Behind the Web site: An inside look at the production of Web-based textual government information

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 337-358

  Eschenfelder, Kristin R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Content approval processes; Content management; Controversial content; Government information; Government information management; Public administration; Web site

Indexed keywords

EID: 4344681302     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2004.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Hernon P. Relyea H. Government publishing: Past to present Government Information Quarterly 12 3 1995 309-330
2. Sprehe J. Government information: From inaccessibility to your desktop and back again Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50 4 1999 340-345
3. Fountain J. Developing a basic research program for digital government: Information, organizations and governance 2002 National Center for Digital Government, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
4. Relyea H. E-gov: Introduction and overview Government Information Quarterly 19 2002 9-35
5. Connolly C. Hill group faults HHS for ideology Washington Post 2002, October 22 A25
6. OMB Watcher. 2002, October 28 Ideology trumps science at HHS, letter charges. Available: http://www.ombwatch.org Accessed September 19, 2003
7. EPA (Office of the Inspector General). 2003, August 21 Evaluation report: EPA's response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement. In Report No. 2003-P-00012 (pp. 14-17). Chapter 2 Council on Environmental Quality Influenced EPA Press Releases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8. GODORT. 2004 Task force on restriction on access to government information. Available: http://www2.library.unr.edu/dept/bgic/ Duncan/RAGI.html Accessed January 2004
9. Halchin L. Electronic government in the age of terrorism Government Information Quarterly 19 2002 243-254
10. Fountain J.E. Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change 2001 Brookings Institution Press Washington, DC
11. Dawes S. Pardo T. DiCaterino A. Crossing the threshold: Practical foundations for government services on the World Wide Web Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50 4 1999 346-353
12. Christensen E. Hughes J. Putting your agency on the Web Garson G. Handbook of public information systems 2000 563-576 Marcel Dekker New York
13. The study did not include content related to agency intranet sites or restricted access extranet sites.
14. Yin R. Case study research: Design and methods 2003 Sage Newbury Park
15. Eisenhardt K. Building theories from case study research Academy of Management Review 14 4 1989 532-550
16. Strauss A. Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research 1998 Sage Thousand Oaks
17. Moon M.J. Can IT help government to restore public trust? Declining public trust and potential prospects of IT in the public sector Sprague R. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Vol. HICSS 03 2003 IEEE Computer Society
18. Cresswell A. Pardo T. Implications of legal and organizational issues for urban digital government development Government Information Quarterly 18 2001 269-278
19. Madden M. 2003, December 22 America's online pursuits: The changing picture of who's online and what they do. Pew Internet and American Life Project [Online]. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org Accessed January 2004
20. Thomas J. Streib G. The new face of government: Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-government Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 1 2003 83-102
21. Gartner Research. 2002 E-government: What are citizens really looking for? (Andrea Di Maio No. COM-13-3960)
22. Moon M. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review 62 4 2002 424
23. Christensen and Hughes (2000)
24. Barnes S. Vidgen R. Assessing the quality of a cross-national e-government Web site: A case study of the forum on strategic management knowledge exchange Sprague R. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Vol. HICSS 03 2003 IEEE Computer Society
25. Moon (2003)
26. Kakabadse A. Kakabadse N. Kouzmin A. Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agency for debate Public Administration Review 63 1 2003 44-57
27. Welch E. Wong W. Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on Website openness Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11 4 2001 509-538
28. Huang C. Chao M. Managing WWW in public administration: Uses and misuses Government Information Quarterly 18 2001 357-373
29. West D. State and federal e-government in the United States, 2002 2002 Center for Public Policy Brown University
30. Gant J. Gant D. Web portal functionality and state government e-service Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, HICSS(36) 2002
31. Andersen A usability analysis of selected federal government Websites 2002 Andersen Office of Government Services Washington, DC
32. McClure C. Sprehe T. & Eschenfelder K. 2000 Performance measures for agency Websites. Washington, DC: GPO Access Federal Bulletin Board. Available: http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/library/download/ MEASURES/measures.pdf Accessed February 2004
33. Eschenfelder K.R. Beachboard J. McClure C. Assessing U.S. federal government Websites Government Information Quarterly 14 2 1997 173-190
34. Shi W. The contribution of organizational factors in the success of electronic government commerce International Journal of Public Administration 25 5 2002 629-657
35. Koehler W. Web page change and persistence-A four-year longitudinal study Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 2 2002 162-171
36. Ryan T. Olfman L. The evolution of U.S. state government home pages from 1997 to 2002 International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2003
37. Musso J. Weare C. Hale M. Designing good Web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy? Political Communication 17 2000 1-19
38. Andersen (2002)
39. Birdsell D. Muzzio D. Government programs involving citizen access to Internet services (Markle Foundation) 1999 Markle Foundation
40. Eschenfelder et al. (1997)
41. McClure et al. (2000)
42. Content management tools such as Web entry forms for database-driven sites may aid in the maintenance of content, but these tools do not negate the need for someone to actually rewrite the existing text.
43. Sprehe (1999)
44. Hert C. Eschenfelder K. McClure C. Rubin J. Taffet M. Abend J. Pimentel D. Evaluation of selected Websites at the US Department of Education: Increasing access to Web-based resources 1999 Information Institute of Syracuse Syracuse, NY
45. Eschenfelder K.R. How do government agencies manage the text content on their Web sites? A framework to compare Web content management practices Library and Information Science Research 26 4 2004
46. Ho A. Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative Public Administration Review 62 4 2002, July/August 434-444
47. Fountain (2001)
48. I b i d
49. Dawes et al. (1999)
50. I b i d
51. Christensen and Hughes (2000)
52. Ho (2002)
53. Andersen (2002)
54. Coursey D. Killingsworth J. Managing government Web services in Florida: Issues and lessons David Garson G. Handbook of public information systems 2000 331-344 Marcel Dekker New York
55. Fountain (2001)
56. Yin (2003).
57. The data described in this paper were drawn from a larger study of how state agencies manage the textual content on their Web sites and the processes by which content is produced and approved for publication (Eschenfelder, in press). This paper focuses primarily on data describing how agency staff members decide what types of content to publish
58. Yin (2003)
59. Eisenhardt (1989)
60. Denzin N. Lincoln Y. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials 1998 Sage Thousand Oaks
61. All the agency names used in this article are pseudonyms.
62. The figures in the table are rounded off to help preserve the confidentiality of the participating agencies
63. This paper uses the term "program" to refer to all agency subunits (e.g., divisions, bureaus, and programs). Most of the subunits participating in the study were bureaus or programs within larger bureaus
64. The vast majority of content at each agency was published on agency-controlled servers and identified with file names using the agency URL (e.g., http://www.agencyname.state.us/programarea/program1). A few programs maintained applications on outsourced servers. This content would not have appeared in the results.
65. The state statutes described the process by which agencies should submit reports to the state legislature (i.e., who to give the report to, how many copies). When the legislature required a report from an agency, it typically made reference to the section of the statutes describing the process. It is possible that some report requirements did not reference this section
66. Strauss and Corbin (1998)
67. Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions 1998 Sage Thousand Oaks
68. Shi (2002)
69. Web staff did disagree with upper level management on other aspects of the content review process. Readers interested in the review process should refer to Eschenfelder, K. R. (2003). The importance of articulation work to agency content management: Balancing publication and control. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS-36) IEEE Computing Society. Available: http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu. Accessed January 2003.
70. Ho (2002)
71. Dawes et al. (1999)
72. Andersen (2002)
73. Federal reporting requirements (in terms of publications or data) are substantial. For example, a search of the U.S. Department of Transportation site for documents, which contained the state name in the title of the document, generated 406 results. This suggests that the case site is providing a great deal of information to the U.S. DOT
74. Not all agencies reported the number of statutory changes per year
75. Dawes et al. (1999)
76. This paper provides only a summary description of the content production, review, and approval processes at each case site. Readers interested in these processes and agency and program level differences between these processes should see Eschenfelder
77. Percent of time spent on Web work varied by programs within agencies. While the numbers in the table represent the most common response for each agency, at least one program within each agency had full-time Web staff
78. Fountain (2001) and Ho (2002)
79. Not all PDF files produced are done as part of a "basic" content strategy. In some cases, PDF may be preferred-regardless of the availability of resources or other factors. For example, agencies posting legal documents may choose a PDF format in order to best retain the original formatting and appearance of the document
80. Gerwin D. The comparative analysis of structure and technology: A critical appraisal Academy of Management Review 4 1 1979 41-51
81. Gillespie D. Mileti D. Technology and the study of organizations: An overview and appraisal Academy of Management Review 2 1 1977 7-16
82. Alexander J. Randolph W. The fit between technology and structure as a predictor of performance in nursing subunits Academy of Management Journal 28 4 1985 844-859
83. National Cancer Institute. (2004). Research-based Web design and usability guidelines. Available: http://usability.gov/guidelines/ index.html Accessed February 12, 2004
84. Nielsen J. Designing Web usability: The practice of simplicity 2000 New Riders Publishing Indianapolis, IN
85. Moon (2002)
86. Kakabadse et al. (2003)
87. Musso et al. (2000)
88. OMB Watcher (2002)
89. Connolly (2002)
90. EPA (2003)
91. I b i d.
92. Johnston D. Lichtblau E. Critical study minus criticism of justice dept. New York Times 2003, October 31
93. Sprehe (1999)
94. Hernon and Relyea (1995)
95. Bowker G. Star S. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences 1999 MIT Press Cambridge, MA
96. Sawyer S. Eschenfelder K. Social informatics in the information sciences: Perspectives, trends and research opportunities In: Cronin B. Shaw D.(Eds.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2002 American Society for Information Science and Technology Silverspring, MD
97. Eschenfelder K.R. The customer is always right, but whose customer is more important? Conflict and Web site classification schemes Information Technology and People 16 4 2003 419 439