The Current State of Research on eGovernment in Developing Countries: A Literature Review

Fathul WahidDepartment of Information Systems, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway and Department of Informatics, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesiafathul.wahid@uia.no

Presented at IFIP EGOV 2012University of Agder, Norway, September 2-6, 2012

Introduction• Heeks and Bailur (2007): 2001-2005 (84 papers)

• Several interesting findings:• No papers adopted interpretive paradigm• Only one paper used theory• More than one-quarter papers had no discernable research method

• Good practices were also identified:• Use of a diverse range of ideas from other research domains• Use of a range of different research methods• Broad use of primary data

• Research questions:1. What is the current state of research on eGovernment in the context of

developing countries?2. What substantive changes we can observe from the development of

eGovernment research in the period of 2005-10?

2

Selection of literature• Limits to prominent journals and or conference proceedings

portals:• (1) ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com), (2) Ebsco

(http://www.ebscohost.com), (3) IEEE XPlore (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org), (4) ACM Digital Library (http://portal.acm.org), (5) SpringerLink (http://www.springerlink.com) plus (6) The Electronic Journal of Information System in Developing Countries (http://www.ejisdc.org)

• Focuses on state of the eGovernment research in developing countries

• Uses three combinations of keywords• electronic government and developing country; eGovernment and developing

country; digital government and developing country

3

Literature in the pool• 108 papers

• 39 journal + 69 conference papers • 95 empirical + 13 conceptual papers• 2005: 7; 2006: 8; 2007: 19; 2008: 23; 2009: 35; 2010: 16 papers

• Countries reported in the papers• India (11 papers); South Africa (7); China, Kenya, Nigeria (6);

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Jordan (5); Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka (4); Argentina,Brazil, Egypt, Iran (3); Turkey, Colombia, Ghana, Thailand, Uganda (2); Cape Verde, Chile, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Taiwan, Tanzania, UAE, Uzbekistan, Zambia (1)

4

Method of analysis (1)• Research paradigm: (1) positivist; (2) interpretive;

(3) critical (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004; Myers, 1997)

• Methodology:• Research method: (1) survey; (2) case study; (3) experiment;

(4) action research (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004)

• Data collection method: (1) questionnaire; (2) interview; (3) reflection on project experience; (4) document analysis; (5) literature review; (6) observation; (7) web content analysis; (8) hunt and peck (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)

5

Method of analysis (2)• Knowledge framework: (1) theory-based; (2) framework-

based; (3) model-based; (4) schema-based; (5) concept-based; (6) category-based (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)

• Application: (1) eAdministration; (2) eService; (3) eSociety; (4) general eGovernment (Heeks, 2002)

• Focus of research: (1) techno-centric/online service delivery; (2) government-centric/organizational change; (3) citizen-centric/better government (Grönlund, 2010; Sahroui, 2007)

6

Findings: research paradigmResearch paradigm Frequency Percentage

Positivist 46 42.6

Interpretive 26 24.1

Critical 3 2.8

Other 33 30.6

7

Findings: research methodResearch method Frequency Percentage

Survey 20 18.5

Case study 60 55.6

Experiment 1 0.9

Action research 3 2.8

Other 24 22.2

8

Findings: data collection method

9

Data collection method Frequency Percentage

Questionnaire 21 19.4

Interview 21 19.4

Reflection on project experience 16 14.8

Document analysis 11 10.2

Literature review 1 0.9

Web content analysis 6 5.6

Observation 0 0.0

Hunt and peck* 6 5.6

Mixed 8 7.4

No discernable method 18 16.7

Findings: area of applicationArea of application Frequency Percentage

eAdministration 17 15.7

eServices 46 42.6

eSociety 10 9.3

eGovernment (in general) 35 32.4

10

Findings: knowledge framework

11

Knowledge framework Frequency Percentage

Theory-based 16 14.8

Framework-based 8 7.4

Model-based 9 8.3

Schema-based 7 6.5

Concept-based 40 37.0

Category-based 15 13.9

Non-framework-based 13 12.0

Findings: research focusFocus of research Frequency Percentage

Techno-centric/online service delivery 57 52.8

Government-centric/organizational change 27 25.0

Citizen-centric/better government 24 22.2

12

Example of eGovernment definitions• “a web-based project to enhance communication between the

government and citizens, business partners, employees and other agencies, and information publication from the authority” (Li, 2009)

• “a way of organizing public management in order to increase efficiency, transparency, accessibility and responsiveness to citizens through the intensive and strategic use of information and communication technologies in the inner management of the public sector (intra and inter governmental relations) as well as in its daily relations with citizens and users of public services” (Stanforth, 2007)

13

Comparisons: research paradigm• Bases of comparisons: Heeks and Bailur (2007); Grönlund and

Andersson (2006); and Walsham and Sahay (2006)

• Previous study: most eGovernment research contained no clear statement of research philosophy (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)

• This study: research paradigms of 30.6% of the papers were not discernable

• Previous study: no single papers that adopted interpretive paradigm (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)

• This study: 24.1% of the studies adopted this paradigm

• Previous study: a call for critical studies (Walsham and Sahay, 2006)

• This study: only few (2.8%) critical studies 14

Comparisons: research method• Previous study: 23.8% papers did not reported their data

collection methods (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)

• This study: research methodology of 22.2% of the papers was indiscernible; data collection methods of 18 (16.7%) papers were also difficult to identify

• Previous studies: a call for more action research and longitudinal studies (Walsham and Sahay, 2006); around 80.0% of the papers reported cross-sectional research (Heeks and Bailur, 2007)

• This study: only six papers employed longitudinal studies and three that reported action research

15

Comparisons: knowledge framework• Previous study: only 1.2% theory-based studies out of 84 (Heeks

and Bailur, 2007)• This study: 14.8% studies were theory-based

• Theories used: institutional theory, theory of development, actor network theory, structuration theory, diffusion of innovation theory, and intellectual capital theory

• The role of theories (Sahay and Walsham, 1995; Walsham, 2006)

1. A means for researchers to communicate with practitioners2. A means for researchers to communicate with each other3. A means for accumulation of knowledge4. A means for legitimacy and recognition of the field as an academic discipline5. To guide data collection and analysis

16

Comparison: research focus• Previous study: eGovernment studies was increasingly

focusing on IT (Grönlund and Andersson, 2006)

• This study: • significant recognition of human and other contextual factors in

addition to merely technical actor• attention to various eGovernment applications (i.e., eAdministration,

eService, and eSociety).

17

Limitation• Focusing on state of eGovernment research and not the

research issues/themes

• Possible bias due to limited number of the papers under review

• Single coder

18

Future research directions• Paying more attention to research paradigm and

methodology

• Preserving multiculturalism in eGovernment research, by adopting appropriate research paradigms

• Encouraging action research and longitudinal studies

• Improving the research quality by bringing theories in

19

Comments and questions?

Fathul Wahidfathul.wahid@uia.no

20