1. International Collaboration within Electronic Government Research Domain: A Scientometrics AnalysisPrepared for: 2011 KAPA-ASPA International Conference, October 28-29, 2011, Seoul Korea Gohar Feroz Khan & Han Woo Park Department of Media and Communication, YeungNam University, Republic of Korea (gohar.feroz@gmail.com; hanpark@ynu.ac.kr) Note: This study is partially support by the SSK Program (National Research Foundation of Korea; NRF-2010-330-B00232). And an improved version of this paper is currently under review (1st round) in the GIQ journal.

2. E-government Research Domain Studies have focused on the e-government (EG) research domain in general (Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Yildiz, 2007) or specific topics: Provided region-specific analyses (Khan, et al., 2011) E-participation (Sæbo, et al., 2008) E-government models (Andersen & Henriksen, 2006) Digital divide (Helbig, et al., 2009) E-government design science (Fedorowicz & Dias, 2010), Information sharing in public sector (Yang & Maxwell, 2011) Aging populations (Niehaves, 2011), and Theoretical constructs used in EG research domain (Khan, et al., in press)

3. E-government Research Domain Focused on: Methods and problems related to the area Policy lessons EG research communities, or Socio-cultural issues related to the EG research domain

4. Problem Crucial, but they shed no light on the hidden structures and properties of EG domain: Key players and their connectivity patterns; Characteristics of scientific collaboration networks (e.g., degree centrality, density, and clusters); and Collaboration at the institutional level have not been analyzed and synthesized adequately

5. Why? & What? They use systematic literature review (SLR) method (Kitchenham, 2004). Helpful in understanding general facts May lead to Type 1 and Type 2 errors Limited in revealing certain hidden structures and network properties Need for a Social Network Approach (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and TH indicators (Leydesdorff, 2003).

6. Research Questions (RQ) RQ1: What is pattern and network structure of collaboration at the institutional, country, and regional levels in the network of EG knowledge production? RQ2: Based on network characteristics, who are the key players (i.e., institutions, countries, and regions) contributing to the network of EG knowledge production? RQ3: How strong/weak are the university-industry-government relationships in the network of EG knowledge production?

7. Data Papers (e.g., journal articles and conference proceedings) published(2000-2011) in SCI, SCI-E, SSCI, and A&HCI journals from the Web of Science database. Had a least one keyword: e-government, electronic government, paperless government, online government, web-based government, e-governance, electronic governance, and online governance. Papers appeared in 310 outlets

8. Method continue… To analyze UIG relationships, we divided authors' affiliated institutions into three categories: “university” (U), “industry” (I), and “government” (G). For example, a paper authored by a single university-based researcher or that coauthored by university-based researchers was classified as “U,” and a paper authored by at least one university-based researcher and one industry-based researcher was classified as “UI.”

9. Method Continue… SNA Analysis To understand Hidden structures & properties NetDraw 2.097 (Borgatti, 2002) UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002), & NetMiner 3.3.0 (Cyram, 2008) Triple Helix Model & its Indicators To understand the UIG relations (Leydesdorff, 2003).

10. Method continue…TH model T-values Fig. 1 TH model We used co-authorship data to measure T-values: T(ig) = Hi + Hg –Hig. (1) T(uig) = Hu + Hi + Hg –Hui –Hig –Hug + Huig. (2) For example: Negative three dimensional T-values (i.e., uig) indicates a decrease in uncertainty and Indicate synergy in the UIG relations

11. Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2) Figure 2: The co-authorship network of countries

12. Results: Country level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2) Table 1 Key players (countries) in terms of network centrality Figure 3: The co-authorship network of countries: Centrality

13. Results: Country Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2) Table 2 Network-level characteristics of the co-authorship network at the country level

14. Results: Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2) Figure 4 Institution-level network in the EG research domain (only those institutions with at least three links are shown)

15. Results: Institution Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2) Table 3 Network characteristics of the institution-level network

16. Results: Regional Level Collaboration (RQ1 & RQ2) Figure 5 The EG research domain: The regional collaboration network

17. Results:UIG relations & TH indicators (RQ3) Figure 6Number of solo and coauthored papers by TH component

18. Results:UIG relations &TH indicators (RQ3) Figure 7Longitudinal trends in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in the EG research domain

20. Discussion We suggest use of a Hybrid index: an index that consider implementation vs. publication capabilities of nations A hybrid index can be constructed, which may allow for a better comparison between the actual ability to implement technologies (or systems) and the theoretical ability (e.g. to publish papers) in various fields.

21. Discussion Region-Level Networks Network not balance in terms of strength & pattern of ties Developing countries preferred research ties with developed countries to those with other developing countries. Such ties may be useful for knowledge transfer from developed countries to developing countries, but the lack of vertical and horizontal ties among developing countries is alarming. Limit the transfer of knowledge and experience between developing countries during the implementation of EG systems.

22. Discussion Institution-Level Analysis U.S. institutions dominated EG research However, there were international, cross-regional, and institution-wide clusters of institutions, and most clusters were tightly integrated. Each cluster had a key institution In some cases the key institutions belings to different region! Not balanced in terms of UIG relations

23. Discussion TH Indicators: UIG Relationships Lack of strong bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in the EG research domain Good UIG relationships are crucial for any knowledge-based innovation systems (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2003) However, the UG relationship was stronger than the UI, IG, and UIG relationships.

24. Limitations Generalization maybe in issue. Only analyzed ISI based publications We did not considered non-indexed outlets (mini tracks, conferences, journals, case studies, etc). Invisible e-government research e.g. applied research, confidential or politically sensitivity studies not published in scientific outlets is excluded. Some keywords used in parts of world were missed digital government, transformative or t-government, and informatization

25. Thank You (Manana) Comments & Questions are welcomed