Home | Browse | Search | Credits | About
Register | User Area | DL-Harvest | Help
DLIST

Examining the Role of Website Information in Facilitating Different Citizen-Government Relationships: A Case Study of State Chronic Wasting Disease Websites

Eschenfelder, Kristin R. and Miller, Clark A. (2006) Examining the Role of Website Information in Facilitating Different Citizen-Government Relationships: A Case Study of State Chronic Wasting Disease Websites .

This is the latest version of this eprint.

Full text available as:
Microsoft Word Document (.doc) - Requires Microsoft Word

Abstract

This is a preprint accepted for publication in Government Information Quarterly (2007) 24(1), pg. 64-88. This paper develops a framework to assess the text-based public information provided on program level government agency Websites. The framework informs the larger e-government question of how, or whether, state administrative agencies are using Websites in a transformative capacity - to change relationships between citizens and government. It focuses on assessing the degree to which text information provided on government Websites could facilitate various relationships between government agencies and citizens. The framework incorporates four views of government information obligations stemming from different assumptions about citizen-government relationships in a democracy: the private citizen view, the attentive citizen view, the deliberative citizen view and the citizen-publisher view. Each view suggests inclusion of different types of information. The framework is employed to assess state Websites containing information about Chronic Wasting Disease, a disease effecting deer and elk in numerous U.S. states and Canada.

EPrint Type:Preprint
Keywords:website evaluation; openness
Subjects:World Wide Web
Government Information
XML
Social Informatics
Information Ethics
ID Code:1116
Deposited On:08 May 2006
Eprint Statistics:View statistics for this eprint
Tell A Colleague:Tell a colleague about it.

1. Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (See “4th Information Revolution” stage pg. 21-23.)

2. Kim, P., Halligan, J., Cho, N., Oh, C., & Eikenberry, A. (2005). Toward Participatory and Transparent Governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 646-654.

3. Moon, M. (2002). The Evolution of E-Government Among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4) 424-440.

4. Clayton, T., & Gregory, S. (2003). The New Face of Government: Citizen-Initiated Contacts in the Era of E-Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83-102.

5. Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing Good Web Technologies for Local Governance Reform: Good Management or Good Democracy? Political Communication, 17, 1-19.

6. Shulman, S. (2005). E-Rulemaking: Issues in Current Research and Practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(7/8), 621 - 641.

7. Weiss, J., & Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public Information Campaigns as Policy Instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(1), 82-119.

8. Walters, J. (2005). U.S. Government Publication: Ideological Development and Institutional Politics From the Founding to 1970. Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press.

9. Leonard, P. (2003). Promoting Welfare? Government Information Policy and Social Citizenship. University of Bristol, Bristol UK: The Policy Press.

10. Ibid.

11. Walters (2005), note 8 above.

12. Sprehe, T. (1987). OMB Circular No. A-130, the Management of Federal Information Resouces: Its Origins and Impact. Government Information Quarterly, 4(2), 189-196.

13. Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction Between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: "E-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 16(2), 271-300.

14. Roberts, N. (1997). Public Deliberation: An Alternative Approach to Crafting Policy and Setting Direction. Public Administration Review, 57, 124-132.

15. Decker, D., & Chase, L. (2001). Stakeholder Involvement: Seeking Solutions in Changing Times. In D. Decker, T. Brown & W. Siemer (Eds.), Human Dimensions of Wildlife in North America (pp. 133-152). Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society.

16. Vigoda, E. (2002). From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527-540.

17. Chadwick & May (2003) note 13 above.

18. Welch, E., & Fulla, S. (2005). Virtual Interactivity Between Government and Citizens: The Chicago Police Department's Citizen ICAM Application Demonstration Case. Political Communication, 22(2), 215 - 236.

19. Covello, V., McCallum, D., & Pavlova, M. (1987). Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press.

20. Jasanoff, S. (1994). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. (see appendix B)

22. Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. In Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne (Ed.), Misunderstanding science? : The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23. National Research Council. (1996), note 21 above.

24. Chase, L.C.; Schusler, T.M.; Decker, D.J. (2000) Innovations in Stakeholder Involvement: What’s the Next Step? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 208-217.

25. Chadwick and May, note 13 above.

26. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing a Fully Functional E-Government: A Four Stage Model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122-136; and Moon (2002), note 3 above.

27. Norris, D., & Moon, M. (2005). Advancing E-Government and the Grassroots: Tortoise or Hare? Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64-75.

28. La Porte, T., Demchak, C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and Bureaucracy in the Age of the Web: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Speculations. Administration and Society, 34(4), 411-446.

29. West, D. (2005). Digital Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

30. Lee, M. (2004). E-Reporting: Strengthening Democratic Accountability. Washington DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

31. Musso, Weare and Hale, note 5 above.

32. Eschenfelder, K., Beachboard, J., & McClure, C., Wyman. (1997). Assessing U.S. Federal Government Websites. Government Information Quarterly, 14(2), 173-190.

33. Barnes, S., & Vidgen, R. (2003). Interactive E-Government: Evaluating the Web Site of the UK Inland Revenue. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 2(1), 22.

34. Clayton and Gregory, note 4 above.

35. Cullen, R., & Houghton, C. (2000). Democracy Online: An Assessment of New Zealand Government Websites. Government Information Quarterly, 17(3), 243-267.

36. Bosque, P. (2005, July 2005). Can Humans Contract Chronic Wasting Disease? In CWD and Other Species. The Second International Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin.

37. Angers, R., Browning, S., Seward, T., Sigurdson, C., Miller, M., & Hoover, E., G.C. (2006, 26/January). Prions in Skeletal Muscles of Deer with Chronic Wasting Disease. Science Express, DOI: 10.1126/science.1122864.

38. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2004). Questions and Answers about Chronic Wasting Disease. Retrieved July 2004, from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_ahcwd.html.

39. Bishop, R. (2004). The Economic Impacts of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Wisconsin. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 181-192.

40. Seidl, A., & Koontz, S. (2004). Potential Economic Impacts of Chronic Wasting Disease in Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 241-245.

41. Bishop, note 39 above.

42. State of Wisconsin Conservation Department. (1943). Wisconsin's Deer Problem: Wisconsin Deer Today and Tomorrow. Publication# 321 Madison Wisconsin: State of Wisconsin Conservation Department.

43. Covello, McCallum & Pavlova, note 19 above.

44. Nye, J., Zelikow, P., & King, D. (1997). Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45. State of Wisconsin Conservation Department, note 42 above.

46. Needham, M., Vaske, J., & Manfredo, M. (2004). Hunters' Behavior and Acceptance of Management Actions Related to Chronic Wasting Disease in Eight States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 211-232.

47. Vaske, J., Timmons, N., Beaman, J., & Petchenik, J. (2004). Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin: Hunter Behavior, Perceived Risk, and Agency Trust. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 193-210.

48. Needham, M., Vaske, J., & Manfredo, M. (2005). Hunters' response to chronic wasting disease: Regional and state specific results (Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies No. Report Number 56). Fort Collins: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

49. Bastian, F., Dash, S., & Garry, R. (2004). Linking chronic wasting disease to scrapie by comparison of spiroplasmamirium ribosomal DNA sequences. Experimental and Molecular Pathology, 77, 49-56.

50. Joly, D. O. (2005). An Overview of Logistical, Theoretical, and Statistical Isues Surrounding Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance. In D. Heisey & D. Joly (Chair), CWD Surveillance Issues. The Second International Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin.

51. Clark, W., Nusser, S., & Huang, L. O., D.L. (2005). Evaluating Sampling Approaches for Monitoring Chronic Wasting Disease in Deer Populations. In D. Heisey & D. Joly (Chair), CWD Surveillance Issues. The Second International Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin.

52. Heberlein, T. (2004). "Fire in the Sistine Chapel": How Wisconsin Responded to Chronic Wasting Disease. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 165-180.

53. Burkell, J. (2004). What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 200-208.

54. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2002). “Questions and Answers About Chronic Wasting Disease” http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_ahcwd.html. Last accessed April 29, 2006.

55. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2002). Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Wild and Captive Cervids (Agency Task Force Report). Washington DC: US. Department of Agriculture.

56. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2002). Implementation document for plan for assisting states, federal agencies and tribes in managing chronic wasting disease in wild and captive herds. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

57. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2004). Progress Report on the Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Wild and Captive Cervids.

58. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2004). Multi-state guidelines for chronic wasting disease management in free-ranging white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

59. Chadwick & May, note 13 above.

60. Vaske, note 47 above; Needham, notes 46,48 above.

61. Ibid

62. Ibid

63. Lee, note 30 above.

64. National Research Council (1996), note 23 above.

65. National Research Council. (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

66. Ibid

67. Covello, note 19 above.

68. Decker & Chase, note 15 above.

69. National Research Council (1996), note 23 above.

70. Chase et. al (2000), note 24 above.

71. Chadwick & May (2003), note 13 above.

72. Vaske, note 47 above.

73. Needham, notes 46,48 above.

74. National Research Council, note 17 above;

75. Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication. Federal Register 67 (Feb 22, 2002) p. 8452.

76. Chadwick & May (2003), note 13 above;

77. Chase et. al (2000), note 18 above.

78. Bimber (2003), note 1 above.

79. Eschenfelder, K. (2004). Behind the Website: A Field Study of the Management of Textual Content on State Agency Websites. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 337-358.

80. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

81. OMB Guidelines (2002), note 75 above.

82. Stvilia, B., Twidale, M., Smith, L., & Gasser, L. (2005). Assessing information quality of a community-based encyclopedia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Quality (pp. 442-454). Cambridge, MA.

Available Versions of this Item

EPrints dLIST, an open access archive for the Information Sciences, is supported by the School of Information Resources and Library Science and Learning Technologies Center, University of Arizona. Established in 2002, dLIST has a global Advisory Board and is a part of the Information Technology & Society Research Lab. Open Archives
Contact: Admin | Donate