of e-government field articles from the three world-leading academic
databases, including Wiley InterScience (InterScience), Elsevier ScienceDirect
(ScienceDirect), and SCI Expanded (SCI-E), and retrieved 632 abstracts. As to
whether the articles were in e-government or not, then, we assessed them into four
categories (clearly not an e-government article, probably not an e-government article,
probably an e-government article, and clearly an e-government article) according to
their titles, abstracts and key words. Subsequently, using automated text analysis, we
identified the distinctive lexicon of the field, which in turn allowed us to derive the
widely shared definition of e-government, as held by its members. Finally, we turned to
existing definitions of e-government to observe the conceptual elements used by field
scholars and draw the final definition of e-government from the distinctive lexicon of
the field. We conclude the paper by discussing the definition and implications of our
analyzes for the field and proposing further research orientation.
This study is unique in that it discusses the definition of e-government by an
exploratory approach. The universal shared definition we have extracted could serve
either as a screen or as a magnet for administrators, librarians, information specialists or
The definition of
e-Government
969
To continue reading
Request your trial