skip to main content
10.1145/3209281.3209359acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesdg-oConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Digital transformation model: analytic approach on participatory governance & community engagement in India

Published:30 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Governments around the globe are more and more aiming at digital and participatory governance to become more integrative and responsive for citizen-centric superior service delivery. Reconstruction of the technical and structural framework is also going along right from the country level to local level.

The citizen engagement models are most preferred and prevailing as government functions are shifting more in the direction to implement the open by default and digital governance principles. It focuses on intensifying the accountability, transparency and participatory models in formulating government policies and in response building trust between the people and the government. The Government of India launched MyGov (www.mygov.in), its citizen engagement platform in July 2014, which strives to promote proactive citizen participation in India's path-breaking transformation model for governance and socio-economic growth.

MyGov has provided citizens a new aspect of democracy. It encourages crowdsourcing of ideas from communities, capacitating citizens to turn up with solutions and become a part of integrative and participatory governance framework by sharing their opinions on government decisions, policies, functions and various other aspects of governance. It has facilitated government to build a participative egalitarianism by optimal utilization of technology to stretch out to communities at large and trigger them to take part in collaborative governance through ventures and ideas and innovations for nation-building. In this study, sentiment analysis and text mining approaches have been used by analyzing the elemental themes, topics, comments to discover the impact of the different contents existing on the platform and the overall reaction of citizens towards a transformative and participative governance model.

References

  1. Almond, Gabriel Abraham and Sidney Verba. 2015. The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations, (2015). Princeton university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. Lance, Chris Wells and DeenFreelon. 2011. Communicating civic engagement: Contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of Communication, 61.5 (2011), pp. 835--856.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Best, Michael L. and Keegan W. Wade. 2009. The Internet and Democracy: Global catalyst or democratic dud?..Bulletin of science, technology & society, 29.4 (2009), pp. 255--271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bicking Melanie, Marijn Janssen and Maria A. Wimmer. 2006. Looking into the future: scenarios for e-government in 2020. Project e-society: Building Bricks, (2006), pp. 392--404. Springer, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumler Jay G. and Elihu Katz. 1974. The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III, (1974).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovaird Tony. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public administration review. 67.5 (2007), pp. 846--860.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bratton Michael, Robert Mattes and Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi. 2005. Public opinion, democracy and market reform in Africa, (2005). Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brehm John and Wendy Rahn. 1997. Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American journal of political science, (1997) pp. 999--1023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Brief, G. G. 2008. Good Governance. Citizen Engagement and Participatory Governance, (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Çelik Ali Kemal and Ahmet KamilKabakuş.2015. Do E-government Services 'Really'Make Life Easier? Analyzing Demographic Indicators of Turkish Citizens' E-government Perception Using Ordered Response Models. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6.1(2015), pp. 185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman James S, "Commentary: Social institutions and social theory," American Sociological Review 55.3, pp. 333--339, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalton Russell J. 2013. Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies, (2013). Cq Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis Richard. 1999. The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system, (1999) Oxford University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dhumal Pratik S. 2015. E-GOVERNANCE-AN APPLICATION OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, Volume 3 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. EllisonNicole B., Jessica Vitak, Rebecca Gray and Cliff Lampe. 2014. Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 19.4 (2014), pp. 855--870. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Gil-Garcia, J. Ramon and Ignacio J. Martinez-Moyano. 2007. Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly 24.2 (2007), pp. 266--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard Philip N. 2010. The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam, (2010). Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. MyGov: A Platform for Citizen Engagement. Retrieved January 31, 2018 from https://www.mygov.in/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Inglehart Ronald. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies, (1997). Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Janowski Tomasz. 2015. Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization, (2015), pp. 221--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jun Kyu-Nahm and Christopher Weare. 2010. Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: The case of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21.3 (2010), pp. 495--519.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Verma, N., Gupta, M. P. and Biswas, S. 2018. Open Data Infrastructure for Research & Development, DATA SCIENCE LANDSCAPE: towards research standards and protocols, (2018). SPRINGER VERLAG, SINGAPORE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Katsonis Maria and Andrew Botros. 2015. Digital government: a primer and professional perspectives. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74.1 (2015), pp. 42--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kaur, Sandeep and Shalina Mehta. 2017. Content analysis of e-Government site mygov, in: Sociological perspective. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 7.7 (2017), pp.12--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Lamba Ankit, Deepak Yadav and Abhijit Lele. 2016. CitizenPulse: A Text Analytics framework for Proactive e-Governance-A Case Study of Mygov. In Proceedings of the 3rd IKDD Conference on Data Science, (2016). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Lee Gwanhoo and Young Hoon Kwak. 2012. An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government information quarterly, 29.4 (2012.), pp. 492--503.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Linders Dennis. 2012. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29.4 (2012), pp. 446--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Lins Karl V., Henri Servaes and Ane Tamayo. 2017. Social capital, trust and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Luna-Reyes, Luis F. and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia. 2014. Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations and institutions. Government information quarterly, 31.4 (2014), pp. 545--555.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Gottschalk, Petter. 2009. Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26.1 (2009), pp.75--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Mattes Robert and Michael Bratton. 2007. Learning about democracy in Africa: Awareness, performance and experience," American Journal of Political Science 51.1 (2007), pp. 192--217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. McLeod, Jack M., Dietram A. Scheufele and Patricia Moy. 1999. "Community, communication and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political communication, 16.3 (1999), pp.315--336, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Paul Samuel. 1987. Community participation in development projects, (1987). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Mishra, A., Misra, D. P., Kar, A. K., Babbar, S. and Biswas, S. 2017. Assessment of Open Government Data Initiative-A Perception Driven Approach. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society, (2017, November), 159--171. Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Nisbet Erik C. 2008. Media use, democratic citizenship and communication gaps in a developing democracy. International journal of public opinion research, 20.4 (2008), pp.454--482.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Norris Pippa and David Jones. 1998. Virtual democracy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, (1998), pp.1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Norris Pippa. 2003. Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites. Party politics, 9.1 (2003), pp. 21--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. PraharajSarbeswar, Jung Hoon Han and Scott Hawken. 2017. Innovative Civic Engagement and Digital Urban Infrastructure: Lessons from 100 Smart Cities Mission in India. Procedia Engineering, 180 (2017), pp.1423--1432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Putnam Robert D. 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6.1 (1995), pp. 65--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Shah Dhavan V. 1998. Civic Engagement, Interpersonal Trust and Television Use: An Individual Level Assessment of Social Capital. Political Psychology, 19.3 (1998), pp.469--496.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Shah DV, Cho J, Eveland Jr WP and Kwak N. 2005. Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication research. 32.5 (2005), pp.531--565.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. V. Shah, Nojin Kwak, R. Lance HolbertDhavan. 2001. Connecting" and disconnecting with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political communication, 18.2 (2001), pp.141--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Shah Dhavan V., Jack M. McLeod and So-Hyang Yoon. 2001 Communication, context and community: An exploration of print, broadcast and Internet influences. Communication research 28.4 (2001), pp.464--506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Swanson David L. 1987. Gratification seeking, media exposure and audience interpretations: Some directions for research, (1987), pp. 237--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Charles Taylor.1991. Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity, (1991).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. VermaSwati and Aparna Ramamurthy. 2016. Analysis of Users' Comments on Political Portal for Extraction of Suggestions and Opinion Mining. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Information Communication Technology & Computing, (2016). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Welzel Christian. 2007. Are levels of democracy affected by mass attitudes? Testing attainment and sustainment effects on democracy. International Political Science Review, 28.4 (2007), pp. 397--424, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. J. RamonGil-Garciaab1, Ignacio J. and Martinez-Moyano. 2007. Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly Volume 24 (April 2007), Issue 2, Pages 266--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Jeffrey A. Karp. 2007. Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies. Political Research Quarterly, Vol 60 (2007), Issue 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. MichelsAnk. 2011. Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol 77 (2011), Issue 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Linders Dennis. 2012. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 29 (October 2012), Issue 4, Pages 446--454.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Milakovich, M. E. 2010. The Internet and increased citizen participation in government. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 2(1) (2010), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Khan, F. H., Bashir, S. and Qamar, U. 2014. TOM: Twitter opinion mining framework using hybrid classification scheme. Decision Support Systems, 57(2014), 245--257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Medhat, W., Hassan, A. and Korashy, H. 2014. Sentiment analysis algorithms and applications: A survey. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 5(4) (2014), 1093--1113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Al-Ayyoub, M., Essa, S. B. and Alsmadi, I. 2015. Lexicon-based sentiment analysis of arabic tweets. International Journal of Social Network Mining, 2(2), (2015), 101--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Faret, J. and Reitan, J. 2015. Twitter Sentiment Analysis-Exploring the Effects of Linguistic Negation (Master's thesis, NTNU), (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Schedl, M. and Knees, P. 2009. Context-based music similarity estimation. In Welcome to the 3 rd International Workshop on Learning Semantics of Audio Signals (2009, December). p. 59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Patel, D. and Bhatnagar, M. 2011. Mobile sms classification. International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering (IJSCE) ISSN, 2231--2307 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Misra, D. P, Mahapatra, S. S. and Biswas, S. 2018. Impact of Digital Transformation model for Citizen Engagement & Participatory Governance in India. International Journal of Engineering & Science Research, In ICRIT 2018, 30 (2018), 174--182Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Digital transformation model: analytic approach on participatory governance & community engagement in India

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age
        May 2018
        889 pages
        ISBN:9781450365260
        DOI:10.1145/3209281

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 May 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate150of271submissions,55%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader