I read a wonderful paper "Analysising e-government Research:perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practice" this afternoon，written by Richard Heeks& Savtta Balur, who are from Development Informatics Group, Institute for Development Policy and Management of University of Manchester. This paper used content analysis of 84 papers in e-government specific research outlets and found some problems in current e-government research. The part of its conclusions are as follows:

Taking a nomative perspective,  we can see positive features_"good practice" even within current e-government research:

       Significant reocgition of human and other contextual factors that influence or mediate the impacts of e-  government.

     Use of a diverse range of ideas from other research domains, including information systems, public administration and political science.

     Reference to other e-government literature inalmost all research work.

     Presence of a range of different research methods, and broad use of primary data.

On the other hand, there is what we might characterise as "narrow practice":

       A strong theme of over-optimism, even hype, and a consequent lack of balance in considering the impact of e-government.

      Dominance of positivist research approaches, alongside absence of statements on research philosophy.

      Dominance of a -theoretical approaches that, simultaneously, often fail to provide any significant practical recommendations.

      Little use of frameworks of knowledge from governance, and little use from with e-government in order to encourage an accumulation of knowledge.

      Dominance of research methods that require no face-to-face engagement with the realities of e-government , no statiscal analysis, and no longitudinal engagement with e-government projects.

Further, there are too many instances of what we might characterise as 'poor practice":

        Little recognition of underlying perspectives, with weak, confused or even contradictory positions about e-government or about anderlying philosphy being espoused.

       Lack of clarity about underlying assumptions, about methodogies, and about how data was gathered for the reported research.

     Lack of rigour in the collection and analysis of data, and in generalisation from that data.

    Unsubtle promotion of a writer's own products or services.

What the researchers of this field should do:

        Provide clear statements on research methodology and method, and on personal interest in any research artefacts.

        Use research methods in a manner that strengthens the qualities (such as validity, reliability and generalisability) of research.

        Avoid inconsistent or weak use of perspectives and approaches, and invalid generalisation of findings.

The writers also encourage better practice among e-government researchers:

         Greater self-awereness from researchers ablut the perspectives and approaches they adopt to their research, greater awareness about the implications and limitations of those perspectives and approaches, and greater awareness about the existence of a alternative perspectives and approaches.

         Use of a broader range of research traditions, with incorporation of more critical realist, social constructionist, critical, and other types of research into the e-government arena. This pluralism can help illuminate current blind spots in e-government research and may be more relevant to the current issues facing e-government practitioners.

         Explicit engagement with information systems, political science and other social science theories in order to improve the communication and accumulation of knowledge.

        Greater engagement with frameworks and models that emerge within the e-government literature.

        Use aof a broader range of research methods in order to develop a richer range of data on e-government. This means moving away from the dominance of "hunt and peck" and personal reflections to greater use of both "traditional" methods and critical incident technique.

    Demonstrationg the contribution that research can make to the practical application of imformation systems in government. For this, we see a value in greater use of framework models, thet help span the gap between theory and practice.

                           From: Richard Heeks& Savtta Balur. Analysising e-government Research:perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practice. working paper, 2006

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自王芳科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-38036-44190.html

上一篇：治学格言（二）（转）
下一篇：黄鹤楼（诗歌）