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 2018 Publication 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[6]
Bovaird Tony. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public administration review. 67.5 (2007), pp. 846--860.
[7]
Bratton Michael, Robert Mattes and Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi. 2005. Public opinion, democracy and market reform in Africa, (2005). Cambridge University Press.
[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.
[9]
Brief, G. G. 2008. Good Governance. Citizen Engagement and Participatory Governance, (2008).
[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.
[11]
Coleman James S, "Commentary: Social institutions and social theory," American Sociological Review 55.3, pp. 333--339, 1990.
[12]
Dalton Russell J. 2013. Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies, (2013). Cq Press.
[13]
Davis Richard. 1999. The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system, (1999) Oxford University Press.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[17]
Howard Philip N. 2010. The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam, (2010). Oxford University Press.
[18]
MyGov: A Platform for Citizen Engagement. Retrieved January 31, 2018 from https://www.mygov.in/.
[19]
Inglehart Ronald. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies, (1997). Princeton University Press.
[20]
Janowski Tomasz. 2015. Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization, (2015), pp. 221--236.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[30]
Gottschalk, Petter. 2009. Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26.1 (2009), pp.75--81.
[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.
[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.
[33]
Paul Samuel. 1987. Community participation in development projects, (1987). Washington, DC: World Bank.
[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.
[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.
[36]
Norris Pippa and David Jones. 1998. Virtual democracy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, (1998), pp.1--4.
[37]
Norris Pippa. 2003. Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites. Party politics, 9.1 (2003), pp. 21--45.
[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.
[39]
Putnam Robert D. 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6.1 (1995), pp. 65--78.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[44]
Swanson David L. 1987. Gratification seeking, media exposure and audience interpretations: Some directions for research, (1987), pp. 237--254.
[45]
Charles Taylor.1991. Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity, (1991).
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[56]
Faret, J. and Reitan, J. 2015. Twitter Sentiment Analysis-Exploring the Effects of Linguistic Negation (Master's thesis, NTNU), (2015).
[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.
[58]
Patel, D. and Bhatnagar, M. 2011. Mobile sms classification. International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering (IJSCE) ISSN, 2231--2307 (2011).
[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--182

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

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

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      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
      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 for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Government of India
      2. citizen engagement
      3. digital transformation
      4. mygov
      5. participatory governance
      6. sentiment analysis
      7. text mining

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      dg.o '18

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)63
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
      Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media