Virtual Interactivity Between Government and Citizens: The Chicago Police Department's Citizen ICAM Application Demonstration Case

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 24 November 2014, At: 05:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Political CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upcp20

Virtual Interactivity Between Government andCitizens: The Chicago Police Department's Citizen ICAMApplication Demonstration CaseEric W. Welch a & Shelley Fulla ba Eric W. Welch is Assistant Professor in the Graduate Program in Public Administration in theCollege of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicagob Shelley Fulla is a doctoral student in the same programPublished online: 21 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Eric W. Welch & Shelley Fulla (2005) Virtual Interactivity Between Government and Citizens: TheChicago Police Department's Citizen ICAM Application Demonstration Case, Political Communication, 22:2, 215-236, DOI:10.1080/10584600590933205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upcp20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10584600590933205

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933205

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

215

Political Communication, 22:215–236Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Inc.ISSN: 1058-4609 print / 1091-7675 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10584600590933205

Virtual Interactivity Between Governmentand Citizens: The Chicago Police Department’sCitizen ICAM Application Demonstration Case

ERIC W. WELCH and SHELLEY FULLA

This article considers the current efforts to describe the effect of Internet-basedtechnology on interactivity between citizens and public organizations to be incom-plete and poorly linked. Based on a multidisciplinary review of the literature, theauthors develop a theoretical model of cyber-interactivity and propositions abouthow virtual communication between citizens and bureaucrats may effect change inorganizations, communities, and the relationship between citizens and bureaucrats.Using McMillan’s model of cyber-interactivity, they identify four constructs—contentsophistication, feedback opportunity, dialogue complexity, and responsiveness—thatare useful for comparing citizen-bureaucrat interactions in cyberspace over timeand across organizations. The authors present a case analysis of the Chicago PoliceDepartment’s (CPD) Citizen ICAM Web application that illustrates the interplaybetween technological and organizational change. They find that cyber-interactivityis a complex process that has recognizable effects on the structure and work pro-cesses of the organization, and potentially on the relationship between citizens andbureaucrats. They conclude by proposing further research on cyber-interactivity ef-fects on public organizations, communities, and the relationship between citizensand bureaucrats.

Keywords bureaucracy, citizen, cyberspace, e-government, interactivity, organiza-tional change

The radical communication technologies of the Internet and the World Wide Web areexpected to alter the relationship between citizens and government, but how? Recentliterature on the social effects of the Web considers that by increasingly personalizingexperiences, the technology threatens to deemphasize and ultimately hinder public andcommunity life (Shapiro, 1999). Bovens and Zouridis raise the concern that increasingreliance on information and communication technologies (ICT) will work to dehuman-ize the bureaucracy (2002). Other researchers believe that the technologies not only hold

Eric W. Welch is Assistant Professor in the Graduate Program in Public Administration inthe College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago. ShelleyFulla is a doctoral student in the same program.

Address correspondence to: Eric W. Welch, Graduate Program in Public Administration,College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago, 412 South Peo-ria St., Room 138, Chicago, IL 60607, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

216 Eric W. Welch and Shelley Fulla

the promise for increased efficiency and effectiveness of government, they also mayenhance the ability of citizens to interact with bureaucrats and politicians in meaningfuland civically productive ways (Shi & Scavo, 2000; Mossberger et al., 2003). Some ofthe reasons why there is confusion about the ultimate effects of e-government on citizengovernment interaction are the newness of the technology, variation in the way in whichthe effects are measured, lack of commensurate data over time, and the small portion ofgovernments that have developed e-government strategies (Norris, Fletcher, & Holden,2001).

While surveys clearly show that governments recognize that e-government has changedthe way they operate—roles of staff, demands on staff, and business process are beingchanged (Norris et al., 2001; Moon, 2002)—little has been published in the politicalscience and public administration literature about the mechanisms by which this changeoccurs. Work by Weare provides an overview of the causal links that can occur betweenchanging network based technology and governance and offers insights into areas forfuture research (2002). The Cyberspace Policy Research Group (CyPRG) (Demchak etal., 2000; La Porte et al., 2001) has been working to address the issue of interactivitythe longest. Based on the reasonable premise that the openness of Web sites belies thewillingness of organizations to divulge information and interact with citizenry, CyPRGdeveloped a means of measuring two constructs, transparency and interactivity, that rep-resent proxies of managerial control. While the work completed by CyPRG has madesignificant contributions to the field, it also ignores research on interactivity in commu-nication, computer mediated communication, and psychology addressing this topic fromboth sender (bureaucrat) and receiver (citizen) perspectives.

These literatures generally find that the relationships between technology and changein organizations and politics are highly complex and variable: There is significant varia-tion in the patterns of end user communication, organizational response, communicationquality, and the effects of communication on the organization and end user. Most re-search agrees that interactivity is a dynamic process that affects communicators’ percep-tions and behaviors over time. Therefore, a more complete treatment about how cyber-interactivity affects citizens, bureaucrats, and governance should incorporate efforts inother fields to help interpret, explain, and predict how electronic network-based inter-action might cause changes in perceptions, behaviors, and social structures.

This article attempts to help fill this gap by linking research from multiple disci-plines to help predict how virtual communication can change the interaction betweencitizens and bureaucrats and how communication activities in cyberspace can result intestable changes in public organizations. The article also shows how elements of cyber-interactivity (content, feedback, and response) can be operationalized and measured overtime or across organizations. Using a case of one online information and communicationapplication developed by the Chicago Police Department, we demonstrate how cyber-interactivity is linked to organizational change.

The next section of this article takes an interdisciplinary approach to the review ofresearch on cyber-interactivity. Based on that analysis, we present a basic model ofinteractivity for the public sector and identify the specific areas in which Internet-basedinteraction between citizens and bureaucrats can change organizations, communities, andthe relationship between them. A set of constructs, propositions, and potential measuresare then proposed. Finally, we examine one element of interaction—Internet-based citi-zen feedback and agency response for the Chicago Police Department’s Citizen ICAMinformation system—to elicit a richer understanding of effects of adoption and imple-mentation of Web-based technology on organizational change.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Virtual Interactivity Between Government and Citizens 217

Interactivity Literature

This review has two objectives. The first objective is to establish a theoretical basis forexplaining how online interactivity can change citizen and bureaucrat perceptions aboutcommunity, public agencies, and the relationship between them. The second objective isto connect the theory with recent literature on types and manifestations of interactivityas they relate to change in public agencies.

Cyber-Interactivity Theory

In the fields of psychology and computer mediated communication, researchers haveexplored the impact that the Internet has on social ties, cognitive development, andcommunity. Much of this work has produced evidence that underscores the implicationsof the interactive nature of the Internet and its effect on the individual user’s develop-ment. For example, Riva and Galimberti (1997) identify two structural features of inter-action: co-presence of utterances and cognition. Co-presence of utterances occurs whenusers communicate with one another. Cognition occurs through and between users’ co-ordination of their action and their availability to one another (Riva & Galimberti, 1997,1998). Hence, visualization of communication based on the traditional parcel post inter-action model, in which one individual (S

1) passes information to another individual (S

2)

(Figure 1), has been replaced by the new, more complex communicative interactionmodel (CIM) (Figure 2). According to the CIM, any piece of communication is intendedfor both sender and receiver in a “double listening” process. Communication is a coop-erative action in which the sender must receive a response from the receiver in order tofully grasp what has been transmitted and understood.

As a result, the sender is continuously comparing what he or she has sent with thereturn communication. In this cognitive model, the individuals place a boundary aroundthe conversation to control the temporal and connotative limitations of the interaction.The area within this boundary is called the shared interlocutory space and is denoted byΣ

R. The CIM indicates that communication is a coordinated event in which both indi-

viduals recognize that they are contributing to the creation of a mutually acceptablereality through conversation.

This is especially relevant to the virtual world of the Internet. Riva identifies twocharacteristics of the virtual reality systems: a disappearance of mediation where the

S2

S1

Figure 1. Parcel post model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


physical world has lost its contextual meaning and a sense of community that is devel-oped through interaction (Riva, 1999). It is through interactions in the virtual environmentthat the end user establishes social ties via shared experiences and common interests aswell as removing his or her “physical” barriers.

Mantovani states that “interaction is made up of patterns of activity . . . that cometogether and shape each other on different occasions” (1996, p. 239). He asserts that itis through these interactions that situations are evaluated and personal goals are shaped.What is most important here is that interaction is continually changing, not only in themind of the actors “but the very structure of their connection” (Mantovani, 1996, p.240). Granic and Lamey posit that the Internet is a self-organizing entity and that thisorganization is a direct result of the interactivity of users. “[The Internet] has the poten-tial to catalyze major shifts in the cognitive styles and beliefs of its interactants” (2000,p. 94). Based partially on research concerning self-organizing systems, Granic and Lameydiscuss the tendency of such systems to create more intricate and complex interactionsand the simultaneous evolution of users, the system, and system networks. Riva andGalimberti conclude that “interaction is the key feature of Cyberspace, from which anew sense of self and community can be built” (1997, p. 142).

Therefore, the research from these fields offers a model that posits how networktechnologies could affect citizen and bureaucrat perceptions of the shared interlocutoryspace within which they communicate. How each side develops that space will have aneffect on their mutual perception of the norms, values, objectives, or requirements thatpredominate. The extent to which the newer cyberspace coincides with the traditionalspace within which bureaucrats and citizens operated before the advent of network tech-nologies will also affect the mutual establishment of special boundaries.

Despite the attraction of the idea that cyber-interactivity can affect perceptions, it isalso clear that interactivity between citizens and bureaucrats is embedded within socialcontexts that define roles, perceptions, and actions (Grannovetter, 1985). For the citizen,a primary social context is the community; for the bureaucrat, it is the public organiza-tion. Citizens’ values, needs, and objectives are linked or embedded in the values, norms,

S2

S1

ΣR

Figure 2. Communicative interactonism.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


resources, and objectives of the community within which they identify (Putnam, 1993).Bureaucrats’ behaviors are also undeniably linked to the culture and structure of theorganization within which they work and the managers from whom they receive direc-tion (Scott, 1992). Moreover, the relationship between citizen and bureaucrat continuesto be based on public service, which is fundamentally associated with a physical space(an administrative location within which voting, taxation, and other functions of govern-ment occur). As a result, any model of interaction between citizen and bureaucrat mustexplicitly include the broader social contexts from which they originate.

Figure 3 shows a revised CIM where the shared interlocutory space (ΣRtv

) encom-passes both traditional (t) and virtual (v) spaces. Communicative interaction betweenindividuals incorporates consideration of the social context within with each participantis embedded, but it also includes decisions about how to operate in a virtual world.1 Forexample, a bureaucrat’s response to an e-mail reflects the structure and process of theorganization, values of management, as well as the individual respondent’s position androle. However, it also involves new decisions by bureaucrats about how to define andoperate in the new space. Queries by citizens will reflect the socioeconomic realities,local concerns, history, and institutions (norms and expectations) of the community, butthey may also recognize a new virtual interaction space. Experimentation and reactionover time will result in a shared interlocutory space that changes from traditionally de-fined space (Σ

Rt) to a new space that combines traditional and virtual spaces (Σ

Rtv).

It is not simply citizen and bureaucrat activities as they relate to cyber-interaction thatis of interest, but the evolution of cyber-interactivity as it relates to the evolution ofadministrative or political interaction over time. The revised CIM model shows that thereis a fundamental linkage between the application and use of network technologies toenhance citizen knowledge of, access to, and participation in governance and changes inagencies, communities, and the governing relationship between them. Network technolo-gies that facilitate changes in cyber-interactivity may result in changes in governance.

Figure 3. The social context of communicative interaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


The rapid diffusion of access to and use of network technologies (Larson & Rainie,2002; La Porte et al., 2001) and the increasing diversity of their application in the pub-lic sector (MeGAP, 2004) represent fundamental changes in the available means bywhich bureaucrats and citizens can interact. This phenomenon reflects an adoption dif-fusion model in which leaders adopt the technology early and an increase in adoptionoccurs over time until saturation causes some leveling (Rogers, 1985). For the foresee-able future, political and social pressures, demands for public-sector reform, education,and changes in technology will continue to facilitate diffusion of interactive network-based information and communication technologies, increasing the likelihood that agen-cies and citizens will reconsider the boundaries that traditional governance systems placeon transparency, service demand and supply, and participation. Network technologiesappear to be evolving toward greater rather than less interactivity between citizens andbureaucrats (Kaylor, Deshazo, & van Eck, 2001; MeGAP, 2004). We expect that overtime, as citizens and bureaucrats redefine the shared interlocutory space, real changes inthe public agency and in the community will occur to enable support the new space.For the agency, this may result in structural, personnel, budgetary, programmatic, andprocess changes that determine how citizens participate in the governance process.

The evolutionary, time dependent process of change helps explain the often puz-zling and often inconsistent research results in sociology, political science, and publicadministration (DiMaggio et al., 2001). For example, Bimber finds that citizen Internetuse is only associated with donating money to candidates in his analysis of 1998 data,but another analysis using similar data from 2000 finds Internet use to be associatedwith voting, political event attendance and donated money (2003). Weber (2000) findsthat Internet activity “has a significant [effect] on political participation” (p. 38), whileNorris et al. show that antecedent patterns of political behavior are reinforced by Internetuse, but due to access inequities and citizen preferences, Internet use does not initiatenew patterns of behavior (2001). Jennings and Zeitner (2003) find that “political use ofthe Internet [is] statistically insignificant for nearly all of the civic engagement factors”(p. 330), while Tolbert and McNeal (2003) find a “mobilizing potential of the Internetduring elections” (p. 184). Early research by Musso and others on local Web sites foundfew opportunities for participative interaction, but significant entrepreneurial efforts toprovide information and transactions (2000). More recent work by MeGAP shows thatuse of technologies that facilitate participation is on the rise (2004).

The evolutionary perspective is supported by CyPRG data on Web sites showingincreases in transparency and interactivity of national Web sites over time (Welch &Wong, 2004). And, in general, empirical findings reflect the evolutionary processes thatcyber-change theory posits: an increased trend toward greater interactivity and transpar-ency but a great deal of variation around the trend line. The revised CIM model repre-sents one possible mechanism behind both the trend and the variation. Moreover, themodel provides a source of theoretical support for the more popular hypothesized “phasedmodels” of electronic government (Sood, 2001; Baum & Di Maio, 2001; Hiller & Bélanger,2001; Moon, 2002).

In summary, this discussion surrounding the revised CIM model suggests that cyber-interactivity between citizens and bureaucrats will continue to increase over time untilsome saturation level is attained. The rate and level of increase in cyber-interactivity forany particular government agency and its constituency will vary based on the usualinstitutional, organizational, and behavioral contingencies. However, over time, as adop-tion, adaptation, and usage of new mechanisms of cyber-interactivity spread, bureaucratand citizen perceptions of the shared interlocutory boundaries within which communica-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


tion can take place will change. The new boundaries of the space will be different fromthe tradition boundaries of communication between citizens and bureaucrats; likewise,citizen expectations of bureaucrats and bureaucrat expectations of citizens will co-evolve.As expectations change, communities and public organizations will be forced to adapttraditional structures and behaviors to new realities.

This discussion seems to suggest some general research propositions.

P1: Diffusion of network technologies that enable cyber-interactivity will,over time, change citizen and bureaucrat perceptions of the shared interlocutoryspace within which they communicate with each other.

P2: As perceptions of shared interlocutory space change, public organizationsand communities will adapt their structures, rules, cultures, communicationpatterns, management and resource allocation practices, and other behaviors.

These propositions encapsulate the theoretical discussion thus far and are intended toprovide guidance for more detailed future hypothesis development and empirical analy-sis. The remainder of this article focuses on how changes in cyber-interactivity that alterthe shared interlocutory space can affect public organizations; effects that cyber-interactivityhas on communities and the relationship between citizens and government are topics forfuture investigation. The next section presents a model of four types of interactive com-munication between citizens and bureaucrats, identifies some ways of conceptualizingand measuring change in cyber-interactivity, and develops a proposition linking varia-tion in cyber-interactivity to organizational change.

Mechanisms by Which Cyber-Interactivity Can Effect Organizational Change

Research on interactivity in the communication field typically begins with Rafeli’s defi-nition of interactivity as a third order exchange: “an expression of the extent that in a givenseries of communication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is relatedto the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions” (1988,p. 111). Interactivity represents a certain type of communication exchange process that is“based on relatedness of sequential messages” (McMillan, 2002, p. 272). More recentresearch posits multiple dimensions of interactivity—such as direction of communication,time flexibility, sense of place, level of control, responsiveness, and perceived purpose ofcommunication (Downes & McMillan, 2000; McMillan, 2002; Heeter, 1989)—and moststudies recognize that the fundamental element of an interactive system is feedback.Feedback, according to Stromer-Galley and Foot, “occurs when communication is respon-sive—when the receiver takes the role of sender and replies directly to the originalmessage” (2002, p. 4). Based on prior efforts in the computer mediated communicationfield (Grunig & Grunig, 1989; Bordewijk & van Kaam, 1986), McMillan (2002) hasdeveloped a model of cyber-interactivity that shows how different types of communicationin cyberspace demonstrate variation in the level of receiver control (Table 1).

One-way communication with a low level of receiver (citizen) control creates amonologue in which “senders simply disseminate information.” A feedback situationexists when a receiver still has little control over the interaction but is given an opportu-nity to participate in the communication process through an e-mail connection on theWeb site. Control is low because response to the e-mail is purely at the discretion of thesender (bureaucrat). Two-way communication in which receiver control is low refers toa situation in which interactive communication takes place, but there is an asymmetric

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


relationship between the sender and receiver such that the former remains in control.Finally, two-way communication is labeled mutual discourse when receivers (and senders)have a high degree of control. Here receivers and senders interchange roles as partici-pants in a conversation. Communication between citizens and bureaucrats as peers isprobably unlikely due to the fundamental asymmetry of the relationship. Nevertheless, itwould be possible for interaction to evolve in that direction.

Movement from low to high receiver control and from one-way to two-way com-munication may represent progressively higher levels of government commitment tointeractivity with citizens. Based on the above literature review, we would expect thatwhen public agencies apply network technologies that extend their interactivity commit-ment beyond traditional levels, citizen and bureaucrat perceptions of the shared inter-locutory space will shift. The McMillan work points to one perceptual dimension ofshared space—receiver control—that could undergo change. More dramatic changes inlevel of receiver control may cause a greater shift in the mutually defined space andmay require more significant changes in organizational structures and processes for sup-port. For example, if an agency that has traditionally been closed to public input decidesto offer and support an e-mail feedback opportunity for citizen suggestions and inquir-ies, it may also need to allocate resources to enable adequate routing and response.

To operationalize interactivity, prior research has tended either to measure individuals’perceptions of Web site interactivity (McMillan & Huang, 2002) or to develop multidi-mensional constructs based on measures for evaluating Web site interactivity (Downes& McMillan, 2000; Heeter, 1989; Demchak et al., 2000). In this case, we draw on bothof these literatures to develop four measurable constructs that can help benchmark andtrace changes in cyber-interactivity: content sophistication, feedback strategy, dialoguecomplexity, and responsiveness.

Content Sophistication. This construct concerns the complexity of information and choiceprovided to citizens through networked technologies, the level of detail of informationavailable for citizens on agency Web sites, and the ease with which citizens can accessit. In some ways, this represents transparency and elements of interactivity as defined by

Table 1Four-part model of cyber-interactivity

Direction of communication

One-way Two-way

Level of receiver controlHigh Feedback Mutual discourse

Low Monologue Responsive dialogue

S

S S

R

R R

P P

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


CyPRG: transparency concerns the extent to which an organization provides informationabout activities and decision processes. “[In terms of a Web site, transparency] consti-tutes a layman’s basic map of the organization as depicted in the information on the site[and] reveals the depth of access it allows, the depths of knowledge about processes it iswilling to reveal, and the level of attention to citizen response it provides” (La Porte etal., 1999, p. 6). The more transparent an organization’s Web site, the more it is willingto allow citizens to monitor its performance (Reichard, 1998). According to CyPRG,interactivity concerns the quality of communication between the public organization andthe citizen. “[It] is a measure of the level of convenience or degree of immediate feed-back [provided]” (La Porte et al., 1999, p. 6). Therefore, it is possible to consider theease with which citizens can access needed information to be the CyPRG interactivitycomponent of this construct. Heeter’s construct of complexity of choice (1989) and McMillanand Huang’s consideration of the extent to which the Web site engages the user (2002)may also be included here.

This construct is primarily associated with the “monologue” level of cyber-interactivityand represents agency decisions about the level of sophistication of the user, the willing-ness of the organization to provide and support reliable information, and the desire toeffectively transfer knowledge about the agency and its decision making processes tocitizens. Generally, it signals the willingness and investment of the agency to transferknowledge to the citizen. As the level of content sophistication goes beyond traditionalefforts to transfer knowledge to citizens, the shared interlocutory space will move fromΣ

Rt to Σ

Rtv. Greater divergence from traditional efforts to inform citizens may require

changes in organizational structures and behaviors to support citizen and bureaucrat ex-pectations of the new space.

Feedback Opportunity. This construct refers to the availability on the Web site for citi-zens to provide feedback. Feedback opportunity may be available in either synchronousapplications such as chat or asynchronous applications such as e-mail. E-mail and bulletinboards are the most common applications used to elicit feedback and enable responsivedialogue (Stromer-Galley & Foot, 2002). The ease of response and the context, number,and variety of feedback opportunities provide signals to citizens about the organization’sinterest in their inquiries. This construct is primarily associated with the “feedback,”“responsive dialogue,” and “mutual discourse” types of interactivity presented above. Italso comprises some elements of the CyPRG definition of interactivity, Heeter’s ideasabout complexity of choice available and effort that users must exert (1989), and ele-ments of McMillan and Huang’s “real-time conversation” construct (2002). Similar tocontent sophistication, this construct would help benchmark and track changes in theorganization’s relative willingness to invest in citizen engagement. The extent to whichorganizations provide feedback opportunities sends signals to citizens (and bureaucratsin the organization) about the level of cyber-interactivity that the agency desires. As thelevel of feedback opportunity increases beyond traditional levels, there is a greater po-tential for redefinition of the shared interlocutory space in terms of receiver control.This may result in greater demand for changes in organizational structures and behav-iors that support the new space.

Dialogue Complexity. There are two aspects of dialogue complexity: level and appropri-ateness. As for the level of dialogue complexity, there is a fundamental shift in thenature of interaction between sender and receiver as the communication changes fromone-way to two-way (Table 1). According to Rafaeli, true interactivity occurs when a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


subsequent communication relates to prior communication; the more extended this pro-cess, the more interactive the dialogue (1988). Simple one-way responses have a muchlower dialogue complexity than sequential e-mails that concern the same issue or topic,for example. Therefore, it is possible to measure the level of dialogue complexity overtime as the frequency of communications between citizens and bureaucrats that refer toprior communications (Kiousis, 2002). In addition, the level of complexity may be mea-sured as the extent to which feedback requires knowledge or action from another part ofthe organization—the frequency of referrals and requests for information that are routedthroughout the organization, for example.

Dialogue complexity also depends upon the appropriateness of citizen feedback andbureaucrat response. For example, feedback requiring simple yes or no answers differssubstantially from requests for additional, more detailed information or from requestsfor specialized action that require referral to another part of the organization. Dialoguecomplexity is appropriate when the level of response complexity is commensurate withthe feedback received. When analysis shows a pattern of high citizen feedback complexitybut low organization response complexity, the agency’s commitment to cyber-interactivitymay be low. Naturally, measurement of appropriateness would need to take into accountthe reasonability of the citizen’s feedback. For example, a citizen’s request for release ofconfidential information is “complex” but not feasible.

Dialogue complexity that increases over time represents the agency’s willingness toapply feedback tools in a progressively more complex manner, increasing the citizen’srelative level of receiver control. And, as the level of dialogue complexity increases,there is greater potential for altering citizen and bureaucrat perceptions of the sharedinterlocutory space. A more extreme perceptual shift may require a more substantialorganizational change to support it.

Response Commitment. This construct represents the frequency and speed of responseby the bureaucrat to the citizen. In general, frequency and speed of response are ex-pected to increase over time, driven, at least partially, by citizen expectations, techno-logical advancements, and learning by the organization. Frequency could be measuredas the ratio of number of bureaucrat responses to citizen feedback. A high frequency ofresponse indicates a stronger commitment to cyber-interactivity and a higher level ofreceiver (citizen) control.

Speed of response may depend upon dialogue complexity; highly complex feedbackfrom citizens may require greater routing, referral, and research within the organization.Therefore, it may be important to use a complexity-weighted measure of response speed.It may also be useful to distinguish between classes of responses. For complex feed-back, immediate responses that explain how the citizen’s e-mail will be handled andlonger term follow-on responses that address the specifics of the feedback are fundamentallydifferent. Table 2 synthesizes this point—the speed of each class of response wouldprovide a different measure of agency commitment to cyber-interactivity. For example,commitment to response may lead to faster immediate response (acknowledgment), buthigher complexity of feedback and increased commitment may also lead to longer fol-low-on times.

As the agency shows increased commitment to respond to citizen feedback, eitherin terms of speed or complexity of feedback, perceptions about the level of receivercontrol in the shared interlocutory space may increase and require substantial changes inallocation of organizational resources to sustain the feedback process.

The above four constructs—content sophistication, feedback opportunity, dialogue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


complexity, and response commitment—represent four mechanisms by which research-ers can compare agencies and track changes in cyber-interactivity over time. Earlierpropositions posited that changes in cyber-interactivity will alter citizen-bureaucrat defi-nitions of the shared interlocutory space, and that changes in spatial definitions willresult in real changes in the organization, community, and the governance relationshipbetween them. These constructs and their associated measures provide the means forassessing how changes in cyber-interactivity can affect perceptions of receiver (citizen)control.

It is not unreasonable to expect that increases in the four constructs of cyber-interactivityin a public organization will alter citizen expectations of the shared interlocutory spaceand require commensurate changes in the internal operations of the agency. To ensureresponsiveness, accountability, efficiency, and ultimately trust, organizations will be forcedto undergo changes that enable acceptable operation in a cyber world. Levels of cyber-interactivity that significantly depart from traditional levels of interactivity may requirechanges in personnel, job descriptions, work processes, budgets, and culture in order tomanage the response and referral processes. Some public sector services may be morelikely to exhibit these changes than others. For example, organizations that have particu-larly high accountability demands, such as public health and safety agencies, are partic-ularly visible and under significant pressure to respond to citizen concerns. Once theseagencies offer interactive technologies to citizens, they are comparatively more commit-ted (whether they realize it or not at the outset) to provide adequate resources to supportthem. In addition, organizations that are more highly rule based and hierarchical may bemost dramatically affected by the adoption of new network communication technolo-gies. New communication channels may require new types of internal coordination andcooperation, for example. Therefore, exploratory research seeking to understand howadoption of new network technologies affects organizations on the effects of cyber-interactivity on organizational change might first examine law enforcement agencies orother similar hierarchically structure agencies. Future research may be able to identifysystematic associations between the four constructs, organization characteristics, and or-ganization change.

For citizens, integration of cyber-interactivity into organizational structures and pro-cesses is a signal that their communications have import. This may be particularly true forcyber exchange between citizens and bureaucrats that results in specific actions anddecisions by the agency. Online requests for specific agency action (pot hole filling,provision of information, police investigation, and traffic control) represent an opportunityto demonstrate agency responsiveness and accountability. Similarly, a participatory pro-cess where the agency transparently documents, summarizes, and integrates citizen inputinto public decision processes may be recognized (by citizens and bureaucrats) as more

Table 2Class of response and dialogue complexity

Class of responseDialogueof complexity Immediate Follow-on

High 1 3Low 2 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


accountable, valid, fair, and trustworthy than processes in which these efforts are absent(Tolbert & Mossberger, 2004). Over time, increased integration will lead to changes incitizen perceptions of the shared interlocutory space. How these changed perceptions affectcommunities and the relationship between citizens and bureaucrats should be the subjectof future research. Based on the above discussion, one more proposition is offered:

P3: Agencies demonstrating greater divergence from traditional levels of contentsophistication, feedback opportunity, dialogue complexity, and responsivecommitment over time, will also exhibit greater organizational change.

In the next section of the article, we provide a case study of the e-mail feedback systemfor the Chicago Police Department’s Citizen ICAM Internet technology to demonstratehow some of the above constructs can be measured over time. We believe that theadoption of Citizen ICAM and its accompanying feedback system by the CPD repre-sents a significant departure from its tradition citizen-police communication mechanisms.Moreover, because the CPD is a hierarchical agency with strong demands for account-ability, it is particularly suited for exploratory analysis. We focus on the changes inresponse speed, response complexity, and integration that have occurred over time anddiscuss what these changes tell us about the evolution of CPD priorities for cyber-interactivityand police interaction with citizens.

Demonstration Case: Chicago Police Department’s Citizen ICAM

In response to rising crime rates, community policing emerged in the 1990s as a methodby which law enforcement and citizens cooperatively identify and solve community problems.In 1993, the CPD launched its community policing program, Chicago’s Alternative Po-licing Strategy (CAPS). To implement the CAPS program, the city divided Chicago’s 25districts into 279 “beats” (smaller geographically based policing areas). For each shift ineach beat throughout Chicago, police officers are assigned to focus on community polic-ing. Organized interaction occurs at local beat meetings, where residents identify com-munity problems and work with police officers to identify solutions to these problems.Police officers work with community members to discover community priorities andutilize community intelligence to solve crimes.

In 1994, the department developed a crime-mapping program, Information Collec-tion for Automated Mapping (ICAM), as a beat-level crime information tool. This appli-cation gave officers and residents working through CAPS continuously updated infor-mation on crime activity and crime trends at any administrative and geographic unit ofanalysis. However, as CAPS gained momentum and more residents were engaged in theprocess, police officers working through CAPS were spending large amounts of timeresponding to resident requests for accurate data on crime.

In response, the CPD developed Citizen ICAM (http://12.17.79.6), which is a Web-based technology that provides citizens with location specific information about crimefrom the same data source that the police use. Citizens are able to interact directlyonline with the CPD’s crime database to conduct statistical queries on crime at theintersection, school, address, and beat levels. The Web site also offers an e-mail feed-back opportunity. The main goal of Citizen ICAM was to provide citizens with a clearerpicture of the crime occurring in their neighborhoods, thereby making beat meetings,officer activity, and other problem-solving efforts more efficient.

The development of the Citizen ICAM application represents a significant departure

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


from prior policy in which police representatives acted as crime data intermediaries. Theavailability of crime data from the same database for both citizens and police representsan increase in the level of content sophistication because greater control over access toinformation was given to the citizen. Combined with the new feedback link on theICAM Web site, this created a new commitment by police to enhance cyber-interactivitybetween citizens and police. How the cyber interactivity process unfolded and how itaffected the police organization are the topics of this demonstration case.

Data and Method

The primary data source for the project is the e-mail communication that has occurredbetween citizens and police through the Citizen ICAM Web site. The analysis focuseson changes in the dialogue complexity and responsiveness of the communication, aswell as the associated organizational changes that have occurred. Citizen feedback e-mails and police responses were collected over a 21 month period from the advent ofthe Web site on September 28, 2000, through June 30, 2002. A total of 499 initialcitizen e-mails and the associated police responses were examined. We developed andtested a codification protocol to classify e-mail message content according to the follow-ing substantive categories:

• General questions about Citizen ICAM• Positive statements about the Web site• Negative statements about the Web site• Technical difficulties• Suggestions about improvements (general suggestions, data legend suggestions,

data length suggestions)• Questions about police procedure and response• Inquiries about current cases and problems• Reporting of criminal activity• Home purchase• Other jurisdiction requests

Each initial e-mail was coded one or zero for the presence or absence of each of theitems. In addition, referrals were coded according to the department to which the e-mailwas forwarded. These included district, area, Bureau of Investigative Services, 311/911,Internal Affairs, Liquor Control, Research and Development, and other. We also re-corded response times (days) and created a separate category indicating whether or notthe police e-mailed a response. Finally, each of the initial citizen e-mails was coded oneor zero depending upon whether follow-up communication between the citizen and po-lice ensued beyond a simple acknowledgment. This variable operationalizes Rafaelli’sdefinition of interactive communication in which, “in a given series of communicationexchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is related to earlier transmis-sions” (1988, p. 111).

The two researchers coded the messages separately using an agreed-upon codingprotocol (see the Appendix for a list of categories and their explanations). We calculateda kappa coefficient for each of the 23 different variables (Cohen, 1960). The kappacoefficient ranged between 0.80 and 0.97, indicating strong agreement between coders.Both coders reexamined all messages in which results varied, discussed the reasons forthe discrepancies, and agreed on final scores.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


In general, the coding process revealed that citizen feedback fell into two maincategories: feedback about the application itself and feedback about police business.Moreover, responses in these two categories had fundamentally different dynamics, aswill be shown in the findings below. For example, feedback about the application washandled within the technology section—the office in charge of the Citizen ICAM appli-cation. However, police business e-mails were more often referred outside the technologysection. Two new discrete variables were created to code the two different categories offeedback. For purposes of analysis over time, coded data were separated into four, roughlyequal 5½-month segments.

Citizen Feedback

The majority of e-mail received from citizens (55%) occurred during the first period.During that time, most citizen e-mails were specific to the Citizen ICAM application,that is, comments about the availability of the information online (Figure 4). These e-mails did not require detailed response from the police, although as the Police Responsesection shows below, response frequency for these e-mails increased over time. By thesecond period, many of the technology problems were solved and the ratio of policebusiness (Figure 4) to application e-mails increased. In the second, third, and fourthperiods, citizen feedback requesting police response outpaced application-relevant e-mails.In general, this may reflect a high level of responsiveness to citizen requests for changesin the application. Overall, the level of citizen feedback related to police response de-creased over the 2 years, dropping moderately between the second and third periodsbefore leveling off.

Police Response

Complexity

Changes over time in the complexity of cyber-interactivity are reflected in three ways:the increase in percentage of referrals over time, the moderate decrease in the diversityof referrals over time, and the increase in third order exchanges in which a sequential

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4

Period

Application Police Business

Figure 4. Citizen feedback by category.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


thread continues over time. Figure 5 shows the proportion of referrals made to the totalnumber of e-mails received for each period: although there was a dramatic increase inthe second period and a decrease in the third period, the overall trend is up. The per-centage of referrals for police business dropped slightly from about 59% of all policebusiness e-mails being referred to 51% in the fourth period. Interestingly, the first twoperiods saw a much greater number of multiple referrals (seven)—referral of one e-mailto multiple internal departments—than the last two periods (one in the third period andnone in the fourth). Together, these findings may indicate the development of a morestreamlined response process and an increased capacity of the officer in charge of e-mailresponses, issues that will be discussed further below.

In terms of the diversity of referrals, analysis showed that referred e-mails weredistributed to more departments of the organization in the first period (seven) and thatover time the number of outlets decreased: six, four, and five in the last three periods,respectively. Although the data are limited, this pattern may indicate that a routing se-lection process was taking place over time.

The proportion of communications between citizens and police that were third or-der interactive increased over time as well. Third order communication was measured asthe frequency of exchanges by period after two types of communications were removed:(a) application e-mails from citizens that received only simple positive or negative re-sponses and (b) questions that received no reply. All other communications were foundto be third order interactive. Overall, third-order communication increased from 69% inthe first period to approximately 90% in the next three periods. All police businessexchanges in the third and fourth periods were found to be third-order interactions.

Two brief examples illustrate the exchange process. In the first example, a buspassenger used ICAM feedback to report an accident between a bus and a car in whichthe bus driver did not appear to have reported the incident properly. The report wasdetailed and included the bus number, intersection of the accident, description of thedamaged car, bus line, and other relevant information. The Citizen ICAM officer re-sponded immediately to the citizen with a tracking number and an explanation of areferral to the accident investigation unit (AIU). In turn, the citizen responded by thank-ing the officer for the prompt e-mail reply. The AIU conducted an investigation within 2days and forwarded the results of the investigation to the Technology Section, which

14%

39%

24%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 2 3 4

Period

Figure 5. Police referrals as a percentage of total citizen e-mails by period.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


then responded to the citizen about the outcome of the investigation. Citizen ICAM alsoforwarded the citizen report and the investigation reference number to the Chicago TransitAuthority, the operator of the bus service.

In the second example, a citizen used the feedback function to identify problemswith a specific drug user loitering at an apartment building and causing disturbances.The two-page e-mail detailed instances of encounters with the drug user and a physicaldescription. Further, the citizen pledged her support of police activities, stated that she isactive in community policing, and offered suggestions for improvement of patrol. Within2 days, an original response was sent to the citizen where she was informed that areferral was made to her local district. Less than 2 weeks later, the commander of thereferral district sent the Technology Section correspondence stating that an arrest hadbeen made in connection with the original e-mail from the citizen. The citizen wasinformed of the arrest via e-mail.

These examples are indicative of the types of cyber interactivity that takes place asa result of the ICAM feedback. Other examples include referrals to 911 and the Bureauof Investigative Services, Research and Analysis, Liquor Control, and Internal Affairs.

Frequency and Speed

Frequency of response to citizen e-mail rose rapidly between the first and second peri-ods. In the first period, just over 60% of all e-mails received a police response. By thesecond period, frequency of response jumped to 95% and remained at that level for thenext two periods. Clearly, this aspect of responsiveness was targeted early as an impor-tant goal.

The speed with which the organization responded to citizen e-mail also changedover time. As Figure 6 shows, overall days to respond to e-mail rose slightly over time.However, when police business feedback is separated from application feedback, wefind that response to police business slowed dramatically over time, while response toapplication-oriented e-mails decreased slightly. This finding may indicate that citizen e-mail requests or the CPO responses became more complex over time, requiring longerfollow-up processes.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5

Period

Overall Police Business Application

Figure 6. Speed of CPD response to citizen feedback.

Day

s o

f R

eply

Police Business Trend

Overall Trend Application Trend

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


The above analysis shows that it is possible to document the process of adaptationthat an organization undertakes after adopting new cyber technologies. These changesnot only reflect traditional demands in the CPD’s environment but also new expecta-tions defined within cyber-space.

Organizational Change

The previous discussion indicates that over time, even though absolute e-mail communi-cation levels remain relatively low, citizen feedback has increasingly required a morecomplex response by the police. Other information collected for this project not onlysupports this observation, but also indicates that over time change associated with e-mailexchange occurred in the organization’s structures and processes.

Shortly after the beginning of the Citizen ICAM Web site, it became clear that e-mail response was requiring a significant amount of time, resources, and expertise. Citi-zens began to report crime and request actions that went beyond the initial expectationsand ability of the individual who was initially in charge: a staff member in the Technol-ogy Section. Apparently in recognition of the importance of feedback communication,the CPD developed a more systematic e-mail management system.

Now each citizen e-mail is given a control number for tracking purposes, and allusers are supposed to receive a response. Further, the e-mails and responses are printedand stored in a logbook for future reference. Should any e-mail require CPD response orfollow-up, electronic and hard copies of the e-mail are sent to the responsible unit, andan e-mail identifying the referral and control number is sent to the citizen. Referral unitsprovide the Technology Section with written documentation of the follow up, which isto be placed in the logbook along with the original e-mail. Moreover, the CPD assignedresponsibility for the Citizen ICAM system to a CPD officer partway through the firstperiod.

Over time, the officer in charge developed an informal prioritization system forresponse that was based on the content of the citizen’s communication. Applicationfeedback was distinguished from police business feedback (as shown in Figure 6). Formletter responses were developed for some types of citizen comments, while more com-plex e-mail received tailored responses. Therefore, in addition to the control number, theTechnology Section effectively instituted a response priority system.

As shown in the descriptive statistics above, the new personnel, tracking, and prioriti-zation system began to have an effect. The data indicate a more frequent generation ofreferrals from the Technology Section to other units in the organization, an increase inresponse frequency, decreases in response times, a moderate reduction in the diversity ofreferrals, and a dramatic reduction in the number of multiple referrals. Together, thesefindings indicate that the change in personnel brought with it new expertise and resourcesand led to a more streamlined and orderly response process for Citizen ICAM feedback.

As mentioned above, referral e-mails require several levels of written electronic andhard copy responses. Interactions increasingly required multiple communications betweenpolice and citizens. While the initial response from the Technology Section to the citi-zen generally occurs within a few days, the interaction can continue for months as theissues are resolved. Interestingly, however, the responsibility of communication betweenpolice and citizen has remained centralized through the Technology Section. Finalfollow-up with the citizen often occurs through the Technology Section, making the e-mail response system different than a traditional telephone based routing system.

Although these data and descriptions are preliminary and limited, it appears that the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


e-mail feedback opportunity has affected the organization in several ways. First, at ageneral level, it has caused the organization to increase its level of responsiveness tofeedback. Second, it has caused a reassignment of roles. The organization now allocatesresponsibility for feedback to different individuals depending on the general businessaddressed. Third, new management systems, formal and informal, have been developedto track and prioritize incoming e-mail. Fourth, the referral system has become moreeffectively managed. The results indicate that after the organization deployed new net-work technology that extended the level of interaction with citizens beyond traditionallevels, organizational changes in resource allocation and management occurred in tan-dem with increases in content sophistication, feedback opportunity, dialogue complexity,and responsive commitment. The initial commitment and ongoing support system forCitizen ICAM may indicate a shift in the level of receiver control. While these prelimi-nary findings suggest support for our propositions that changes in shared interlocutoryspace are linked with organizational changes, future systematic research will need tomore clearly link variation in perceptions of receiver control with organizational at-tributes and more specific changes in the organization.

This demonstration case has focused on the internal structural and process orientedchanges that have occurred at the CPD after the advent of Citizen ICAM. However, it isalso important to mention that Citizen ICAM technology has potentially changed theperspectives of citizens about the police as well as the relationship between the commu-nity and the police. For example, because the reporting, documenting, and communica-tion requirements are quite extensive, the feedback mechanism may allow citizens tolearn more about police procedures and work processes. This development may increasecitizen perceptions of the transparency of police administrative processes.

Ongoing contact and discussions with police officers assigned to specific “beats” inChicago indicate that Citizen ICAM has, at a minimum, increased the efficiency ofmonthly beat meetings. Prior to the existence of Citizen ICAM, citizens and officersspent much of the time at beat meetings engaged in discussions regarding the numberand type of crime incidents in the neighborhoods. The rollout of Citizen ICAM providedcitizens and officers access to the same basic crime data, thereby reducing disagree-ments on data and freeing up more time for solving problems. The extent to which theonline availability of data serves as an implicit accountability tool affecting citizen trustof the police has not been tested scientifically. However, citizens clearly use CitizenICAM to validate concerns about criminal activity, and a number of police districts areusing Citizen ICAM to develop meeting agendas and determine priorities for commu-nity and police response. Combined, increases in perceptions of responsiveness, trans-parency, and accountability may ultimately affect the relationship between citizens andpolice.

Conclusions

This article has developed a revised CIM model that helps understand how cyber-interactivitycan, over time, affect the perceptions of citizens, bureaucrats, and the relationship be-tween them. According to this model, virtual exchange leads to mutual development ofvirtual boundaries in the shared interlocutory space. The new space is possible due to adisappearance of mediation where the physical world has lost some of its contextualmeaning and a sense of community that is developed through cyber-interaction (Riva,1999). However, citizens’ experiences with and need for public service from traditionalgovernment organizations in the nonvirtual world will not disappear. Therefore, the re-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


vised CIM model incorporates the social context of the physical world. According tothis model, cyber-interactivity reduces the role of mediation and makes it possible forcitizens and government to redefine the sense of community.

When public organizations offer a network communication application that reflectsa greater commitment to interactivity with citizens than is traditionally employed, theysignal a greater willingness to address and incorporate citizen suggestions and concerns.Citizens will experiment with the interactive opportunities in order to help them under-stand the shared interlocutory space. The agency’s responses will belie its cognitiveunderstanding of citizen interpretation of the shared interlocutory space and its willing-ness to diverge from Σ

Rt. Policies and rules that guide agency responses will also evolve

to redefine roles, reallocate resources, and revise operational processes in order to sup-port the new shared interlocutory space.

To track the evolutionary nature of the model, we adopt McMillan’s interactivityframework and develop measurable constructs that we call content sophistication, feed-back opportunity, dialogue complexity, and response commitment. We assume that in-creases in these four constructs represent greater levels of receiver control. Findingstend to support our expectations regarding the functionality of using the four constructsto track changes in cyber-interactivity over time. This article also provides some linkagebetween the constructs and changes in the internal processes and structures of the policedepartment. However, the focus of this analysis was exploratory and designed for dem-onstration. Future research will involve more in-depth interviews and analyses of orga-nizational change. Specific areas in which hypotheses may be developed for testinginclude how organizational characteristics such as professionalization, routinization, au-tonomy, and external accountability affect bureaucrat perceptions of citizen control incyberspace.

This article demonstrates that interactivity is more complex than is typically ac-knowledged in the public administration and political science literature. A true gauge ofcyber-interactivity between citizens and bureaucrats requires more than evaluation of thecontent sophistication and feedback opportunity that is visible on the Web site. Mea-surement of interactivity must include the entire communicative exchange, that is, thefeedback and response that occurs. Moreover, future work should broaden this to in-clude the effect that interactivity has on action undertaken by the agency on behalf ofthe citizen (e.g., filling pot holes), the influence of cyber-exchange on agency decisions,and the perceptions and attitudes of citizens and police that result from interactivity.

The results also provide some evidence that the evolution of the cyber-exchangeprocess requires an increasing level of resources, expertise, and effort. As the level ofinteractivity increases, it is probable that the level of participation and engagement withcitizens will make higher and higher demands on the organization. Although researchclearly indicates that there are upsides to greater participation and interaction with gov-ernment (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2004), the evidence also suggests that there are limita-tions. Even in this small case study in which the relative amount of incoming e-mails islow, a great deal of effort is required to manage the situation. Under a budget con-straint, as citizen expectations for information and participation increase, agencies maybe forced, due to capacity limitation, to disappoint. While increased interactivity im-plies an increase in the willingness of the agency to devolve control to citizens (Table1), necessary limitations may also invite a citizen backlash. Agencies embarking onstrategies that increase the level of citizen participation in government should also becareful to communicate the benefits and constraints that these exchanges have on theiractions and the limitations they place on decision making.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Note

1. Although the unit of analysis for the CIM model is the individual, once the social con-text is included the unit of analysis shifts from individual to organization. Within the revisedCIM, all three types of cyber-interactivity between citizens and bureaucrats— one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many—are possible.

References

Baum, C., & Di Maio, A. (2001). Gartner’s four phases of e-government model. Retrieved fromhttp://www4.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=317292&acsFlg=accessBought

Bimber, B. (1999). The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the mediummatter? Political Communication, 16, 409–428.

Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of politi-cal power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bordewijk, J. L., & van Kaam, B. (1986). Toward a new classification of tele-information ser-vices. InterMedia, 14, 16–21.

Bovens, M., & Stavros, Z. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How informa-tion and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitu-tional control. Public Administration Review, 62, 174–184.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 20, 37–46.

Delli Carpini, M. S. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information envi-ronment. Political Communication, 17, 341–349.

Demchak, C. C., Friis, C. S., & La Porte, T. M. (2000). Webbing governance. In G. D. DavidGarson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 179–196). New York: MarcelDekker.

DiMaggio, P. E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implication of the Internet.Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336

Downes, E. J., & McMillan, S. J. (2000). Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification keydimensions. New Media and Society, 2(2), 157–179.

Granic, I., & Lamey, A. V. (2000). The self-organization of the Internet and changing modes ofthought. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 93–107.

Grannovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1989). Toward a theory of public relations behavior of organiza-tions: Review of a program of research. In J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Publicresearch annual (Vol. 1, pp. 27–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communica-tion. In J. L. Salvaggio & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media use in the information age: Emergingpatterns of adoption and computer use (pp. 217–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hiller, J., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. Retrieved fromhttp://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com

Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analy-sis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 311–334.

Kaylor, C., Deshazo, R., & van Eck, D. (2001). Gauging e-government: A report on implement-ing services among American cities. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 293–307.

Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New media and Society, 4, 355–383.La Porte, T. M., de Jong M., & Demchak, C. (1999). Public organizations on the World Wide

Web: Empirical correlates of administrative openness. Paper presented at the National Pub-lic Management Research Conference, Texas A&M University.

La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C., & Friis, C. S. (2001). Webbing governance: Global trends acrossnational level public agencies. Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 63–67.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Larsen, E., & Rainie, L. (2002). The rise of the e-citizen: How people’s use government agencies’Web sites. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life

Mantovani, G. (1996). Social context in HCI: A new framework for mental models, cooperation,and communication. Cognitive Science, 20, 237–269.

McMillan, S. (2002). A four-part model of cyber interactivity. New Media and Society, 4, 271–291.McMillan, A., & Huang, J. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the

role and direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity.Journal of Advertising, 3, 29–42.

MeGap (2004). Municipality E-Government Assessment Project. Retrieved from http://www.psigroup.biz/megap/

Moon, M. J. (2002). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter? Pub-lic Administration Review, 59, 31–43.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital di-vide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing Web technologies for local governancereform: Good management or good democracy? Political Communication, 17, 1–19.

Norris, D. F., Fletcher, P. D., & Holden, S. H. (2001). Is your local government plugged in?Highlights of the 2000 electronic government survey. Unpublished Manuscript.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. MWieman, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and inter-personal processes (pp. 110–134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reichard, C. (1998). The impact of performance management on transparency and accountabilityin the public sector. In A. Hondeghem (Ed.), Ethics and accountability in a context ofgovernance and new public management. Amsterdam: Netherlands: IOS Press.

Riva, G. (1999). From technology to communication: Psycho-social issues in developing virtualenvironments. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 10, 87–97.

Riva, G., & Galimberti, C. (1997). The psychology of cyberspace: A socio-cognitive frameworkto computer-mediated communication. New Ideas in Psychology, 15, 141–158.

Riva, G., & Galimberti, C. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: Identity and social interactionin an electronic environment. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 434–464.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Scott, W. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.Shapiro, A. L. (1999). The control revolution: How the Internet is putting individuals in charge

and changing the world we know. New York: Public Affairs.Shi, Y., & Scavo, C. (2000). Citizen participation and direct democracy through Computer net-

working. In G. David Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 247–263).New York: Marcel Dekker.

Sood, R. (2001). e-Gov initiatives aim to empower citizens. VARBusiness, 17, 91.Stromer-Galley, J., & Foot, K. A. (2002). Citizen perceptions of online interactivity and implica-

tions for political campaign communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication,8. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/

Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participa-tion? Political Research Quarterly, 56, 175–185.

Tolbert, C., & Mossberger, K. (2004). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence ingovernment. Unpublished manuscript.

Weare, C. (2002). The Internet and democracy: The causal links between technology and politics.International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 659–691.

Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why?: An analysis ofcitizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 26–42.

Welch, E., & Wong, W. (2004). Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysisof Web site openness and government accountability. Governance, 17, 275–297.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Appendix: Citizen ICAM E-Mail Feedback(Response and Referral) Coding Scheme

Application-Related Measures

Positive comment: If author expressed some positive feedback about Citizen ICAM,then 1; otherwise 0.

Negative comment: If the author expressed some negative feedback about CitizenICAM, then 1; otherwise 0.

General ICAM questions: If the author posed questions related to the Citizen ICAMdata or application (e.g., how murders are listed or criminal code definitions) then the e-mail was scored 1; otherwise 0.

Suggestions: General (e-mails that provided general feedback for improving the sys-tem received a 1; otherwise they were coded 0), legend (e-mails that suggested stan-dardizing the legends on maps displayed by the system received a score of 1; otherwise0), or available data (e-mails that suggested lengthening the time series of data availablefor user analysis received a 1; otherwise they were coded 0).

Technical difficulties: E-mails that reported an inability to access the system or de-fined an inability to access certain parts of the maps received a 1; otherwise 0.

Police Business-Related Measures

Procedure and response questions: If an individual asked questions about policeservice or policing activities (e.g., why aren’t homicides shown?), the e-mail was givena score of 1. If not, the score was 0.

Current case problem: E-mail messages either inquiring about the status of a cur-rent case or describing problems people were having with officers handling their casesreceived a 1;, otherwise they were coded 0.

Report criminal activity: E-mails reporting suspected criminal activity received a 1in this category and a 0 otherwise.

Home purchase: E-mails that inquired about area crime related to home purchasingdecisions were coded 1; otherwise 0.

Other jurisdiction request: E-mails that inquired about using the system for otherjurisdictions outside of Chicago received a 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

18 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Virtual Interactivity Between Government and Citizens: The Chicago Police Department's Citizen ICAM Application Demonstration Case