Evaluating e-governance projects in India: A focus on micro-level implementation

Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 325-349

  Madon, Shirin ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881673774     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781845426743.00023     Document Type: Chapter

References (59)

1. Accenture (2002), ‘eGovernment leadership -realizing the vision’, Third Annual eGovernment Benchmarking report, London.
2. Agerfalk, P., Sjostrom, J., Cronholm, S. and Goldkuhl, G. (2002), ‘Setting the scene for actability evaluation -understanding information systems in context’, in Brown, A. and Remenyi, D. (eds), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris, July, Reading: MCIL, pp. 1-11.
3. Alkire, S. (2002), Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Apthorne, R. (1997), ‘Human development reporting and social anthropology’, Social Anthropology, 5(1), 21-34.
5. Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2001), ‘Asian municipalities project: enhancing municipal service delivery capability’, Project Report, Asian Development Bank, Manilla, Philippines, www.adb.org/projects/benchmarking/implementation.asp, accessed 23 February 2005.
6. Bhaskar, R. (1978), A Realist Theory of Science, Brighton: Harvester Press.
7. Bhaskar, R. (1989), Reclaiming Reality, London: Verso.
8. Bhaskar, R. (1998), The Possibility of Naturalism, London: Routledge.
9. Carlsson, S. (2003), ‘Realistic information systems evaluation research’, in Berghout, E. and Remenyi, D. (eds), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Madrid, 25-26 September, Reading: MCIL.
10. Centre for Electronic Governance (2001), www.developmentgateway.org/topic/index?page_ id+3647.
11. Chambers, R. (1995), ‘Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts?', IDS Discussion Paper, 347, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University, Brighton.
12. Chopra, K. and Duraiappah, A. (2001), ‘Operationalising capabilities and freedom in a segmented society: the role of institutions’, Paper presented at conference on ‘Examining Sen’s capability approach’, Von Hugel Institute, Cambridge University, Cambridge, June.
13. Corbridge, S. (2002), ‘Development as freedom: the spaces of Amartya Sen’, Progress in Development Studies, 2, (3), 183-217.
14. Cordoba, J. and Robson, W. (2003), ‘Finding the value of power-ethics strategies in the evaluation of information systems’, in Berghout, E. and Remenyi, D. (eds), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Madrid, 25-26 September, Reading: MCIL.
15. Department for International Development (DfID) (2000), ‘Making e-government work for poor people: governments and electronic information and communication technologies (eICTs) in development’, DfID Target Strategy Paper Executive Summary Report, London.
16. Farbey, B., Land, F. and Targett, D. (1993), How to Assess Your IT Investments: A Study of Methods and Practice, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
17. Garnham, N. (2000), ‘Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” approach to the evaluation of welfare and its application to communications’, in Cammaerts, B. and Burgelmans, J.C. (eds), Beyond Competition: Broadening the Scope of Telecommunications Policy, Brussels: VUB University Press, pp. 25-37.
18. Gasper, D. (2001), ‘Is the capability approach an adequate basis for considering human development?', Paper presented at conference on ‘Examining Sen’s capability approach’, Von Hugel Institute, Cambridge University, Cambridge, June.
19. Government of India (GOI) (1985), ‘Seventh Five Year Plan 1985-1990', Government of India, New Delhi.
20. Government of India (GOI) (2000), ‘Electronic governance: a concept paper’, Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi.
21. Government of India (GOI) (2003), ‘E-readiness assessment of states in India’, Report prepared by the National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
22. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1981), Effective Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
24. Harris, R. (1999), ‘Evaluating telecentres within national policies for ICTs in developing countries’, in Gomez, R. and Hunt, P. (eds), Telecentre Evaluation: A Global Perspective (Report of an International Meeting on Telecentre Evaluation), Far Hills Inn, Quebec, 28-30 September, IDRC, www.idrc.ca/telecentre/evaluation/nn/01 TOC.html, accessed 25 February 2005.
25. Heeks, R. (2001a), ‘Understanding e-governance for development’, iGovernment Working Paper Series, No. 11, Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, www.man.ac.uk/idpm/idpm_dp.htm#ig, accessed 25 February 2005.
26. Heeks, R. (2001b), ‘Building e-governance for development’, iGovernment Working Paper Series, No. 11, Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, www.man.ac.uk/idpm/idpm_dp.htm#ig, accessed 25 February 2005.
27. Hudson, H. (1999), ‘Designing research for telecentre evaluation’, in Gomez, R. and Hunt, P. (eds), Telecentre Evaluation: A Global Perspective (Report of an International Meeting on Telecentre Evaluation), Far Hills Inn, Quebec, 28-30 September, IDRC, www.idrc. ca/telecentre/evaluation/nn/01 TOC.html, accessed 25 February 2005.
28. Introna, L. and Whittaker, L. (2002), ‘The phenomenology of information systems evaluation: overcoming the subject/object dualism’, in Wynn, E.H., Whitley, E.A., Myers, M.D. and DeGross, J.I. (eds), Global Organisational Discourse about Information Technology, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 155-75. Barcelona, December.
29. Jackson, P. (2001), ‘Public sector added value: can bureaucracy deliver?', Public Administration, 79(1), 5-28.
30. Janssen, D. (2003), ‘Mine’s bigger than yours: assessing international e-government benchmarking’, in Bannister, F. and Remenyi, D. (eds), Proceedings of 3rd European Conference on e-Government, Trinity College, Dublin, 3-4 July, Reading: MCIL, pp. 209-16.
31. Kelly, G. and Muers, S. (2003), Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform, London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.
32. Kerala State Information Technology Mission (KSITM) (2002), ‘Project Akshaya’, document released by the KSITM on the occasion of the inauguration of the project by the President of India, 18 November 2002.
33. Kirkman, G., Sachs, J., Schwab, K. and Cornelius, P. (eds.) (2002), The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the Networked World, Centre for International Development at Harvard University and World Economic Forum, New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Kjaer, A.M. (2004), Governance, Cambridge: Polity.
35. Kooiman, J. (2003), Governing as Governance, London: Sage.
36. Land, F. (2000), ‘Evaluation in a socio-technical context’, in Baskerville, R., Stage, J. and DeGross, J.I. (eds), Organisational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, MA: Kluwer Academic, pp. 115-26.
37. Legge, K. (1984), Evaluating Planned Organizational Change, London: Academic Press.
38. Madon, S. (2003), ‘IT diffusion for public service delivery: looking for plausible theoretical approaches’, in Avgerou, C. and la Rovere, R. (eds), Information Systems and the Economics of Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 71-89.
39. Madon, S. and Kiran, G.R. (2002), ‘Information technology for citizen-government interface: a study of FRIENDS project in Kerala’, World Bank Global Knowledge Sharing Program (GKSP), World Bank, Washington, DC, www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/bnpp/egovupdate.htm, accessed 25 February 2005.
40. Mansell, R. (2001), ‘New media and the power of networks’, first Dixons Public Lecture, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 23 October.
41. Max-Neef, M. (1993), Human Scale Development: Conception, Application, and Further Reflections, London: Apex.
42. Mutch, A. (2002), ‘Actors and networks or agents and structures: towards a realist view of information systems’, Organization, 9(3), 477-96.
43. Nussbaum, M. (1992), ‘Human functioning and social justice: in defence of Aristotelian essentialism’, Political Theory, 20(2), 202-46.
44. Rama Rao, T.P. (2003), ‘Electronic governance: lessons from experience’, International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) WG9.4 Newsletter, 13(1).
45. Ramachandran, V. (2000), ‘Kerala’s development achievements and their replicability’, in Parayil, G. (ed.), Kerala: The Development Experience, London: Zed Books, pp. 86-116.
46. Ranerup, A. (1999), ‘Internet-enabled applications for local government democratisation’, in Heeks, R. (ed.), Reinventing Government in the Information Age, London: Routledge, pp. 117-94.
47. Remenyi, D. (2002), ‘The value scorecard: beyond the business case’, in Brown, A. and Remenyi, D. (eds), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris, July, Reading, UK: MCIL, pp. 209-16.
48. Scrivens, M. (1973), ‘Goal-free evaluation’, in House, E.R. (ed.), School Evaluation: The Politics and Process, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, pp. 1-4.
49. Scrivens, M. (1974), ‘The pros and cons about goal-free evaluation’, Evaluation Comment, 3, 1-4.
50. Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Smithson, S. and Hirschheim, R. (1998), ‘Analysing IS evaluation: another look at an old problem’, European Journal of Information Systems, 7, 158-75.
52. Stake, R.E. (1975), Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach, Columbus, OH: Merrill.
53. Subrahmanian, K.K. and Abdul, E. (2000) ‘Industrial growth in Kerala: trends and explanations’, Working Paper no. 310, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum.
54. Tyler, R.W. (1950), Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. UNDEPA (2002), ‘Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective’, New York, www.unpan. org/egovernment2.asp, accessed 23 February 2005.
56. Unnithan, C. (2002), ‘e-Governance in India -initiatives and drivers: a preliminary investigation’, Paper presented at the 2nd European Conference on e-Government, Oxford, October.
57. Walsham, G. (1995), ‘Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method’, European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81.
58. Wilson, M. and Howcroft, D. (2000), ‘The politics of IS evaluation: a social shaping perspective’, in Orlowski, Wanda J., Ang, Soon, Weill, Peter, Kramer, Helmut and DeGross, J.I. (eds), Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta, GA: ICIS, pp. 94-103.
59. Yin, R.K. (2002), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd edn, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.