Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Social media adoption at the American grass roots: Web 2.0 or 1.5?
Christopher G. Reddick a,1, Donald F. Norris b,⁎
a
Department of Public Administration, College of Public Policy, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 501 W. Cesar E. Chavez Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78207-4415, USA
b
Department of Public Policy, Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 409 Public Policy Building, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 12 August 2013 In this paper, we examine data from a 2011 survey of grassroots (or local) governments in the United States with
respect to their adoption of social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, and Flickr) especially to ascer-
Keywords: tain the drivers of local government social media adoption and whether the drivers are similar to or different
E-government from the drivers of e-government adoption. We also address whether the adoption of social media portends a
E-democracy move by local governments from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0.
Local government
The findings of this research show that the principal drivers of local government adoption of e-information and
Social media
services are highly consistent with those of previous research: size of government, type and form of government,
region of the country, education, years of e-government experience, and the existence of a separate IT depart-
ment are all related to adoption. The drivers of adoption of e-transactions are consistent, but somewhat less so,
with prior research. And, the drivers of adoption of social media are closer to those of e-information and services
than of e-transactions.
Based on evidence from the survey (local governments use social media mainly for one-way communication)
and prior studies of IT and government and e-government, we conclude that social media today do not appear
to be moving local governments in the direction of Web 2.0, but perhaps in the direction of Web 1.5.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In this paper, we examine data from a 2011 survey of grassroots
(or local) governments in the United States with respect to their
adoption of social media, especially to ascertain what drives local
government adoption of social media and whether the drivers are
similar to or different from the drivers of e-government adoption.
We also address whether the adoption of social media portends a
move by local governments from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0.
Social media – e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, Flickr and
others – burst upon the scene only a few years ago. Yet, in this
short period, these media have been adopted by very large numbers of
persons and organizations across the world. It seems like just yesterday
there were no social media (at least in the current “electronic” sense of
the term), and now these media have hundreds of millions of users,
and the number grows daily.
The two leading social media, Facebook, which was launched in
February 2004, and Twitter, which was launched in March 2006,
had more than 1.1 billion and 555 million subscribers, respectively at
the end of 2011 (Facebook, 2013; Statistics Brain, 2013). Subscribers
to social media include ordinary citizens, celebrities, businesses of
many varieties, politicians, political campaigns, appointed and elected
governmental officials, and governments themselves at all levels.
⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 410 455 1172.
E-mail addresses: chris.reddick@utsa.edu (C.G. Reddick), norris@umbc.edu (D.F. Norris).
1
Fax: +1 210 458 2536.
According to Boyd and Ellison (2007), the principal reason that
businesses have adopted social media is their growing worldwide
popularity. With so many people using social media, businesses are
undoubtedly betting that there is some way to make or increase
profits through the adoption of these media. We suspect that something
similar has encouraged governments to adopt social media — not for
profits but for contact with stakeholders. Both businesses and govern-
ments alike undoubtedly feel that they cannot avoid adopting social
media if for no other reasons than their existence of these media and
their millions of users.
Some observers have labeled social media as part of Web 2.0
technologies. Chun, Shulman, Sandovol, and Hovy (2010) state that
there are essentially four differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0 and
its application to government. These differences are related to informa-
tion, services, policy, and governance. With Web 1.0 information,
service, policy, and governance are one-way, going from the agency to
the citizen. With Web 2.0 and social media information is co-created,
citizens demand services, policy is negotiable, and governance is shared.
With Web 2.0 instead of content on a website being controlled by
organizations as is true in Web 1.0, in Web 2.0 users are producers or
generators of content (Bertot, Jaeger, & Hansen, 2012; Chang &
Kannan, 2008). O'Reilly (2005) believes that with Web 2.0, users add
value, and organizations are able to harness the collective intelligence
of the public through social media. Essentially, users can organize
their information in their own way and to meet their own needs. The
hope of this movement to Web 2.0 is that, while the old generations
of technologies were unidirectional and citizens were passive receivers

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.011
 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507
of information (Meijer & Thaens, 2010), Web 2.0 is said to increase the
level of collaboration among governments (Brainard & McNutt, 2010).
Some argue that with Web 2.0 there may be the potential for providing
a greater degree of transparency and accountability among govern-
ments (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010; Chadwick, 2009). The belief is
that an increase in both of these creates greater civic engagement
among citizens.
One example of social media used in government can be seen in
responses to disasters by first responders. These situations change
minute-by-minute and social media enable citizens to comment on
a disaster and provide up-to-date information that was not possible
without social media. Other examples are government using wikis
for collaboration on projects and blogs to transmit and get comments
on changes in government policies. With social media, Bekkers and
Moody (2009, p. 258) believe that it allows citizens to be co-producers
of information rather than passive information users.
Scholars have argued that the long history of studying the insti-
tutional context of IT adoption in the public sector indicates that
organizational pathologies often impede any real reform (Bekkers
& Moody, 2009; Mergel, Schweik, & Fountain, 2009). Essentially,
public sector officials and agencies may not want to share information
because they fear loss of control, which prevents real transformative
change. Bannister (2005, p. 161) argues that because of issues of
territories and power, joined-up government is very difficult to achieve
with information technology (IT). Bekkers and Moody (2009, p. 267)
believe that e-government is said to reinforce the positions of those in
organizations that are already in power. In an extensive review of the
literature about information technology (IT) in government, Kraemer
and King (2006) concluded that IT has not produced administrative
reform in governments. They argued that one lesson from this finding
was that e-government would be an unlikely engine of governmental
reform. Might this not also be true of social media?
As scholars who study e-government, the rapid worldwide diffu-
sion of social media caused us to wonder about governmental
adoption of these media. To what extent, if any, have grassroots or
local governments in the U.S. joined the throng of adopters of these
media? What are the principal drivers of social media adoption for
local governments and are those drivers different from or similar
to those typically associated with local government adoption of e-
government? Has adoption of social media moved local govern-
ments in the direction of Web 2.0?
Thus, this paper has two purposes. First, we examine the adoption of
social media at the American grass roots (that is, by American local
governments) and compare the drivers of adoption of social media
against the drivers of grassroots government adoption of more traditional
forms of e-government, namely the provision of governmental informa-
tion and services, including transactions, electronically 24/7/365. By
adoption we mean whether, and the extent to which, local governments
have implemented one or more social media via their websites.
The three dependent variables that we analyzed in this study are
information/services, transactions, and social media. We examine each
of these against common factors found in the IT and public administra-
tion literatures. Among other things we ask is whether some or any of
the key drivers of e-government adoption are related to social media
adoption.
Therefore, our first research question is: Are the variables associated
with local government adoption of social media technology similar to or
different from those associated with local government adoption of traditional
forms of e-government (e.g., information/services and transactions)?
Second, using evidence from the survey and the broader e-
government literature, we seek to determine if their adoption of
social media really does portend, as advocates claim, a movement
from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 among American local governments.
What we mean here is whether local governments have gone beyond
merely adopting social media, and, instead, are actively using social
media in ways predicted by advocates — not simply for the one-
499
way delivery of information and services to citizens but to enable
citizens to participate in and interact and collaborate with the
governments via these media.
Therefore, our second research question: As the result of social media
adoption, are local governments moving in the direction of Web 2.0 versus
Web 1.0?
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, we
briefly discuss social media. Then, we review the literature related
to the adoption of e-government, and, from that literature, we identify
variables that have been found to be associated with e-government
adoption. We use those variables in our analysis of social media adoption
later in the paper. Next, we discuss the research methods employed in
the paper to collect our data as well as the techniques we used to analyze
the data.
Then we discuss the results of our analysis. We are especially
interested in whether these results are consistent with the prior
literature on e-government adoption. That is, are the drivers of
local government adoption of social media different from or similar
to the drivers of adoption of IT in government and e-government?
Based on our reading of the literature, which we will explain in due
course, we expect to find that the drivers are much more similar than
different. Following this, we summarize our findings and address the
question of Web 2.0 versus Web 1.0.
2. Social media
Prior to the advent of the current (or what we briefly call the
“electronic”) social media, people and organizations used a wide variety
of means to connect and communicate with one another — although,
given the attention garnered by today's electronic social media, one
would be hard pressed to think so. Earlier, more traditional means of
communication (many of which continue to be used today) included at
least the following: 1) face to face contact in a wide variety of venues;
2) writing and receiving letters via the mail; 3) reading newspapers
and discussing their contents and writing letters to editors; 4) attending
public meetings of various sorts (town hall meetings, etc.) to discuss
various matters coming before public authorities; 5) public assembly;
6) writing and distributing treatises and pamphleteering (e.g., Martin
Luther and Tom Payne and many besides them); 7) conversing via the
telephone; 8) corresponding via email; and probably many more.
Through these means of communication, people and organizations
sought to initiate contact with, stay in contact with, network with,
understand, influence and even change the course of others' lives.
Well before the advent of electronic social media, great ideas diffused
around the world and revolutions were fomented using these methods
(e.g., before the use of Facebook and Twitter help to advance the recent
“Arab Spring”). What sets electronic social media (we now drop the
word “electronic” and for the remainder of this paper use the simpler
term social media) apart from more traditional methods of human
interaction are at least the following: low cost, rapid mass adoption,
ease use, and speed of transmission. Hundreds of millions of people
and organizations, using social media, can and do send words and
images via those media that others access instantly. No single medium
or any combination of media prior to the contemporary social media
had diffused so rapidly, nor has any medium or combination of media
approached the ability of social media to transmit words and images
so quickly.
At their core, social media are about two things: communication
and networking (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Because these media are
fully interactive and two-way in their method of communication, it
is easy to understand why they have been so attractive to so many
users, especially young people, who use these media to connect
and stay connected (i.e., network) with their “friends” instantly
and seemingly constantly.
Since social media are communication and networking tools, why
would local governments adopt these media and, once adopted, how
500 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507
would governments use them? It might be because local governments
want a relatively easy and inexpensive way to expand their ability to
provide one-way information and services to their citizens, much like
traditional e-government offerings.
Local governments might, for example, use YouTube to make
available footage of an important event, to provide video touting
some accomplishments, to enable citizens to view council or board
meetings, and for many other purposes. One can also imagine similar
one-way uses of Twitter and blogs by local governments. It is also
conceivable that local governments might use social media in ways
that more closely approximate Web 2.0, such as in activities that
involve two-way communication and interaction like citizen partic-
ipation in hearings and meetings, public consultations, electronic
town halls and the like, and also to enable citizens to develop and
control content through these media.
We will address these questions later in the paper. For now, we take
two important lessons from the e-government literature. First, the
adoption of e-government has been motivated, at least at the local
level in the U.S., primarily by a desire to provide citizens access to
governmental information and services, governmental officials, and
the governments themselves (Norris & Reddick, 2013). Second, the
delivery of e-government mainly involves the one-way delivery of
information and services to citizens, businesses and other governments
(Coursey & Norris, 2008; Norris & Moon, 2005; Norris & Reddick, 2013).
These lessons may be valuable to our understanding of local govern-
ment adoption and use of social media, to which we will return in due
course.
3. Literature review
In preparing for this paper, we conducted an extensive review of
the literature on e-democracy and e-participation, dating to the early
days (1990s) of e-government, especially to identify variables that
are associated with e-government and e-participation adoption.2
For our purposes, the principal such variables include (but are not
limited to) governmental characteristics such as: size, type and
form of government, location, metropolitan status, IT adoption and
capacity, median income, education and race. Using data from a
1997 International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
survey, Norris and Campillo (2002) conducted a regression analysis
and found that about 28% of the variation in leading edge IT adoption
by local governments could be explained by governmental charac-
teristics like these. In addition, scholars have found that population
characteristics such as income, educational attainment, and racial
composition are associated with innovation adoption. We will dis-
cuss each of these variables in the pages below, and we summarize
our findings here in Table 1.
2
One of the authors of this paper, assisted by graduate students, conducted an exten-
sive review of the e-democracy literature for this paper. Using the databases and search
engines available at his university library, he searched broadly for works on this subject
from the early 1990s through 2011. In the search, he used the following keywords: elec-
tronic democracy, e-democracy, teledemocracy, digital democracy, and cyber democracy.
The search identified up to approximately 300 works, most of which were published in
refereed journals but also included books and monographs. He then reviewed the ab-
stracts, summaries or tables of contents of these works to determine which among them
were empirical. That is, which explicitly sought to find hard evidence (e.g., through various
empirical means — case studies, surveys, website analyses, analyses of data sets, etc.) of
the existence of e-democracy anywhere around the world. He, then, reviewed and includ-
ed in this paper's literature review those empirical works. He found that most of the works
identified to be speculative or theoretical in nature or to address e-democracy applica-
tions. Many studies that purported to examine e-democracy empirically actually studied
the provision of information and services (or what we would call e-government versus
e-democracy) or the ability of citizens to initiate contact with governments via email. In
our opinion, such studies do not address what is central to an understanding of e-
democracy — the promotion and enhancement through electronic means of citizen
engagement with and participation in governmental activities, programs and decision-
making. Therefore, we did not include them in this paper.
3.1. Size
Size is perhaps the sole variable in this literature that stands out in its
relationship to innovation adoption, including adoption of information
technology (IT) and e-government. Mohr (1969) found that organiza-
tional size was the most important variable explaining the adoption of
innovations by local health departments. Likewise in 1981, Kimberly
and Evanisko reported that size was the single most important variable
in the adoption of innovation by hospitals. And in a meta-analysis of 20
articles, Damanpour (1992) found that, size was more important than
any other variable in terms of organization adoption of innovation.
Norris (1984) and Brudney and Selden (1995) found a positive
relationship between size and IT adoption by small local governments.
Norris (1999) found that size was related to local government adoption
of what he called “leading edge” information technologies. Norris and
Demeter (1999) found that local government adoption of computing
(and websites) was mainly a function of city size, although other
variables were also involved. Two separate papers using data from the
2000 ICMA e-government survey (Holden, Norris, & Fletcher, 2003;
Moon, 2002) found that size was directly related to e-government
adoption among U.S. local governments. Using data from the 2002
ICMA e-government survey, Reddick (2004) again found that size was
a predictor of local government adoption of e-government. Examining
data from a 2005 survey of Texas county treasurers, Reddick (2005a,
2005b, 2005c) found size to be the primary predictor of these offices'
adoption of e-commerce. Using data from the 2000 and 2002 ICMA e-
government surveys, Norris and Moon confirmed in two separate
papers (Moon & Norris, 2005; Norris & Moon, 2005) the relationship
between size and local government adoption of e-government. More
recently, both Schwester (2009), who examined e-government adop-
tion by U.S. municipalities smaller than 100,000 and Homburg and
Dijkshoorn (2012), who studied e-government adoption by Dutch mu-
nicipalities, once again confirmed the relationship between size and
adoption. Finally, Ahn (2010) found that larger local governments are
more likely to adopt e-communication applications than smaller ones.
One might reasonably ask why size is related to IT and e-government
adoption. In a 1996 article, Norris and Kraemer explained that size was an
important explanatory variable for IT adoption because:
Larger cities have unquestionably greater needs for computing, including
advanced computing, than do smaller cities. Larger cities also have larger
budgets and are more likely to be able to afford larger, more sophis-
ticated, more expensive computer systems… Thus, larger cities will
on average have bigger, better, more extensive, and more advanced
computer systems. They will also be more likely to have fully devel-
oped MIS support capabilities. Smaller cities will not (p. 575).
3.2. Type and form of government
Numerous studies have found that adoption of IT and e-government
is related to type and form of government. Type of government means
either a county or a municipality. Form of government means whether
the government is led by an elected executive (mayor or county execu-
tive) or a professional manager (city or county manager or administra-
tor). These are the principal types and forms of local government in the
U.S., and typically municipality and professional management have
been found to be associated with adoption.
For example, Brudney and Selden (1995), Norris and Demeter
(1999), Moon (2002), and Norris and Campillo (2002) found that
local governments with professional managers were more likely to
adopt IT and e-government than their counterparts with elected
executives. Similarly, Norris (1984), Holden et al. (2003), Reddick
(2004), and Norris and Moon (2005) found that both municipal
type and professional form were associated with adoption of IT
and e-government by local governments. One explanation for these
 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507 501

Table 1
Literature review — factors associated with technology adoption.

Size (larger)
Mohr (1969) Local health department innovation
Kimberly and Evanisko (1981) Hospital innovation
Norris (1984), Brudney and Selden (1995) Small local government IT adoption
Damanpour (1992) Innovation adoption (meta-analysis of literature)
Norris and Kraemer (1996) Local government IT adoption
Norris and Demeter (1999) Leading edge IT adoption
Norris (1999) Local government adoption of websites
Moon (2002), Holden et al. (2003), Reddick (2004), Norris and Moon (2005), Local government adoption of e-government
Moon and Norris (2005)
Reddick (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) Texas county treasurers adoption of e-commerce
Schwester (2009) Small local government adoption of e-government
Ahn (2010) Adoption of e-communication applications by U.S. municipalities
Homburg and Dijkshoorn (2012) Adoption of e-government by Dutch municipalities

Type and form of government

Local governments with professional management (v. led by elected
executives)
Norris (1984), Brudney and Selden (1995), Norris and Demeter (1999), Norris and IT and e-government adoption
Campillo (2002), Moon (2002), Holden et al. (2003), Reddick (2004), Norris and
Moon (2005)
Municipal government (v. county government)
Norris (1984), Holden et al. (2003), Reddick (2004), Norris and Moon (2005) IT and e-government adoption

Regional location in the U.S.

Local governments in the West and South (v. the Northeast or Midwest)
Norris and Demeter (1999), Norris and Campillo (2002), Holden et al. (2003), IT and e-government adoption
Reddick (2004), Norris and Moon (2005)

Metropolitan status
Central city or county (v. suburban or independent local government)
Norris (1984), Norris and Demeter (1999), Norris and Campillo (2002), Holden IT and e-government adoption
et al. (2003), Norris and Moon (2005)

IT department or capacity
Leads to greater adoption, more advanced use, etc.
Brudney and Selden (1995) Previous adoption by small local governments = greater future adoption
Norris and Kraemer (1996) IT institutionalization = further adoption and more advanced use
Norris (1999) ITD = greater leading edge IT adoption
Ho (2002) Age of website = more advanced website design
Reddick (2004) IT department = greater e-government adoption
Norris and Moon (2005) IT capacity and age of website = greater e-government adoption
Schwester (2009) Greater IT resources = greater e-government adoption by small local
governments

Higher income
Thomas and Streib (2003), Reddick (2005b), Dimitrova and Chen (2006), U.S. citizens and e-government use
Akman et al. (2005) Turkish citizens and e-government use

Higher educational attainment

CEG (2003), Thomas and Streib (2003), Shelley et al. (2004), Reddick (2005b), U.S. citizens and e-government use
Dimitrova and Chen (2006)
Ahn (2010) U.S. municipal governments with more educated population = greater adoption
of e-communications applications

Race
Greater proportion white (v. minority)
CEG (2003), Thomas and Streib (2003), Shelley et al. (2004), Ho (2002), Reddick U.S. citizens and e-government use
(2005b), Ahn (2010)

Other
Brudney and Selden (1995) Administrative performance, slack resources = greater IT adoption among small
local governments
Moon and Norris (2005) Managerial orientation, financial capacity, support of elected officials = greater
adoption of e-government among U.S. local governments
Reddick (2009) Managerial capacity = greater e-government adoption

findings is that professional managers are more likely to understand
the value of IT and e-government for local governmental operations
and to have been exposed to the same through professional litera-
ture, training and conferences than elected officials and therefore
more likely to want to implement these technologies.
3.3. Location
Scholars have found that adoption of IT and e-government is related
to the regional location within the U.S. of local governments. The typical
pattern of adoption is that governments in the west and south are more
502 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507
likely to adopt than those in the Northeast and Midwest. One possible
explanation for this is that local governments in the former regions
are more likely to have professional managers than those in the latter
regions. And as seen above, there is a relationship between professional
management and the likelihood to adopt.
Here, studies by Norris and Demeter (1999), Norris and Campillo
(2002), Holden et al. (2003), Reddick (2004), and Norris and Moon
(2005) all found that location matters. And the typical pattern was as
suggested above.
3.4. Metropolitan status
Whether a local government is a central city or county in a metro-
politan area, whether it is a suburban community with in a metro
area, or whether it is located outside of a metro area (e.g., an inde-
pendent city or county) is another characteristic that studies have
found to be associated with the adoption of IT and e-government.
And the typical pattern is that central cities and counties, followed
by suburban local governments, are more likely to adopt than inde-
pendent local governments.
This finding has been confirmed in studies by Norris (1984), Norris
and Demeter (1999), Norris and Campillo (2002), Holden et al.
(2003), and Norris and Moon (2005). The likely explanation for this
adoption pattern is that central cities and counties tend to be larger in
size than either suburban or independent cities and counties and, for
reasons discussed above, size is the most important single variable
driving innovation adoption by local governments.
3.5. IT adoption and capacity
Various studies have shown that local governments that have
adopted IT or e-government are more likely to adopt more IT or e-
government. This is probably because of innovation institutionalization
and the support capacity developed within those governments for IT
and e-government. It may also be related to size because, as we have
seen, larger local governments are more likely than smaller ones to
adopt.
Brudney and Selden (1995) found that the previous adoption of IT
by small local governments was a predictor of further adoption. Norris
and Kraemer (1996) observed that IT institutionalization was related
to further adoption of IT. In particular, they noted that local govern-
ments that had mainframe computers were more advanced in their
adoption and use of IT than local governments with only PCs. Norris
(1999) found that the existence of an IT department within a local gov-
ernment meant that the greater likelihood of adoption of leading edge
information technologies. Moon and Norris (2005) found that a local
government's technical capacity, as well as the age of its website, was
associated with e-government adoption. Reddick (2004) found that
local governments with IT departments were more advanced in their
adoption of e-government than those without IT departments.
Schwester (2009) found that smaller cities with more IT staff and
more technical resources were more likely to adopt e-government.
Finally, Ho (2002) found that the age of website (that is, the number
of years since its implementation) was a good predictor of the extent
to which a local government had adopted an advanced website design.
3.6. Income and education
According to Dimitrova and Chen (2006), a consensus exists in the e-
government literature that education and income are positively associ-
ated with the likelihood that citizens will adopt e-government. It is also
well known in the social science literature that income and education
are highly correlated. Studies in the U.S. by Thomas and Streib (2003),
Reddick (2005b), and Dimitrova and Chen (2006) all confirm a relation-
ship between income and citizen likelihood of using e-government.
Akman, Yazici, Mishra, and Arifoglu (2005) found a similar relationship
between income and citizen use of the internet in Turkey. Studies by the
Council for Excellence in Government (CEG, 2003), Thomas and Streib
(2003), Shelley et al. (2004), Reddick (2005a), and Dimitrova and
Chen (2006) all found that more well educated citizens are more likely
to use e-government. Finally, Ahn (2010) found that U.S. municipalities
with more well educated populations are more likely to adopt e-
communication applications.
3.7. Race
Finally, a few studies have found that race is associated with
adoption of e-government by both individuals and governments
(e.g., Ahn, 2010; CEG, 2003; Ho, 2002; Reddick, 2005b; Shelley
et al., 2004; Thomas & Streib, 2003). Undoubtedly one reason for
this association is the existence of the digital divide(s) where propor-
tionately fewer minorities and poor persons have access to and use
the internet, the high correlation between poverty and race in the
U.S., and finally the fact that many American central cities have relative-
ly high concentrations of both poor and minority populations.
The variables discussed above, of course, do not exhaust the con-
stellation of possible governmental or community characteristics
that have been found to be associated with IT and e-government
adoption. For example, Brudney and Selden (1995) found evidence
that positive administrative performance and slack resources were
associated with IT adoption by small local governments. Moon and
Norris (2005) found that managerial orientation, financial capacity
and support of elected officials also predicted e-government adop-
tion by local governments. Reddick (2009) identified management
capacity as an important factor in e-government adoption. There
are certainly others.
However, we have chosen the variables discussed above because we
want to examine some of the more traditional variables associated with
IT adoption, which go back over thirty years in the literature. Addition-
ally, all but three of those variables were available in the ICMA dataset,
and we added the missing three (income, race and education) to the
dataset.
4. Data and methods
For this research, we contracted with the International City/County
Management Association (ICMA) to conduct a survey of e-government
among American local governments. The questionnaire that we used
for this study is based in part on the 2004 ICMA local e-government
survey (e.g., Coursey, 2005; Norris & Moon, 2005). Prior to developing
the 2011 instrument, we asked a convenience sample of local Informa-
tion Technology (IT) directors and Chief Information Officers (CIOs) to
review the 2004 instrument and make recommendations to us based
on their expert knowledge of local e-government developments and
recent trends since then (See Appendix A). Armed with these expert
practitioners' suggestions, we worked with the ICMA survey research
staff to write the 2011 questionnaire. While many of the questions are
identical to those in the 2004 ICMA survey, we added a number of
new questions. In order to keep the length of the survey manageable,
as we added new questions to the 2011 instrument, we deleted a nearly
equal number from the 2004 instrument (The 2004 and 2011 survey
instruments and responses are available on the ICMA website.).
In the spring of 2011, the ICMA mailed the survey to all municipal
governments with a population of 10,000 and greater and to all
county governments of the same size that have elected executives
or appointed managers (a total of 4452 governments). ICMA provid-
ed an online option for completing the survey to the local govern-
ment respondents. About three-quarters of respondents returned
paper surveys, while about one-quarter completed the online ver-
sion. ICMA sent a second mailing to local governments that had not
responded to the first mailing. ICMA directed the survey to the
Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information Technology Director
 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507 503

Table 2 Table 3
Characteristics of local governments surveyed and responding to the 2011 survey. Descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables.

No. of municipalities/ Respondents N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.

counties surveyed
No. % of Dependent variables
Information/services 1234 1 17 7.59 3.02
Total 4452 1326 29.8
Transactions 1105 1 11 4.10 2.12
Cities 3302 1021 30.9
Social media 811 1 5 2.47 1.18
Counties 1150 305 26.5
Population group Independent variables
Large governments 223 88 39.5 Municipality 1275 0 1 0.77 0.42
Medium scale governments 2062 676 32.8 Small government 1275 0 1 0.65 0.48
Small scale governments 2167 562 25.9 Medium government 1275 0 1 0.28 0.45
Geographic region Large government 1275 0 1 0.07 0.25
Northeast 999 198 19.8 Northeast 1275 0 1 0.13 0.33
North-Central 1234 361 29.3 South 1275 0 1 0.36 0.48
South 1417 460 32.5 North Central 1275 0 1 0.28 0.45
West 802 307 38.3 West 1275 0 1 0.24 0.43
Metro status Central city 1275 0 1 0.25 0.43
Central 858 323 37.6 Suburban 1275 0 1 0.51 0.50
Suburban 2318 685 29.6 Independent district 1275 0 1 0.24 0.43
Independent 1276 318 24.9 Manager administrator 1275 0 1 0.76 0.43
Form of government FOG
Cities Median household income 1272 $20,009 $208,750 $57,318.16 $23,589.98
Mayor-council 1197 232 19.4 %high school graduate 1270 4 63 27.80 8.50
Council-manager 1883 742 39.4 %bachelor's degree 1271 2 48 18.86 8.43
Commission 70 17 24.3 %graduate or professional 1270 0 52 11.28 8.05
Town meeting 106 22 20.8 degree
Representative town meeting 46 8 17.4 %white 1274 4 100 78.34 16.47
Counties Years since creation 985 1 22 11.29 4.12
Council-administrator (manager) 735 229 31.2 website
Council-elected executive 415 76 18.3 Has separate IT 1222 0 1 0.59 0.49
department

(ITD), city/county manager/administrator or other appropriate of-
ficial in the local governments for completion.
Approximately 30% of the sample completed the 2011 survey (1326
local governments out of 4452 surveyed). Table 2 shows the characteris-
tics of both the sample and the responding local governments. In terms of
population size, the large local governments that had populations of
250,000 or greater were substantially overrepresented in the sample,
while medium-sized local governments were slightly overrepresented,
and smaller local governments with populations under 25,000 were
somewhat underrepresented in the sample.
Comparing form and type of government, cities responded at
about the average of all respondents while county governments
were slightly underrepresented. Among municipal governments,
mayor-council governments were underrepresented, and council
manager and council administrator were overrepresented. Among
counties, council administrator or manager forms were slightly
overrepresented, while council-elected executive governments were
substantially underrepresented. The West and the South were overrep-
resented while the Northeast was underrepresented. Finally, central
cities were overrepresented in the sample while independent cities
were underrepresented. Within these limitations, the sample is gener-
ally representative of U.S. local governments.
The 2011 survey had a lower response rate than the 2004 survey,
which was 42.9%. ICMA has noticed a decline in responses to its surveys
in recent years and attributes this, in part, to the impact of the “Great
Recession” on local staff cutbacks. As a result, local governments
understandably have fewer resources to devote to completing surveys
(Moulder, 2011).
There are three dependent variables which are tested in this study.
These adoption models were partially derived from previous research
on the adoption of local e-government (Moon & Norris, 2005). The
first dependent variable is on the adoption of e-government informa-
tion services. The second dependent variable is on e-government
transactions. The third dependent variable is on social media adoption,
which has not been explored in prior research.
The independent variables that we use in this paper are taken from
previous research as we have discussed above in the literature review.
For the most part, these variables are also standard variables in the
ICMA data set:
• Population: large (over 250,000), medium (25,000 to 249,000), or
small (under 25,000)
• Type of government: city or county
• Form of government: mayor-council or council-manager (for cities)
and council-administrator, or council-elected executive (for counties)
• Region: West, South, North Central, or Northeast
• Metropolitan status: central, suburban, or independent city
The ICMA data set did not include measures of income, race or edu-
cation. So, we added three new independent variables that describe
these socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the popula-
tions served by the local governments (community characteristics):
• Median household income in 2009 inflation adjusted dollars
• Percent of white population
• Percent graduate or professional degree
As indicated from the literature, we expected to find a typical
pattern of statistical relationships between the dependent variables
(e-government and social media adoption) and independent vari-
ables (local government and community). For instance, larger local
governments, city (versus county) governments, local governments
with professional managers, local governments in the western and
southern regions of the U.S., and central cities within metropolitan
areas are more likely to have adopted both e-government and social
media. We also expected that local governments with higher median
household incomes, larger percent white populations, and greater
percent of residents with graduate or professional degrees would
be more likely to have adopted e-government and social media. For
the most part, we expected to find that the drivers of social media
adoption are not terribly different from the drivers of e-government
adoption.
We also expected to find that local government adoption and use of
social media would be more limited and prosaic than advocates have
suggested. This, in turn, would enable us to infer that social media
adoption does not portend a move by local governments from Web
504 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507
1.0 to Web 2.0. At best, it may indicate a gradual or incremental move-
ment toward what we would call Web 1.5. We use the term Web 1.5 to
mean a partial but not complete adoption of Web 2.0 by these govern-
ments. We will discuss the reasons for this in the concluding section
of the paper.
In this paper, we use descriptive statistics of the mean, minimum,
maximum, and standard deviation in order to examine the charac-
teristics of dependent and predictor variables. We conducted three
regressions with a summation of the scores of three index variables:
information/services, transactions, and social media. Therefore,
governments that offered more of each of these services would score
higher on the index. We regressed each of these dependent variables
against the predictor variables that we discussed above. Since our
dependent variable is a summation score for each local government,
we are able to use Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to
analyze the relationship between the independent and dependent
variables regarding e-government and social media adoption by
local governments.
In the following section, we report the findings from our 2011
e-government survey.
5. Findings
The survey asked the responding local government if they had
adopted one of five social media technologies (Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, Flickr and blogging). There is a very high adoption rate of
these media by the U.S. local governments (see Appendix B for the
exact question). Two-thirds (67.5%) of these governments had adopted
at least one social medium. More than nine in ten of adopters (92.4%)
had adopted Facebook, seven in ten (69.8%) had adopted Twitter, slight-
ly less than half (45.3%) had adopted YouTube, one in five (20.2%) had
blog, and about one in sixteen (15.7%) had adopted Flickr (Norris &
Reddick, 2013). Thus, in a relatively short time social media have been
available (seven years since Facebook was deployed and five since
Twitter); a substantial majority of the U.S. local governments have
adopted one or more of them.
In addition, we inquired about the predominate use to which
local governments put those media: mostly government to citizen,
or mostly citizen to government (see Appendix C for the exact ques-
tion). A great majority (64%) said government to citizen (Norris &
Reddick, 2013). These results are quite consistent with data from
local government use of traditional e-government services that
show that most e-government applications are mainly one-way
from government to citizens (e.g., Coursey & Norris, 2008).
Next we present the descriptive statistics for the dependent and
independent variables that we analyzed (Table 3). The three dependent
variables are a sum of the responses to the answers of the selected ques-
tions on the survey. As with the three index variables, we included only
those local governments that offered at least one information/service,
transaction, or social media in the index.
The survey asked a total of 17 questions about e-government
information and services.3 Therefore, the greater number of informa-
tion/services offered on the local government website indicates a great-
er depth of e-government adoption. The mean number of information
and services adopted by local governments was just over seven (7.59)
out of 17. This indicates that out of 17 possible information/services
that local governments were asked about on the survey, they on aver-
age adopted only seven of them.
3
The following 17 information/services were taken from the 2011 survey: Council
agenda/minutes; Codes/ordinances; Forms that can be downloaded for manual comple-
tion (e.g., voter registration, building permits, etc.); Employment information/applica-
tions; Online communication with individual elected and appointed officials;
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping/data; E-newsletters sent to residents/
businesses; E-alerts; Streaming video; Video on demand; Mobile apps (iPhone or Droid);
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)/311; Interactive Voice Response (IVR);
Podcasts; Moderated discussions; Instant messaging (IM); and Chat rooms.
The second dependent variable was the sum of the transaction
services adopted by local governments.4 The mean number of transaction
services was four out of 11. This indicates that out of 11 possible transac-
tion services asked on the survey, the average number was very small.
The third dependent variable was the adoption of social media by
local governments.5 The survey asked local governments if they used
five of the most common social media namely, Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, Flickr, and blogs. For the social media dependent variable,
the greater number of the five adopted by the local government the
higher the score they achieved on the index. The most social media
that could be adopted was all five, and the average was just over two
(2.47).
Table 3 also shows the independent variables that we analyzed
in this paper. We took these variables from the long history of e-
government and information technology literature. In order to dif-
ferentiate whether a municipality or a county responded, we coded
this variable with a 1 for municipality and 0 for county. In this survey,
the mean value for municipalities was 0.77, which tells us 77% of
local governments were municipalities, and the rest were counties.
Furthermore, the size of government was on a similar scale. Small
local governments comprised 65% of the sample (mean = 0.65),
while large local governments represented only seven percent of
the sample (mean = 0.07). The South was overrepresented in the
sample, with 36% of responding governments being from this region.
The Northeast was underrepresented in the sample, with only 13% of
responses being from this region of the country. The majority of
responding governments (51%) were from suburban areas. The
council-manager form of government represented three quarters
(76% of the respondents). The minimum median household income
in 2009 dollars was $20,009 and the maximum household income
was $208,750. The average median household income was $57,318.16.
The predominate race for local governments that responded to the
survey was white (78.3%). The average number of years since the
website was created for these local governments was 11 years. Almost
60% of local governments had a separate IT department.
Table 4 presents the regression analysis results for the dependent
variable of information/services against the independent variables.6
Here, nearly all of the independent variables are in the predicted
direction. Being a municipality, a larger government, being located
in the South, North Central or West, being a central city or a suburban
government, having a professional manager, having a separate IT
department, having a more well educated populace and having
years of experience with e-government are all associated with the
adoption of information and services. Only income and race were
not related to the adoption of information/services.
Overall, these results are highly consistent with results typically
found in the literature on IT and government and e-government.
Table 5 presents the regression results for e-government transac-
tions and the independent variables. These results are not nearly as
strong as those for e-government information and services. Here,
only the following independent variables are associated with e-
4
The following 11 transactions were taken from the 2011 survey: Online requests for
services, such as pothole repair; Online payments of utility bills; Online requests for local
government records; Online registration for use of recreational facilities/activities, such as
classes and picnic areas; Online payments of fines/fees; Online delivery of local govern-
ment records to the requestor; Online payments of taxes; Online completion and submis-
sion of permit applications; Online completion and submission of business license
applications/renewals; Online property registration, such as animal, bicycle registration;
and Online voter registration.
5
The social media index has fewer cases since only 67.5% of local governments have
adopted at least one social media. If a local government has not adopted any social media
it was not included in the index.
6
Testing for multicollinearity of the independent variables indicated that all of the Var-
iance Inflation Factors (VIF) were below 5, which does not indicate a problem of
multicollinearity. The two highest VIF were 4.122 for percent bachelor's degree and
3.263 for percent graduate or professional degree.
 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507 505

Table 4 Table 6
Regression analysis of e-government information/services. Regression analysis of social media adoption.

Beta t-statistic Prob. sign. Beta t-statistic Prob. sign.

Constant – 0.17 0.86 Constant – 1.38 0.17

Municipality 0.15 4.54⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Municipality 0.08 1.94⁎⁎ 0.05
Medium government 0.13 3.94⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Medium government 0.18 4.11⁎⁎⁎ 0.00
Large government 0.24 6.72⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Large government 0.16 3.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.00
South 0.31 6.58⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 South 0.23 3.11⁎⁎⁎ 0.00
North Central 0.20 4.76⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 North Central 0.07 0.96 0.34
West 0.29 5.90⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 West 0.11 1.44 0.15
Central city 0.23 5.51⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Central city 0.10 1.67⁎ 0.10
Suburban 0.11 2.75⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Suburban −0.03 −0.53 0.60
Manager administrator FOG 0.11 4.11⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Manager administrator FOG 0.01 0.35 0.73
Median household income 0.01 0.32 0.75 Median household income −0.06 −1.08 0.28
%high school graduate −0.00 −0.05 0.96 %high school graduate −0.06 −0.62 0.54
%bachelor's degree 0.17 2.72⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 %bachelor's degree 0.20 2.28⁎⁎ 0.02
%graduate or professional degree −0.01 −0.13 0.90 %graduate or professional degree −0.01 −0.13 0.89
%white 0.03 0.98 0.33 %white −0.03 −0.68 0.49
Years since creation website 0.18 6.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Years since creation website 0.17 4.58⁎⁎⁎ 0.00
Has separate IT department 0.11 4.09⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 Has separate IT department 0.01 0.31 0.76
Adjusted-R2 0.38 Adjusted R2 0.22
F-statistic 38.21⁎⁎⁎ F-statistic 12.28⁎⁎⁎
N 955 N 648
⁎⁎⁎ Significant at the 0.01 level. ⁎⁎⁎ Significant at the 0.01 level.
⁎⁎ Significant at the 0.05 level.
⁎ Significant at the 0.10 level.

government transactions: type (municipality) of government, size,

central city, education (a negative association to high school edu- since adoption of a website were positively related to the adoption of
cation), and years since creation of a website are positively related social media. However, form of government, income, race and having
to the adoption of e-government transactions. However, form of a separate IT department were not associated. Overall, then, only
government, region of the country, income, race and having a sep- some of the variables typically associated with e-government adoption
arate IT department were not associated with adopting e- were also associated with local government adoption of social media.
government transactions. We suspect that the results here are
not as strong as for e-government information and services be-
6. Summary and conclusion
cause local governments have adopted considerably fewer transac-
tions and have done so later than their adoption of e-government
Our first purpose in this paper was to examine the adoption of social
information and services.
media by American local governments and to compare the drivers of
Table 6 shows a mixed pattern of local government adoption of
that adoption against the drivers of local government adoption of
social media. Although the results here are not as strong as those for
more traditional forms of e-government, namely the provision of gov-
adoption of e-government information and services, they are stronger
ernmental information and services, and the provision of transactions,
than for local government adoption of e-government transactions.
electronically 24/7/365. Among other things, we asked whether some
Type of government (municipality), size, region of the country (but
of the key drivers of e-government adoption also drive social media
only the south), central city, education (bachelor's degree) and years
adoption.
The first finding from this research is that local government adop-
tion of e-government and social media in 2011 fairly consistently
Table 5 follows the pattern found in the e-government literature. From that
Regression analysis of e-government transactions. literature, we identified several governmental and community charac-
Beta t-statistic Prob. sign. teristics that are typically associated with local government adoption
of e-government. These include: size (as measured by population),
Constant – 2.66⁎⁎⁎ 0.01
Municipality 0.08 2.12⁎⁎ 0.03
type of government (municipal versus county), form of government
Medium government 0.15 3.62⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 (whether professionally managed or led by an elected executive),
Large government 0.26 5.99⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 region of the country, metropolitan status (central city, suburban,
South 0.06 0.97 0.33 independent), IT capacity, e-government experience, median house-
North Central −0.01 −0.09 0.93
hold income, educational attainment of the population and racial com-
West 0.02 0.37 0.71
Central city 0.10 1.89⁎ 0.06 position of the population.
Suburban 0.03 0.60 0.55 Of the three regression models that we ran, the one for local govern-
Manager administrator FOG 0.03 0.79 0.43 ment adoption of e-government information and services most closely
Median household income 0.03 0.50 0.62 fits the expected pattern. Here all of the independent variables but
%high school graduate −0.16 −1.75⁎ 0.08
%bachelor's degree −0.01 −0.07 0.94
income and race were associated with adoption (Table 7 compares the re-
%graduate or professional degree −0.03 −0.37 0.71 sults of the three models.). The results of the second model (for the adop-
%white 0.03 0.77 0.44 tion of e-government transactions), while generally similar to those of the
Years since creation website 0.06 1.70⁎ 0.09 first model, were not as strong. From the second model, the independent
Has separate IT department 0.05 1.45 0.15
variables of type of government (municipal), size, central city, education
Adjusted R2 0.15
F-statistic 10.29⁎⁎⁎ (negative association with high school) and years of experience with e-
N 871 government were associated with adoption. The independent variables
⁎⁎⁎ Significant at the 0.01 level. of region of the country, form of government, income, race, and whether
⁎⁎ Significant at the 0.05 level. a government had a separate IT department were not associated with
⁎ Significant at the 0.10 level. adoption. Finally, from the results of the third model (for social media
506 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507
Table 7
Comparing the models.
E-government info/ E-government
services transactions
Municipality X X
Medium government X X
Large government X X
South X X
North Central X
West X of the social media technologies are used in these local governments.
Central city X X
Suburban X of the impacts of social media use within the adopting governments.
Manager administrator X A third possible limitation concerns the factors that we used in the
FOG
Median household income
%high school graduate X (–)
%bachelor's degree X X
%graduate or professional
degree
%white
Years since creation website X X
Has separate IT department X that had we included them in the models the results may have been dif-
Note: All associations were positive, except for %high school graduate.
adoption), the independent variables of type of government (municipali-
ty), size, region (only the South), central city, education (bachelor's
degree) and years of experience with e-government were associated
with adoption. Form of government, income, race, and whether a
government had a separate IT department were not associated with social
media adoption. Nevertheless, the results from this model are stronger
than those for that of e-government transactions.
Our second purpose was to examine whether local government
adoption of social media portends a movement from Web 1.0 to Web
2.0. The evidence from the survey and the literature is not convincing
that such a transformation is occurring or is likely to occur. First, as
seen from the results of this survey, the drivers of local government
adoption of social media are substantially consistent with the drivers
of local government adoption of e-government. If the drivers are the
same, it would seem likely that patterns of use might be similar as
well. Second, although the data from our e-government survey show a
high level (two-thirds) of local government adoption of at least one
social medium, the great majority of local governments use social
media for one-way communication. This is highly consistent with the
great majority of local, indeed all governmental use of e-government
(e.g., Coursey & Norris, 2008).
These findings lead us to offer a few recommendations to local
government policy makers regarding social media. The first is that
these officials should understand that although their governments
probably adopt social media for a variety of stated or understood rea-
sons, despite these reasons, community characteristics and other
such variables (that differ across the range of local governments)
also influence the likelihood of adoption. Second, today most local
governments use social media passively and unidimensionally
(from government to citizen). If local governments truly want to
engage citizens via social media, they will need to learn how to use
these media in more interactive ways.
Finally, local officials should not look to social media to transform
either their governments themselves or the relations between their
governments and their citizens. In the future, social media may play a
greater role in facilitating meaningful citizen participation in local
government activities, including decision-making. But that time has
not yet arrived. Nor, based on the available evidence, do we believe
that it is likely to arrive any time soon.
As with nearly all research, this study has some limitations and
from them we provide some possible research recommendations.
First, although this study sheds some light on factors that influence
the local government adoption of social media, it is limited in that
it is a quantitative study. Perhaps a future study could include
interviews with chief information officers and other officials of
Social local governments that are believed to be on the leading edge of
media social media adoption to understand from their perspectives the
X factors which led to their success.
X Another limitation is that our three dependent variables are coarse
X measures of e-government adoption. Perhaps a future study could ask
more refined questions about the ways in which and how much each
X These types of questions would enable us to better understand some
regression models. We derived them from the literature and noted that
they are the factors most often found to be associated with local govern-
ment adoption of IT and e-government. Also, these variables were
available to us in our dataset. It is certainly possible that other factors
may also be associated with adoption (e.g., administrative performance,
X slack resources and management orientation, to name but three) and
ferent in important ways. We also leave this to further studies.
Given the results of this study, we conclude, if only preliminarily,
that local government adoption and use of social media in the U.S.
have not moved and are not likely to move those organizations in the
direction of Web 2.0 (if Web 2.0, itself, is even a realistic possibility).
At best, the adoption and current patterns of use of social media
might move local governments to something closer to, say, Web 1.5.
That is, although initial social media use among local governments is
mainly for one way (government to citizen) communication, this may
evolve into the uses more consistent with Web 2.0 with the potential
to change considerably these governments' patterns of interaction
with citizens. However, we would hypothesize that such an evolution,
if it occurs at all, is likely to be incremental and likely will not approach
the magnitude that many proponents of Web 2.0 have envisioned. In
any event, further research is clearly needed in order to track local
government adoption of social media and to better understand the
use of those media and their impacts on local governments.
Acknowledgment
We wish to thank UMBC's Research Venture Fund and the College of
Public Policy research grant at UTSA that enabled us to conduct the sur-
vey that produced the data on which this paper is based.
Appendix A. Expert practitioners
We wish to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the follow-
ing local government officials who reviewed the 2004 survey instru-
ment and provided comments and suggestions that we then used in
developing the 2011 instrument. Any errors or omissions are those of
the authors and in no way reflect on these officials or their advice.
Michael Cannon, Chief Information Officer, City of Rockville, MD
Ira Levy, Director of Technology and Communication Services,
Howard County, MD
David Molchany, Deputy County Executive Fairfax County, VA
(previously CIO of Fairfax County)
Elliot Schlanger, Chief Information Officer, State of Maryland
(previously, CIO, City of Baltimore, MD)
Paul Thorn, IT Manager, City of Annapolis, MD
Appendix B. Survey questions about social media adoption
Does your local government (the local government itself, not staff or
appointed or elected officials) deploy or use social media?
__Yes
__No
 C.G. Reddick, D.F. Norris / Government Information Quarterly 30 (2013) 498–507
If your local government uses social media, which social media are
used (check all that are applicable)?
__Facebook
__Twitter
__YouTube
__Flickr
__Blogs
__Other
Appendix C. Survey question about social media use
Please check the number that best describes whether your local
government's predominant use of social media today is for one-way
communication with citizens or whether it is mostly two-way/
interactive communication.
Mostly one-way Mostly two-way/interactive
1 2 3 4 5
References
Ahn, M. J. (2010). Adoption of e-communication applications in US municipalities: The
role of political environment, bureaucratic structure and the nature of applications.
American Review of Public Administration, 41(4), 428–452.
Akman, I., Yazici, A., Mishra, A., & Arifoglu, A. (2005). E-government: A global view and an
empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly,
22(2), 239–257.
Bannister, F. (2005). E-government and administrative power: The one-stop-shop meets
the turf war. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 2(2), 160–176.
Bekkers, V., & Moody, R. (2009). Visual culture and electronic government: Exploring a
new generation of e-government. Electronic government. Lecture notes in computer
science, 5693. (pp. 257–269). : Springer.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparen-
cy: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies.
Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of policies on government social
media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information
Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40.
Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1) (Accessed February 15, 2012 at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html).
Brainard, L. A., & McNutt, J. G. (2010). Virtual government–citizen relations: Information,
transactional, or collaborative? Administration & Society, 42(7), 836–858.
Brudney, J., & Selden, S. (1995). The adoption of innovation by smaller local governments:
The case of computer technology. American Review of Public Administration, 25(1),
71–86.
Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of
informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for, the Information Society,
5(1), 9–41.
Chang, A., & Kannan, P. K. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. : IBM Center for the
Business of Government (Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/
report/leveraging-web-20-government).
Chun, S. A., Shulman, S., Sandovol, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connec-
tions between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1/2), 1–9.
Council for Excellence in Government (2003). The new e-government equation: Ease,
engagement, privacy and protection. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://www.cio.
gov/documents/egovpoll2003.pdf
Coursey, D. (2005). E-government: Trends, benefits, and challenges. The municipal yearbook
2005. Washington, DC: International City/County Management.
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). E-government models: Are they empirically correct?
Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.
Damanpour, F. (1992). Organizational size and innovation. Organizational studies, 13(3),
375–402.
Dimitrova, D.V., & Chen, Y. -C. (2006). Profiling the adopters of e-government information
and services: The influence of psychological characteristics, civic mindedness, and
information channels. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 172–188.
Facebook (May 1). Facebook reports first quarter 2013 results. website. Accessed May 2,
2013 at: http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=761090
Ho, A. T. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public
Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444.
Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local
level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Productivity and Management Review,
26(3), 1–20.
507
Homburg, V., & Dijkshoorn, A. (2012). Diffusion of personalized e-government services
among Dutch municipalities: An empirical investigation and explanation. In V.
Weerakkody, & C. G. Reddick (Eds.), Public sector transformation through e-government:
Experiences from Europe and North America. : Routledge.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of
individual, organizational and contextual factors on hospital adoption of techno-
logical and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4),
689–713.
Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (2006). Information technology and administrative reform:
Will e-government be different? International Journal of Electronic Government
Research, 2(1), 1–20.
Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies
in government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113–121.
Mergel, I., Schweik, C., & Fountain, J. (2009). The transformational effect of Web 2.0
technologies on government. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1412796
Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science
Review, 63(1), 111–126.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or
reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
Moon, M. J., & Norris, D. F. (2005). A link between managerial innovativeness and
adoption of e-government among local governments. International Systems Journal,
15(1), 43–60.
Moulder, E. (2011). Personal communication from Evelina Moulder, Director of survey
research, ICMA, November 7, 2011.
Norris, D. F. (1984). Computers and small local governments: Users and uses. Public
Administration Review, 44(1), 70–78.
Norris, D. F. (1999). Leading edge information technologies and American cities. In G.
David Garson (Ed.), Computer applications and public administration. Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Publishers.
Norris, D. F., & Campillo, D. (2002). Factors affecting the adoption of leading edge information
technology by local governments. Baltimore: Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and
Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
Norris, D. F., & Demeter, L. A. (1999). Computing in American city governments.
The 1999 municipal yearbook. Washington, DC: International City/County
Management Association.
Norris, D. F., & Kraemer, K. L. (1996). Mainframe and PC computing in American cities:
Myths and realities. Public Administration Review, 56(6), 568–576.
Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grass roots: Tortoise or
hare? Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.
Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e-government in the U.S. — Transformation or
incremental change. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/
what-is-web-20.html
Reddick, C. G. (2004). Empirical models of e-government growth in local governments.
E-Service Journal, 3(2), 59–74.
Reddick, C. G. (2005a). Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to
servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38–57.
Reddick, C. G. (2005b). Citizen-initiated contact with government: Comparing phones
and websites. Journal of E-Government, 2(1), 27–53.
Reddick, C. G. (2005c). Government e-commerce adoption: A study of Texas counties.
Journal of E-Government, 2(2), 45–73.
Reddick, C. G. (2009). The adoption of centralized customer service systems: A survey of
local governments. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 219–226.
Schwester, R. (2009). Examining the barriers to e-government adoption. Electronic Journal
of E-Government, 7(1), 113–122.
Shelley, M., Thrane, L., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beiser, S., & Larson, T. (2004). Digital citizenship.
Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 256–269.
Statistics Brain (April 19). Twitter statistics. Accessed May 2, 2013 at: http://www.
statisticbrain.com/twitter-statistics
Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (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.
Christopher G. Reddick is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Public Administra-
tion at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Dr. Reddick has published numerous articles
and books on public administration and information technology. He is the editor of the
book series Public Administration and Information Technology (Springer). Dr. Reddick
also has published the textbook, Public Administration and Information Technology (Jones
and Bartlett Learning). Some of his publications have appeared in leading public adminis-
tration journals such as Public Administration Review, Government Information Quarterly
and Public Administration and Development. Born and raised in Canada, Dr. Reddick
earned his bachelor's and two masters degrees from The University of Guelph (Canada),
and his Ph.D. from The University of Sheffield (United Kingdom).
Donald F. Norris is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Public Policy and Direc-
tor of the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at the University of Mary-
land, Baltimore County. He is a specialist in urban politics, public management, and the
adoption, management and impacts of information technology (including e-electronic
government) in public organizations. Dr. Norris has authored, co-authored or edited six
books with one in preparation. He has published more than 50 articles in scholarly
journals and chapters in scholarly books and more than 100 monographs, reports and
scholarly papers. Dr. Norris was founding editor-in-chief of the International Journal of
Electronic Government Research. He holds a B.S. in history from the University of Memphis
and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in government from the University of Virginia.