E-DEVLET (DİJİTAL DEVLET) ALANINDAKİ SAYISAL UÇURUM KONULARINA YÖNELİK ÇALIŞMALARIN BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZİ

Yıl 2024, , 1255 - 1280, 31.12.2024

Ayşegül Saylam

https://doi.org/10.18493/kmusekad.1524815

Öz

Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinde yaşanan gelişmeler, e-devlet sistemlerini yaygınlaştırarak birçok hizmetin dijital platformlar aracılığı ile sunulmasına yol açmıştır. Bu yaygınlaşma ile birlikte birçok ülkede sayısal uçurum önemli bir konu haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı da e-devlet ve sayısal uçurum alanındaki literatürü anlamak, araştırma eğilimlerini belirlemek, anahtar temaları saptamak, araştırma alanlarını ortaya çıkarmak, literatürün zaman içindeki değişimini anlamaktır. Bu amaçla ilgili literatürün betimsel, kavramsal, sosyal ve entelektüel yapısına yönelik bibliyometrik analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) tekniği kullanılarak tespit edilen Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) veri tabanındaki 469 çalışma, R istatistik programı aracılığı ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma verileri, özellikle e-devlet alanındaki kamu hizmetlerine yönelik sayısal uçurum konusu hakkındaki çalışmalara, politika yapıcı ve uygulayıcılarına kılavuzluk ve dayanak noktası olmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sayısal uçurum, e-devlet, dijital devlet, kamu hizmeti, kamu yönetimi

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF STUDIES ON DIGITAL DIVIDE IN THE FIELD OF E-GOVERNMENT (DIGITAL GOVERNMENT)

Öz

Developments in information and communication technologies have led to the widespread use of e-government systems and the provision of many services through digital platforms. With this widespread use, the digital divide has become an important issue in various countries. The aim of this study is to understand the literature in the field of e-government and digital divide, to determine research trends, to identify key themes, to reveal research areas, and to understand the changes in the literature over time. To achieve this, a bibliometric analysis was conducted focusing on the descriptive, conceptual, social, and intellectual structure of the literature. In the study, 469 works identified in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) database using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) technique were analysed using the R statistical program. The findings of this study are intended to guide and support policymakers and practitioners in addressing the digital divide, particularly in the context of public services within the e-government domain.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Digital Divide, E-Government, Digital Government, Public Service, Public Administration

Kaynakça

• Aissaoui, N. (2022). The Digital Divide: Literature Review and Some Directions for Future Research in Light of COVID-19. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 71(8/9), 686-708.
• Akman, I., Yazici, A., Mishra, A. ve Arifoglu, A. (2005). E-Government: A Global View and an Empirical Evaluation of Some Attributes of Citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 239-257.
• Al-Rababah, B. A., ve Abu-Shanab, E. A. (2010). E-government and Gender Digital Divide: The Case of Jordan. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 8(1), 1-9.
• Alagu, A. ve Thanuskodi, S. (2019). Bibliometric Analysis of Digital Literacy Research Output: A Global Perspective. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-19.
• Alhomod, S. M., Shafi, M. M., Kousarrizi, M. N., Seiti, F., Teshnehlab, M., Susanto,H. ve Batawi, Y. A. (2012). Best Practices in E government: A Review of Some Innovative Models Proposed in Different Countries. International Journal of Electrical & Computer Sciences, 12(01), 1–6.
• Andersen, K. V. ve Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-Government Maturity Models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236-248.
• Antonio, A. ve Tuffley, D. (2014). The Gender Digital Divide in Developing Countries. Future Internet, 6(4), 673- 687
• Aria, M. ve Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
• Arruda, H., Silva, E. R., Lessa, M., Proença Jr, D. ve Bartholo, R. (2022). VOSviewer and Bibliometrix. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 110(3), 392.
• Asgarkhani, M. (2007). The Reality of Social Inclusion Through Digital Government. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 25(1-2), 127-146.
• Bannister, F. ve Connolly, R. (2011). New Problems for Old? Defining e-Governance. 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Page(s): 1 – 10.
• Bannister, F. ve Connolly, R. (2012). Defining E-governance. e-Service Journal, 8(2), Indiana University Press.
• Bansode, S. ve Patil, S. (2011). Bridging Digital Divide in India: Some İnitiatives. Asia Pacific Journal of Library and Information Science, 1(1), 58-68.
• Barik, N. (2023). Global Research on Digital Divide During The Past Two Decades: A Bibliometric Study of Web of Science Indexed Literature. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/gkmc-08-2022 0207/full/pdf?title=global-research- on-digital-divide-during-the-past-two-decades-a bibliometric-study-of-web-of-science-indexed- literature, (07.11.2024).
• Basit, S. A., Ahmed, S., Latif, M. T., Khan, M. A. ve Gulzar, A. (2021). Bibliometric Analysis of Digital Divide Using Web of Science. Library Philosophy and Practice, e-journal, 1-22.
• Bélanger, F. ve Carter, L. (2009). The Impact of the Digital Divide on E-government Use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132-135.
• Carter, L. ve Weerakkody, V. (2008). E-government Adoption: A Cultural Comparison. Information Systems Frontiers, 10, 473-482.
• Castillo-Tellez, L. C. (2023). Bibliometric Analysis of European Research on Digital Divide: An Exploration of the Corporate Landscape. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/277949 (01.07.2024).
• Chadwick, D., Wesson, C. ve Fullwood, C. (2013). Internet Access by People with Intellectual Disabilities: Inequalities and Opportunities. Future Internet, 5, 376–39
• Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377.
• Chipeva, P., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T. ve Irani, Z. (2018). Digital Divide at Individual Level: Evidence For Eastern and Western European Countries. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 460-479.
• Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E. ve Herrera, F. (2011). An Approach for Detecting, Quantifying, and Visualizing the Evolution of a Research Field: A Practical Application To The Fuzzy Sets Theory Field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166.
• Cullen, R. (2001). Addressing the Digital Divide. Online Information Review, 25(5), 311-320.
• De Marco, S. (2021). E-government and digital Inequality: The Spanish Case Study. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA), 8(1), 1-19
• Demir, E. ve Yildirim, S. (2015). Understanding the Use of E-Government Services by Elderly People: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(3), 241-256.
• DiMaggio, P. ve Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital Divide’to ‘Digital İnequality’: Studying Internet Use As Penetration Increases. Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, 4(1), 1- 23.
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. ve Lim, W. M. (2021). How to Conduct A Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285– 296.
• Dreshpak, V. M., Kovalov, V. G., Kritenko, O. O., Shevchenko, N. I. ve Babachenko, N. V. (2022). Communication of EU Public Servants in The Digital Environment During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Amazonia Investiga, 11(51), 171- 182.
• Dugdale, A., Daly, A., Papandrea, F. ve Maley, M. (2005). Accessing E-Government: Challenges For Citizens and Organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(1), 109-118.
• Ellegaard, O. ve Wallin, J.A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics. 105, 1809-1831.
• Elmagarmid A. K. ve McIver, W. J. (2001). Guest Editors Introduction: The Ongoing March towards Digital Government. Computer, 34(2), 32-38.
• Espinosa Zárate, Z., Camilli Trujillo, C. ve Plaza-de-la-Hoz, J. (2023). Digitalization in Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review in Latin America. Social Indicators Research, 170(3), 1183-1207.
• EU (2004). eGovernment Research in Europe. European Commission.
• Garfield, E. (1955). Citation Indexes for Science: A new Dimension in Documentation Through Association of Ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108-111.
• Gauld, R., Goldfinch, S. ve Horsburgh, S. (2010). Do They Want It? Do They Use It? The ‘Demand-Side’of E- Government In Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 177-186.
• Glänzel, W. ve Thijs, B. (2012). Using ‘Core Documents’ for the Representation of Clusters and Topics. Scientometrics, 91(2), 399-409.
• Godse, V. ve Garg, A. (2007). From E-Government to E-governance. Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on e-Governance, Hyderabad, India, 28–30 December 2007 içinde (ss. 13-20). https://csi- sigegov.org.in/1/2_313.pdf , (13.07.2024).
• Gounopoulos, E., Kontogiannis, S., Kazanidis, I. ve Valsamidis, S. (2020). The Impact of the Digital Divide on the Adoption of e-Government in Greece. KnE Social Sciences, 401-411.
• Göçoğlu, V. ve Karkin, N. (2023). Citizen-centered Public Policy Making in Turkey. Switzerland: Springer.
• Grönlund, A. ve Horan, T.A. (2004). Introducing e-Gov: History, Definitions, and Issues. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(39), 713-729.
• Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills. First Monday, 7(4). 1-19.
• Hargittai, E. (2003). The Digital Divide and What to Do About It. D. C. J. Melbourne (Ed.). The New Economy Handbook içinde (ss. 821-839), Australia: Emerald Publishing.
• Harvey, M. ve Brazier, D. (2022). E-Government Information Search by English-As-A Second Language Speakers: The Effects of Language Proficiency and Document Reading Level. Information Processing & Management, 59(4), 102985.
• Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R. ve Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding The Complexity of Electronic Government: Implications From The Digital Divide Literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89-97.
• Hendarman, A. F. ,Gustomo, A. Dwifani, D. Kumarasakti, R. P. ve Desiana, N. (2023). Bıblıometrıc Analysıs of Dıgıtal Skılls And ICT Adoptıon In Indonesıa: A Decade of Research Trends. Journal of Research Administration, 5(2), 12013-12021.
• Hilbert, M. (2011). Digital Gender Divide or Technologically Empowered Women in Developing Countries? A Typical Case of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 34(6), 479-489.
• Horrigan, J. B. (2010). Broadband Adoption and Use in America. OBI Working Paper Series, No. 1, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hoyos Muñoz, J. A. ve Cardona Valencia, D. (2023). Trends and Challenges of Digital Divide and Digital Inclusion: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Information Science, (10.07.2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221148366
• International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2024). World Migration Report 2024. https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/world-migration-report-2024-key-findings, (16.07.2024).
• Kennedy, T. Wellman, B. ve Klement, K. (2003). Gendering The Digital Divide. Inf. Technol. Soc.,1, 72–96.
• Khan, G.F., Swar, B. ve Zo, H. (2012). E-Government Service Use Intentions in Afghanistan: Technology Adoption and The Digital Divide in A War-Torn Country. Information Development, 28(4), 281-299.
• Kim, S. W. (2011). Past and Future of the Digital Divide: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review. Informatization Policy, 18(4), 103-137.
• Lai, J. ve Widmar, N. O. (2021). Revisiting the Digital Divide in the COVID‐19 Era. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43, 458–464.
• Latupeirissa, J. J. P., Dewi, N. L. Y., Prayana, I. K. R., Srikandi, M. B., Ramadiansyah, S. A. ve Pramana, I. B. G. A. Y. (2024). Transforming Public Service Delivery: A Comprehensive Review of Digitization Initiatives. Sustainability, 16(7), 2818.
• Layne, K. ve Lee, J. (2001). Developing Fully Functional e- Government: A Four Stage Model, Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
• Li, K., Rollins, J. ve Yan, E. (2018). Web Of Science Use in Published Research and Reviewpapers 1997–2017: A Selective, Dynamic, Cross-Domain, Content-Based Analysis. Scientometrics, 115, 1-20.
• Livari, N., Sharma, S. ve Vent¨ a-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital Transformation of Everydaylife–How COVID-19 Pandemic Transformed The Basic Education of The Young Generation and Why Information Management Research Should Care?. Int. J. Inf. Manage., 55, 102183.
• Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K. ve El-Kassar, A. N. (2022). The Digital Divide: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121359.
• Malchenko, YA (2020). From Digital Divide to Consumer Adoption of Smart City Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Vestn Saint Petersbg Univ Manag., 19(3), 316–335.
• Marchionini, G., Samet, H., ve Brandt, L. (2003). Digital Government (Introduction to Special Issue). Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 25-27.
• Masadeh, R. E., Almajali, D., Majali, T. E., Majali, S. ve Al-Sherideh, A. (2023). An Empirical Study into The Effect of The Digital Divide on The Intention to Adopt E-Government. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 7(4), 1581-1594.
• Meijer, A. ve C. R. Webster (2020). The COVID-19-Crisis and The Information Polity: An Overview of Responses and Discussions in Twenty-One Countries From Six Continents. Information Polity, 25, 243–74.
• Mesa, D. (2023). Digital Divide, E-Government and Trust in Public Service: The Key Role of Education. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1140416.
• Moon, M. J. (2002). The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?. Public Administration Review, 62, 424-433.
• Morte-Nadal, T. ve Esteban-Navarro, M. A. (2022). Digital Competences for Improving Digital Inclusion in E- Government Services: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review Protocol. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069211070935.
• Niehaves, B. ve Plattfaut, R. (2014). Internet Adoption by The Elderly: Employing IS Technology Acceptance Theories for Understanding The Age-Related Digital Divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 708-726.
• Norris, D. F. (2010). E-Government… not E-governance… not E-democracy not now!: not ever? Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance AMC içinde (ss. 339-346). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1930321.1930391, (10.07.2024).
• OECD (2003). The e-Government Imperative. Paris: OECD e-Government Studies.
• Ono, H. ve Zavodny, M. (2007). Digital Inequality: A Five Country Comparison Using Microdata. Social Science Research, 36(3), 1135-1155.
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM ve Moher D. (2021). Updating Guidance for Reporting Systematic Reviews: Development of The PRISMA 2020 Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103-112.
• Pardo, T. A. (2000). Realizing the Promise of Digital Government: It’s More than Building a Web Site. NY: Center of Technology in Government, University of Albany.
• Patil S. (2020). Global Library & Information Science Research Seenthrough Prism of Biblioshiny. Stud Indian Place Names, 40, 157–170.
• Peláez-Sánchez, I. C. ve Glasserman-Morales, L. D. (2023). Gender Digital Divide and Women's Digital Inclusion: A Systematic Mapping. Multidisciplinary Journal of Gender Studies, 12(3), 258-282.
• Reddick, C. G. ve Turner, M. (2012). Channel Choice and Public Service Delivery in Canada: Comparing E- Government to Traditional Service Delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1-11
• Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., et al. (2021). PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(39), 1-19.
• Robinson, Laura, Jeremy Schulz, Matías Dodel, Teresa Correa, Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla, Sayonara Leal, Claudia Magallanes- Blanco, Leandro Rodriguez-Medina, Hopeton S. Dunn, Lloyd Levine, and et al. (2020). Digital Inclusion Across the Americas and Caribbean. Social Inclusion, 8, 244–59.
• Robles, J. M., Torres-Albero, C. ve Villarino, G. (2022). Inequalities in Digital Welfare Take-Up: Lessons from E- Government in Spain. Policy Studies, 43(5), 1096-1111.
• Rodríguez, G. ve Balagué, C. (2014). Analysis of The Evolution of Research Groups Using Bibliometric Indicators and Social Network Analysis. Scientometrics, 99(3), 795-817.
• Rogers, E. M. (2001). The Digital Divide. Convergence, 7(4), 96-111.
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. USA: Free Press.
• Samadbeik, M., Bastani, P. ve Fatehi, F. (2023). Bibliometric Analysis of COVID‐19 Publications Shows The Importance of Telemedicine and Equitable Access to the Internet During The Pandemic and Beyond. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 40(4), 390-399.
• Saylam, A. (2022). E-Devlet Kavramının Dijital Devlet ve Elektronik/Dijital Yönetişim Kavramları Ekseninde Değerlendirilmesi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 57(3), 2144-2163.
• Scheerder, A., Van Deursen, A. ve Van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants Of Internet Skills, Uses and Outcomes. A Systematic Review of The Second-and Third-Level Digital Divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607- 1624.
• Schelin, S. H. (2003). E-Government: An Overview. G. David Garson (Ed.), Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues içinde (ss. 120-137). Hershey PA: Idea Group Publishing
• Seljan, S., Miloloža, I. ve Pejić Bach, M. (2020). E-Government in European Countries: Gender and Ageing Digital Divide. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 16, 1563-1584.
• Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of The Digital Divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341-362.
• Singh, V. ve Chobotaru, J. (2022). Digital Divide: Barriers to Accessing Online Government Services in Canada. Administrative Sciences, 12(3), 112.
• Slack, F. ve Rowley, J. E. (2004). Challenges İn The Delivery of E-Government Through Kiosks. Journal of Information Science, 30(4), 369-377.
• Small, H. (1973). Co-Citation in The Scientific Literature: A New Measure of The Relationship Between Two Documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
• Small, H.G., (1978). Cited Documents as Concept Symbols. Soc. Stud. Sci., 8 (3), 327–340
• Solove, D. J. (2006). A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477-560.
• Sung, W. ve Lee, J. (2024). A Longitudinal Study on the Diffusion and the Divide in the Use of E-Government Services Among Vulnerable Citizens in Korea. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), 101938.
• Thomas, J. C. ve Streib, G. (2003). The New Face of Government: Citizen‐Initiated Contacts in The Era of E‐ Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83-102.
• Tyagi, S. (2024). Bibliometric Analysis and Scientific Mapping of Research Trends on ‘Digital Divide’. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GKMC-10- 2023 0376/full/html? casa_token=SvCPFiOrCOIAAAAA:svLpA6PsTa1S3tuWS_7ZmhtsnGYu9bM811WBOReEMDlv_GfFX6CJiyBlX4pVdr aAwjERSUBbcJVATgoewPKh5makizahhZ0ZKldZoD5efJ-if7crGfY, (15.07.2024).
• United Nations (2016). E-Government Survey 2016, E- Government in Support of Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2023). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2023. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2023, (06.07.2024).
• Valerija B. ve Ljiljana Božić (2021). The Digital Divide and E-Government in European Economies, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), 2935-2955.
• Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. ve van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2014). The Digital Divide Shifts to Differences in Usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507-526.
• Van Deursen, A. J. ve Van Dijk, J. A. (2009). Improving Digital Skills for The Use of Online Public Information and Services. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 333-340.
• Vázquez-López, A., Barrasa-Rioja, M. ve Marey-Perez, M. (2021). ICT in Rural Areas From The Perspective of Dairy Farming: A Systematic Review. Future Internet, 13(4), 99.
• Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A. ve Venkatraman, S. (2014). Understanding E‐Government Portal Use in Rural India: Role Of Demographic and Personality Characteristics. Information Systems Journal, 24(3), 249-269.
• Vicente, M. R. ve Novo, A. (2014). An Empirical Analysis of E-Participation. The Role of Social Networks and E- Government Over Citizens' Online Engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 379-387.
• Wang, C. ve Si, L. (2023). A Bibliometric Analysis of Digital Literacy Research From 1990 to 2022 and Research on Emerging Themes During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 15(7), 5769.
• Wang, T., Zhang, M. ve Xiong, T. (2022). A Bibliometric Analysis of The Digital Divide Among The Elderly. 2022 8th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM)içinde (ss. 1-5). IEEE.
• Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. USA: MIT Press.
• Wong, N. W. M. ve Ho, L. K. (2022). E-Government and The Hurdle of The “Digital Divide”? Rethinking The Responses of The Underprivileged in COVID-19 Hong Kong. Asian Politics & Policy, 14 (3), 423-435.
• Yavuz, N. (2023). Digital Divide and Citizen Participation in Public Policy Making. Citizen-Centered Public Policy Making in Turkey içinde (ss. 115-130). Göçoğlu, V. ve Karkin, N. (Ed.), Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Yücedağlar, A. ve Tunç, B. (2023). Digital Divide in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis on Global Research Trends. International Innovative Education Researcher, 3(3), 162-197.
• Zhang, C., Pang, Y., Zhang, Y. ve Chen, G. (2023, December). Research Progress of Bridging Digital Divide for Older Adults through Information Technology Training—A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization Based on CiteSpace. 2023 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences and Intelligence Management (SSIM) içinde (ss. 299-304). IEEE.