Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Through various platforms enabled by Web 2.0 technologies, citizens can collectively create public information, provide service, and take part in policy processes. Pushed by the Open Government Directive of the Obama administration, citizen-sourcing may be a new mode of government operations in the U.S. This paper suggests two frameworks to examine the emerging mechanism. The first framework provides three dimensions of citizen-sourcing initiatives: purpose (image-making or ideation), collective intelligence type (professional knowledge or innovative ideas), and strategy (contest, wiki, social networking, or social voting). Second, the paper presents a framework for assessing current citizen-sourcing initiatives. Its categories include design evaluation, process evaluation, and outcome evaluation. The performance of citizen-sourcing primarily depends on the appropriateness of the platform design. The effectiveness of the process needs to be evaluated in terms of the Open Government Directive's three pillar goals of transparency, participation, and collaboration. Evaluating the impact of citizen-sourcing will reveal whether citizen-sourcing is rhetorical or if it actually exerts significant effects on society.

Highlights

► This study suggests two frameworks to see citizen-sourcing initiatives. ► The first framework provides multiple dimensions of citizen-sourcing initiatives. ► The second framework is a tool to assess citizen-sourcing initiatives. ► Government 2.0 can help governments collect the wisdom of crowds.

Section snippets

Citizen-sourcing as a new wave

The recent emergence of cutting edge information and communication technologies (ICTs), often called Web 2.0, has led to a new trend in the citizen-government relationship (Dutil, Howard, Langford, & Roy, 2007). Web 2.0 includes social networking services (Facebook), social media or multimedia sharing (YouTube), wikis, blogs, micro blogs (Twitter), and mash-ups (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes, 2010a, Millard, 2009). These new ICTs are characterized by their bi- and multi-directional digital

Innovation of idea collection

According to the literature on crowd-sourcing (Brabham, 2008a, Brito, 2008, Ghosh, 1998, Hertel et al., 2003, Howe, 2006, Howe, 2009, Lévy, 1997), the rationale of collective wisdom is that prudent crowds insist on the presence of non-experts or dabblers, who are neither professionals nor elites. Under the right circumstances, “groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people” (Surowiecki, 2004: xiii). For a problem that requires the wisdom of many, the success

The framework of dimensions

This section seeks to create understanding about the contexts in which the aforementioned benefits are made possible. Table 1 suggests a set of three key dimensions to view a variety of citizen-sourcing projects.

The framework for assessing citizen-sourcing

This section presents a framework for assessing how citizen-sourcing projects work. The framework approaches assessment of citizen-sourcing projects from three perspectives: design, process, and outcome. Table 5 summarizes the core criteria of evaluation.

Implications and conclusion

This paper proposed two frameworks to provide an analytic and practical view on technology-enabled opportunities for citizen engagement in information creation, service production, problem solving, and policy making. The framework of multidimensional citizen-sourcing and the framework of citizen-sourcing evaluation criteria are expected to help improve the understanding of citizen-sourcing in the public sector. Seeing citizen-sourcing through both frameworks can demonstrate where government

Acknowledgment

This article is an enhanced version of the paper presented at the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems (Lima, Peru, August 12–15, 2010).

Taewoo Nam is a Ph.D. candidate in Rockefeller College of Public Administration and Policy, the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research interests include inter-governmental collaboration, network governance, citizen participation, and digital government.

References (90)

  • J.C. Bertot et al.

    Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives

  • J.C. Bertot et al.

    Social media technology and government transparency

    Computer

    (2010)
  • S. Bittle et al.

    Promising Practices in Online Engagement. New York: Center for Advances in Public Engagement, Public Agenda

    (2009)
  • A. Bonaccorsi et al.

    Altruistic individuals, selfish firms? The structure of motivation in Open Source software

    (2004)
  • P. Boutin

    Crowdsourcing: Consumers as creators

    (2006)
  • T. Bovaird

    Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services

    Public Administration Review

    (2007)
  • D.C. Brabham

    Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases

    Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

    (2008)
  • D.C. Brabham

    Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: The composition of the crowd and motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application

    First Monday

    (2008)
  • D.C. Brabham

    Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects

    Planning Theory

    (2009)
  • D.C. Brabham

    Moving the crowd at Threadless: Motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), Boston, August 5–8

    (2009)
  • J.D. Breul

    Practitioner's perspective—Improving sourcing decisions

    Public Administration Review

    (2010)
  • J. Brito

    Hack, mash & peer: Crowdsourcing government transparency

    The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review

    (2008)
  • C. Bronk et al.

    Diplopedia imagined: Building state's diplomacy wiki

  • M. Burke et al.

    Feed me: Motivating newcomer contribution in social networking sites. Paper presented at the CHI 2009, Boston, April 7

    (2009)
  • F. Cassia et al.

    Public services co-production: Exploring the role of citizen orientation

    International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences

    (2009)
  • Center for Technology in Government

    Exploratory social media project — Phase I: Identifying benefits and concerns surrounding use of social media in government

    (2009)
  • S.A. Chun et al.

    Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government

    Information Polity

    (2010)
  • R. Cole

    Social media: What does it mean for public managers?

    Public Management

    (2009)
  • A. DiMaio

    Government 2.0: A Gartner definition

    (2009)
  • P.A. Dutil et al.

    Rethinking government-public relationships in a digital world: Customers, clients, or citizens?

    Journal of Information Technology & Politics

    (2007)
  • W.H. Dutton

    Networking distributed public expertise: Strategies for citizen sourcing advice to government

    One of a Series of Occasional Papers in Science and Technology Policy

    (2011)
  • P. Earle et al.

    OMG earthquake! Can Twitter improve earthquake response?

    Seismological Research Letters

    (2010)
  • Executive Office of the President

    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Open Government Directive

    (2009)
  • C.R. Farina

    The consent of the governed: Against simple rules for a complex world

    Chicago-Kent Law Review

    (1997)
  • J.E. Fountain

    Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change

    (2001)
  • A. Fung et al.

    Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency

    (2007)
  • R.A. Ghosh

    FM interview with Linus Torvalds: What motivates free software developers?

    First Monday

    (1998)
  • J.R. Gil-Garcia

    Enacting state websites: A mixed method study exploring e-government success in multi-organizational settings

  • J.R. Gil-Garcia et al.

    Structuration theory and government IT

  • A. Hars et al.

    Working for free?: Motivations for participating in open source projects

    International Journal of Electronic Commerce

    (2002)
  • D. Hilgers et al.

    Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector

    The International Journal of Public Participation

    (2010)
  • M. Hindman

    “Open-source politics” reconsidered: Emerging patterns in online political participation

  • J. Howe

    The rise of crowd sourcing

    Wired

    (2006)
  • J. Howe

    Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business

    (2009)
  • J. Hrdinová et al.

    Designing social media policy for government: Eight essential elements

    Center for Technology in Government

    (2010)
  • Cited by (285)

    • Antecedents of the intention to adopt crowdsourcing for innovation in government: Findings from Belgium and the Netherlands

      2023, Government Information Quarterly
      Citation Excerpt :

      and Schmidthuber and Hilgers (2018) focus on “public participation […], reduce administrative costs […], and provide support in finding solutions to municipal problems.” In general, extant literature has broadly emphasized three types of strategic intents: accessing complementary knowledge (Brabham, 2015; Schmidthuber & Hilgers, 2018; Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2013), enhancing organizational legitimacy (Hilgers & Ihl, 2010; Liu, 2017; Mergel, 2015), and reducing innovation costs (Brabham, 2015; Chatfield & Reddick, 2018; Nam, 2012). Although other motivations have been suggested, this study focuses on those most prevalent in the literature.

    • Crowdsourcing framework applied to strategic digital city projects

      2022, Journal of Urban Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Knowledge discovery and management – crowdsourcing initiatives for collecting, organizing, and reporting problems, complaints (Brabham, 2013, pp. 1–42; Linders, 2012). Micro-tasks – distribution of micro-tasks that require human intelligence to be solved (Brabham, 2013, pp. 1–42; Linders, 2012) and depend on the skills and knowledge of semi-professionals (Nam, 2012). Evaluation/Classification/Crowd evaluation – evaluation of ideas (Falco & Kleinhans, 2018), monitoring of services (Linders, 2012; Liu, 2017), and crowd evaluation (Sivula & Kantola, 2016), to bring citizen's perceptions and feedback that could improve products and/or processes.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Taewoo Nam is a Ph.D. candidate in Rockefeller College of Public Administration and Policy, the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research interests include inter-governmental collaboration, network governance, citizen participation, and digital government.

    View full text