Sociopolitical Digital Interactions' Maturity: Analyzing the Brazilian States

In the context of the "network society" structured on "digital communication" processes, new values and technologies induce changes in government-society relations. The aim of this study was to propose a conceptual framework of understanding the levels of sociopolitical digital interactions' maturity (SDIM) in response to the following question: how can the sociopolitical digital interactions' maturity levels be classified? To conduct this study, a qualitative methodological approach was adopted. The content analysis of the 27 Brazilian state government websites was structured on a conceptual scheme (SDIM), which allowed the verification and classification of digital interactive tools used in e-government portals. It was concluded that the levels of electronic interactivity do not represent institutional democratic development and that co-creation may generate continuous processes of public sector innovation.

[1]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: 'upstream' towards sustainability? , 2008 .

[2]  J. Garofalakis,et al.  An Integrated Information System to Support the Management of World-Widely Spread Educational Resources for the Greek Ministry of Education , 2012 .

[3]  L. Mukhongo,et al.  Public affairs and administration: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications , 2015 .

[4]  U. Kumar,et al.  International Journal of Electronic Government Research: Guest editorial preface , 2011 .

[5]  John Peterson,et al.  Policy Networks , 2014, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[6]  Livio Robaldo,et al.  OpinionMining-ML , 2013, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[7]  Marc Gramberger,et al.  Citizens as Partners. OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making , 2001 .

[8]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Social Media Technology and Government Transparency , 2010, Computer.

[9]  Melanie Bicking,et al.  Method and Tools to Support Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: The OCOPOMO Project , 2012, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[10]  A. Branea,et al.  Prosumer-oriented Value Co-creation Strategies for Tomorrow's Urban Management , 2014 .

[11]  Taewoo Nam,et al.  Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0 , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[12]  Enrique Bonsón,et al.  Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[13]  Rafael de Brito Dias,et al.  O que é a política científica e tecnológica , 2011 .

[14]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Lean government and platform-based governance - Doing more with less , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[15]  Albert Jacob Meijer,et al.  Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[16]  Alexander Schellong,et al.  EU eGovernment Benchmarking 2010+ General remarks on the future of benchmarking Digital Government in the EU , 2010 .

[17]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[18]  Dennis Linders,et al.  From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[19]  J. F. Cunha,et al.  Urban Public Transport Service Co-creation: Leveraging Passenger's Knowledge to Enhance Travel Experience , 2014 .

[20]  Chris Bronk,et al.  Diplopedia imagined: Building state's diplomacy wiki , 2010, 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems.

[21]  David Osimo,et al.  Collaborative approaches to public sector innovation: A scoping study , 2014 .

[22]  San Murugesan,et al.  Understanding Web 2.0 , 2007, IT Professional.

[23]  J. Ramon Gil-Garcia,et al.  Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: Proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[24]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[25]  Barbara Czarniawska.  Emerging Institutions: Pyramids or Anthills? , 2006 .

[26]  Dimitris Gouscos,et al.  Management Aspects of e-Government Projects: Contextual and Empirical Findings , 2014 .

[27]  B. Latour.  Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[28]  Anthony M. Cresswell,et al.  Open government and e-government: democratic challenges from a public value perspective , 2011, dg.o '11.

[29]  L. Junqueira.  Descentralização, intersetorialidade e rede na gestão da cidade , 2004 .

[30]  Yonghong Wu,et al.  Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[31]  B. Latour.  Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies , 1999 .

[32]  Markus M. Bugge,et al.  Public sector innovation—From theory to measurement , 2013 .

[33]  P. Baran,et al.  On Distributed Communications Networks , 1964 .

[34]  W. Eggers.  Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy , 2004 .

[35]  Dominic Chalmers,et al.  Social innovation: An exploration of the barriers faced by innovating organizations in the social economy , 2013 .

[36]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom , 2006 .

[37]  Soon Ae Chun,et al.  Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government , 2010, Inf. Polity.

[38]  Gabrielle Durepos.  Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐Theory , 2008 .

[39]  Sandipan Sarkar,et al.  The New Eye of Government: Citizen Sentiment Analysis in Social Media , 2013, SocialNLP@IJCNLP.

[40]  M. J. Moon,et al.  Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government , 2004 .

[41]  André Luiz Zambalde,et al.  Empreendedorismo na ótica da teoria ator-rede: explorando alternativa às perspectivas subjetivista e objetivista , 2010 .

[42]  Thierry Vedel.  The Idea of Electronic Democracy: Origins, Visions and Questions , 2006 .

[43]  Panagiotis Kanellis,et al.  Public Sector Reform Using Information Technologies: Transforming Policy into Practice , 2012 .

[44]  許俊湧.  The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering , 2004 .

[45]  J. Law.  TECHNOLOGY AND HETEROGENEOUS ENGINEERING: THE CASE OF PORTUGUESE EXPANSION , 2018, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY STUDIES.

[46]  Marc Holzer,et al.  E-Governance and Civic Engagement: Factors and Determinants of E-Democracy , 2011 .

[47]  G. Cardoso,et al.  A Sociedade em Rede. Do Conhecimento à Acção Política , 2006 .

[48]  David Osimo.  Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? , 2008 .

[49]  Tomasz Janowski,et al.  Government Information Networks - Mapping Electronic Governance cases through Public Administration concepts , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[50]  Ines Fischer,et al.  Weaving The Web The Original Design And Ultimate Destiny Of The World Wide Web By Its Inventor , 2016 .

[51]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[52]  Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro,et al.  E-government and citizen's engagement with local affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish municipalities , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[53]  Barbara Miller,et al.  Electronic Government, Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, Ed. New York: Information Science Reference, 2008, 4, 780 pp. $1950.00, ISBN 978-1-59904-947-2. Online access only: $1850.00 , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[54]  Luigi Di Caro,et al.  Sentiment analysis via dependency parsing , 2013, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[55]  P. Anderson.  What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education , 2007 .

[56]  Jong Hwan Suh,et al.  Applying text and data mining techniques to forecasting the trend of petitions filed to e-People , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[57]  J. M. Carrillo,et al.  Taxonomy of IT Intangible Assets for Public Administration Based on the Electronic Government Maturity Model in Uruguay , 2013 .

[58]  Gianluca Misuraca,et al.  e-Government 2015: exploring m-government scenarios, between ICT-driven experiments and citizen-centric implications , 2009, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..