Web 2.0 applications and citizen relations through e-government websites

E-Government Website Development: Future Trends and Strategic Models

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 266-283

  Chun, Heasun ^a   Kim, Daejoong ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901524200     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61692-018-0.ch016     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Barsky, E. (2006). Introducing Web 2.0: RSS trends for health librarians. JCHLA / JABSC, 27, 7-8.
2. Bennett, L. (2003). Communicating global activism: Strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics. Information Communication and Society, 6(2), 143-168. doi:10.1080/1369118032000093860
3. th, 2009, from http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a40.html
4. Bricken, M. (1991). Virtual worlds: No interface to design. In Benedikt, M. (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 363-382). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bughin, J., & Manyika, J. (2007). How businesses are using web 2.0: A McKinsey global survey. San Francisco, CA: McKinsey & Company.
6. Chadwick, A. (2008). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of Informational exuberance. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 51, 9-42.
7. Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: "e-Government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 16(2), 271-300.
8. Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2003). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London, UK: Hansard Society.
9. Corry, M., Frick, T., & Hansen, L. (1997). Usercentered design and usability testing of a web site: An illustrative case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 65-76. doi:10.1007/BF02299683
10. de Kool, D., & van Wamelen, J. (2008). Web 2.0: A new basis for e-government? Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies, Damascus, Turkey.
11. Farnham, K. (2008). Use of Mashups in the US Government. Retrieved May 03, 2009, from http://blog.programmableweb.com/2008/10/23/use-of-mashups-in-the-us-government/
12. Fountain, J. (1999). The Virtual State: Toward a Theory of Federal Bureaucracy in the 21st Century. In Kamarch, E., & Nye, J. (Eds.), Democracy. com? Governance in a Networked World (pp. 133-156). Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing Company.
13. Francq, P. (2009). E-democracy: the social software perspective. In Lytras, M., Tennyson, R., & Pablos, P. (Eds.), Knowledge Network (pp. 61-73). Hershey: IGI Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-976-2.ch005
14. th, 2009, from http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/Web_Technology_Matrix.pdf
15. Ho, A. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434-444. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00197
16. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Benett, S., et al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the ascilite, Singapore.
17. Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334. doi:10.1016/ S0363-8111(99)80143-X
18. Kent, M., Taylor, M., & White, W. (2003). The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 63-77. doi:10.1016/ S0363-8111(02)00194-7
19. Kirk, H. (2001). Strategic media planning: Toward an integrated public relations media model practitioner. In R. L., Heath & G. Vasquez (Eds), Handbook of public relations (pp. 461-470). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Kirk, H. (2003). A Model for assessing Web sites as tools in building organizational-public relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
21. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122-136. doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1
22. Lilleker, D., & Jackson, N. (2008). Politicians and Web 2.0: the current bandwagon or changing the mindset? Paper presented at the Politics: Web 2.0 International Conference, London, UK.
23. Maness, J. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, Retrieved April 28th, 2009, from http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html
24. Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: the role of theory. In Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering for e-learning (pp. 13-25). London: Routledge.
25. th, 2009, from http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=479
26. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17-31.
27. Oberlander, J., Karakatsiotis, G., Isard, A., & Androutsopoulos, I. (2008). Building an adaptive museum gallery in Second Life. Proceedings of the Museums and the Web, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
28. Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how? Seville, Spain: Joint Research Center, European Commission.
29. Richstad, J., & Anderson, M. H. (1981). Policy context for news and a new order. In Richstad, J., & Anderson, M. H. (Eds.), Crisis in International News: Policies and Prospects (pp. 26-27). New York: Columbia University Press.
30. Schlosser, A. (2000). Harnessing the power of interactivity: implications for consumer behavior in online environments. In Hoch, S. J., & Meyer, R. J. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 27 (p. 79). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.
31. Sentinelli, A., Marfia, G., Gerla, M., & Kleinrock, L. (2007). Will IPTV Ride the Peer-to-Peer Stream? IEEE Communications Magazine, 45(6), 86-92. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2007.374424
32. Shrader, K. (2006, November 2nd). Over 3,600 Intelligence professionals tapping into "intellipedia". The Associated Press. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-11-02-intellipedia_x.htm
33. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design (Acting with Technology). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organization are using the Internet to build relationship. Public Relations Review, 27, 263-284. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00086-8
35. Towns, S. (2008, September 25). Missouri Hires First Employee from Second Life. Retrieved June 12th, 2009, from http://www.govtech.com/gt/418153
36. Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and Business: A pointer to the intranets of the future? Business Information Review, 23(4), 228-234. doi:10.1177/0266382106072239
37. United Nations. (2008). UN E-government survey 2008 - From e-government to connected governance. New York: The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Wyld, D. C. (2008). Government in 3D: How Public Leaders Can Draw on Virtual Worlds. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
38. Zappen, J., Harrison, T., & Watson, D. (2008). A new paradigm for designing e-government: web 2.0 and experience design. Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, Montreal, Canada.