SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Politik Ekonomik Kuram / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

THE PHENOMENON OF E-PARTICIPATION: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF STUDIES PUBLISHED IN THE WEB OF SCIENCE DATABASE

E KATILIM OLGUSU: WEB OF SCIENCE VERI TABANINDA YAYINLANAN ÇALIŞMALARIN BIBLIOMETRIK ANALIZI

Seda Çankaya Kurnaz(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6977-300X
Önder Aytaç Afşar(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1394-3975
Pages
611–633
Publication Date
2025-06-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the analyses, it was found that the highest number of publications on the concept of e-participation was in 2010 (n=80), the leadership in the distribution of publications by countries was held by the United States (n=143), the journal that has the highest publication count in the field was Government Information Quarterly (n=43), Sonia Roya from the University of Zaragoza was both the most prolific author (n=11) and the most cited author (n=916), the most connected authors were Zahir Irani (n=27) and Muhammad Kamal (n=24), and apart from the e-participation (n=298) the most frequently used keywords in publications e-government with 115 repetitions, and e-democracy with 52 repetitions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to present bibliometric analyses and trends of 783 articles published between 1991 and January 30, 2024, in the Web of Science Core Collection Database regarding the concept of "e-participation," focusing on quantitative data and numerical measurement indicators, and providing researchers with a holistic perspective using VOSviewer software.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As a result of the analyses, it was found that the highest number of publications on the concept of e-participation was in 2010 (n=80), the leadership in the distribution of publications by countries was held by the United States (n=143), the journal that has the highest publication count in the field was Government Information Quarterly (n=43), Sonia Roya from the University of Zaragoza was both the most prolific author (n=11) and the most cited author (n=916), the most connected authors were Zahir Irani (n=27) and Muhammad Kamal (n=24), and apart from the e-participation (n=298) the most frequently used keywords in publications e-government with 115 repetitions, and e-democracy with 52 repetitions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These analyses on the concept of e-participation will raise awareness of the use of bibliometric analyses in the field of social sciences and provide researchers working on this topic with a theoretical foundation and a comprehensive roadmap.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Anahtar kelimeler: e-devlet · e-katılım · dijital dönüşüm

Abstract

The aim of this study is to present bibliometric analyses and trends of 783 articles published between 1991 and January 30, 2024, in the Web of Science Core Collection Database regarding the concept of "e-participation," focusing on quantitative data and numerical measurement indicators, and providing researchers with a holistic perspective using VOSviewer software. As a result of the analyses, it was found that the highest number of publications on the concept of e-participation was in 2010 (n=80), the leadership in the distribution of publications by countries was held by the United States (n=143), the journal that has the highest publication count in the field was Government Information Quarterly (n=43), Sonia Roya from the University of Zaragoza was both the most prolific author (n=11) and the most cited author (n=916), the most connected authors were Zahir Irani (n=27) and Muhammad Kamal (n=24), and apart from the e-participation (n=298) the most frequently used keywords in publications e-government with 115 repetitions, and e-democracy with 52 repetitions. These analyses on the concept of e-participation will raise awareness of the use of bibliometric analyses in the field of social sciences and provide researchers working on this topic with a theoretical foundation and a comprehensive roadmap.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1991 ile 30 Ocak 2024 yılları arasında Web of Science Core Collection veri tabanında “e-participation” kavramına ilişkin yayımlanan 783 makalenin nicel veriler ve sayısal ölçüm göstergelerini ele alan bibliyometrik analizlerini ve trendlerini VOSviewer yazılımı ile holistik bir bakış açısı ile ele alarak araştırmacıların dikkatine sunmaktır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda “e-participation” kavramına yönelik en fazla yayının 2010 yılında yapıldığı (n=80), yayınların ülkelere göre dağılımı konusunda liderliği Amerika'nın yürüttüğü (n=143), söz konusu alandaki çalışmalara en çok destek veren derginin Government Information Quarterly (n=43) olduğu, University of Zaragoza’dan Sonia Roya’nın hem en fazla yayın yapan (n=11) hem de en fazla atıf alan yazar olduğu (n=916), en bağlantılı yazarların Zahir Irani (n=27) ve Muhammad Kamal (n=24) olduğu, en fazla atıf alan kurumların University of Zaragoza (n=1081) ve University of Huelva (n=763) olduğu, e-katılım (n=298) kavramı dışında yayınlarda en fazla kullanılan anahtar kelimelerin 115 tekrar ile e-government, 52 tekrar ile e-demokrasi olduğu belirlenmiştir. E-participation kavramına yönelik yapılan bu analizler, bibliyometrik analizlerin sosyal bilimler alanında kullanımına yönelik bir farkındalık oluşturacak ve bu konu ile ilgili çalışacak araştırmacılara teorik bir temel ve kapsamlı bir yol haritası sunacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kurnaz, S. Ç., Afşar, Ö. A. (2025). THE PHENOMENON OF E-PARTICIPATION: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF STUDIES PUBLISHED IN THE WEB OF SCIENCE DATABASE. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 611–633. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1576840

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Alcaide Muñoz., L.; Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2015). Understanding e-government research. Internet Research, 25(4), 633–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2013-0259
  2. Alcaide Muñoz, L.; Bolívar, M.P.; Cobo, M.J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.E. (2017). Analysing the scientific evolution of e-government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 545-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.002
  3. Alcaide Muñoz, L.; Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P.; López Hernández, A. M. (2016). Transpareny in government a meta-analytic review of incentives for digital versus hard-copy public financial disclosures. American Review of Public Administration, 47(5), 550-573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016629008
  4. Allam, Z.; Sharifi, A.; Giurco, D.; Sharpe, S. A. (2021). On the theoretical conceptualisations, knowledge structures and trends of green new deals. Sustainability, 13(22), 12529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212529Andersen, K. V.; Henriksen, H. Z. (2005). The first leg of e-government research: domains and application areas 1998–2003. In A. V. Anttiroiko (Ed.), Electronic Government: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications, Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
  5. Armstrong, C. L. (2011). Providing a clearer view: an examination of transparency on local government websites. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.006
  6. Arslan, E. (2022). Sosyal bilim araştırmalarında vosviewer ile bibliyometrik haritalama ve örnek bir uygulama. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), 33-56. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1227291
  7. Baker, D. R. (1990). Citation analysis: a methodological review. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 26(3), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/swra/26.3.3
  8. Bélanger, F.; Carter, L. (2012). Digitizing government interactions with constituents: an historical review of e-government research in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 363–394. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00295
  9. Bonsón, E.; Royo, S.; Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens’ engagement on local governments’ facebook sites. An empirical analysis: the impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.001
  10. Bonson, E.; Torres, L.; Royo, S.; Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001
  11. Borrner, K.; Chen, C.; Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science And Technology, 37, 179–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370106
  12. Boyack, K.W.; Klavans, R. and Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64, 351-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6
  13. Chen, P.; Redner, S. (2010). Community structure of the physical review citation network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.001
  14. Chen C, Dubin, R.; Kim MC. (2014). Emerging trends and new developments in re-generative medicine: a scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin Biol Ther, 14, 1295-317. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2014.920813
  15. Clift, S. L. (2004). E-government and democracy representation and citizen engagement in the information age. http://www.publicus.net/articles/cliftegovdemocracy.pdf Accesssed: 15.05.2024
  16. Cobo M. J.; Lopez-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. (2012). Scimat: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 1609-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22688
  17. Council of Europe (2008). E-democracy: who dares?. http://www.icsd.aegean.gr/website_files/proptyxiako/208838613.pdf Accesssed: 16.05.2024
  18. Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  19. Dirik, D.; Eryılmaz, İ.; Erhan, T. (2023). Post-truth kavramı üzerine yapılan çalışmaların vosviewer ile bibliyometrik analizi. Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 4(2), 164-188. https://doi.org/10.54733/smar.1271369
  20. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  21. Egghe, L., Rousseau, R. (2002). Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics, 55(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020458612014
  22. EUI (2024). Library web of science. https://www.eui.eu/Research/Library/ResearchGuides/Economics/WebofScience EUI Accesssed: 02.03.2024
  23. European Commission (2015). E-participation. https://ec.europa.eu/digitalsinglemarket/ Accesssed: 15.05.2024
  24. European Movement (2019). International citizens participation in the digital age: e-democracy. https://europeanmovement.eu/citizens-participation-in-the-digital-age-e-democracy Accesssed: 15.05.2024
  25. Ferreira, D.; Lima, A., C.; Coelho, T. R. (2022). Factors of engagement in e-participation in a smart city. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 28-455.
  26. Granier, B.; Kudo, H. (2016). How are citizens involved in smart cities? analyzing citizen participation in japanese smart communities. Information Policy, 22(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150367
  27. Grönlund, Å. (2004). State of the Art in e-Gov Research – A Survey. In Electronic government, Ed., T., R., Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30078-6_30
  28. Harder, C. T.; Jordan, M. M, (2013). The transparency of county websites: a content analysis. Public Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 103–128.
  29. Heeks, R.; Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005
  30. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
  31. Korthagen, I.; Van Keulen, I.; Hennen, L.; Aichholzer, G.; Rose, G.; Linder, R.; Goos, K.; Nielsen, R. O. (2018). Prospects for e-democracy in Europe: part ıı case studies, Brussels: EPRS/STOA.
  32. Lironi, E. (2016). Potential and challenges of e-participation in the European Union. Brussels: European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ STUD/2016/556949/IPOL_STU 556949_EN.pdf Accesssed: 02.03.2024
  33. Lis, A. (2018). Keywords co-occurrence analysis of research on sustainable enterprise and sustainable organisation. Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, 5(2), 47–66.
  34. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policymaking. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.98.6150&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed: 02.03.2024
  35. Macintosh, A.; Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for e-participation. Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy, 2(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506160810862928
  36. Michener, G.; Bersch, K. (2013). Identifying transparency. Information Policy, 18, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-130299
  37. OECD (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy. challenges of citizen engagement. Paris: OECD.
  38. Ohio State University Library (2022). What is citation analysis. https://osu.libguides.com/oardc/citation_analysis/whatis#:~:text=Citation%20analysis%20is%20a%20way,been%20cited%20by%20other%20works. Accessed:02.03.2024
  39. Puron-Cid, G. (2014). Factors for a successful adoption of budgetary transparency innovations: a questionnaire report of an open government initiative in Mexico. Government Information Quarterly, 31(S1), S49–S62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.007
  40. Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Simske, S.; Treiblmaier, H.; Zailani, S. (2022). The big picture on the internet of things and the smart city: a review of what we know and what we need to know. Internet of Things, 19(6), 1- 21.
  41. Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P.; Alcaide Muñoz, L.; López Hernández, A. M. (2016). Scientometric study of the progress and development of e-government research during the period 2000–2012. Information Technology for Development, 22(1), 36–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2014.927340
  42. Royo, S.; Yetano, A.; Acerete, B. (2014). E-participation and environmental protection: are local governments really committed? Public Administration Review, 74(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12156
  43. Sannarnes, M. K.; Henrinken, H. Z.; Andersen, K. V. (2006). The E-Government Meltingpot: Lacking New Public Management and Innovation Flavor? EGOV, Lecture notes in computer science, Ed. M. A. W., H. J. S., A. G.& K. V. A., Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11823100_3
  44. Saylam, A. (2022). E-Devlet kavramının dijital devlet ve elektronik/dijital yönetişim kavramları ekseninde değerlendirilmesi, Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 57(3), 2144-2163. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.22.09.1887
  45. Schlosberg, D.; Shulman, S.; Zavestoski, S. (2007). Democracy and e-rulemaking: webbased technologies, participation, and the potential for deliberation. Journal of Information Technology ve Politics, 4(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J516v04n01_04
  46. Shaikh, A. K.; Ahmad, N.; Khan, I.; Ali, S. (2021). E-participation within e-government: a bibliometric-based systematic literature review. IJEGR, 17(4), 15-39. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2021100102
  47. Small, H. (1973). Co-Citation in scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
  48. Toker, A. (2021). Yayımla veya yok ol! rekreasyon yönetimi araştırmaları nereye gidiyor? bibliyometrik bir değerlendirme. Türk Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 2107–2126. https://doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2021.837
  49. United Nations (2016). United Nations e-government survey 2016. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Port We Want, New York. Accessed: 02.03.2024
  50. University of Michigan Library (2023). Research impact metrics: citation analysis, -https://guides.lib.umich.edu/citation. Accessed: 16.05.2024
  51. Van Eck, N. J.; Waltman, L. (2023). Vosviewer manual version 1.6.20. CWTS Meaningful Metrics. CWTS Meaningful Metrics.
  52. VOSviewer (2024). Vosviewer 1.6.20. https://www.vosviewer.com/als/egovkb/Documents/un/2016Survey/EGov_Complete_Survey-2016.pdEGovernment for the Future Accessed: 15.05.2024
  53. Web of Science (2024). Web of science. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/ Accessed: 16.05.2024
  54. Zitt, M.; Bassecoulard, E. (1994). Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30(r1), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017232