Vatandaşların Belediye ile Olan İlişkilerinde Çevrimiçi (Online) İletişim Yöntemlerine İlişkin Tutumları ve Entegre Çok Kanallı Platformların Ortaya Çıkışı: Turunç Masa Örneği

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 1, 95 - 112, 08.04.2023

Bengi Demirci Nilüfer Gürer Bildik

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1245800

Öz

Bu çalışma, vatandaşların yerel yönetimlerle olan ilişkilerinde çevrimiçi (online) iletişim kanallarını ve yerel düzeyde çevrimiçi ve çevrimdışı (offline) iletişim kanallarını birleştiren entegre çok kanallı platformları kullanmaya ilişkin tutumlarını incelemektedir. Vatandaşların söz konusu tutumları, bu konudaki farkındalıkları, kullanma eğilimleri ve memnuniyetlerine bakılarak analiz edilmiş ve bu yapılırken cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim ve sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik düzeylerinin etkisi dikkate alınmıştır. Araştırmanın temel hipotezi, hızla dijitalleşen dünyada vatandaşların belediye ile olan ilişkilerinde en çok tercih edilen iletişim yolunun online iletişim olacağı şeklinde idi. Çalışma, Antalya’nın Muratpaşa ilçesinde yaşayanlarla gerçekleştirilen ve katılımcılara ilçe belediyesiyle iletişim kurmak için tercih ettikleri yolların sorulduğu, yüz yüze anketlerden elde edilen verilere dayalı, betimsel nicel bir araştırmaya dayanmaktadır. Bu ilçe belediyesi, çevrimiçi ve çevrimdışı iletişim kanallarını ortak bir platformda birleştiren entegre bir model olan Turunç Masa uygulamasını kullanmakta olduğu için çalışma alanı olarak seçilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçları, vatandaşların belediye ile olan ilişkilerinde geleneksel yöntemleri tercih ettiklerini göstermektedir. Telefon ile iletişim kurmak en çok tercih edilen yöntem iken bunu yüz yüze iletişim takip etmektedir. Sosyal medya en az tercih edilen iletişim kanalları arasındadır. Entegre model, yaygın olarak bilinmekte ve her zaman bilinçli olmasa da sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Vatandaş tutumu, Çevrimiçi (online) iletişim, Yerel yönetim, Yönetişim, Entegre çok kanallı platform

Citizens’ Attitudes Towards Online Communication Channels in Contacting Local Governments and the Emergence of Integrated Multi-Channel Platforms: The Case of Orange Table

Öz

This article explores attitudes of citizens towards online communication channels and newly emerging integrated multichannel platforms which combine online and offline communication channels, when contacting local governments. It analyzes citizens’ attitudes in terms of their awareness, intention to use and satisfaction, together with the effects of gender, age, education, and socio-economic development level. Main hypothesis of the research was that in highly digitalized world the most preferred way of communication between citizens and municipality would be online contact. The article presents descriptive quantitative analysis based on data obtained by paper-based questionnaire conducted with residents of Muratpasa district in Antalya, where participants were asked about their preferred ways for communicating with district municipality. This district was chosen for the integrated platform - namely the Orange Table – which was adopted by the municipality, and which combined online and offline communication channels for interacting with citizens. The research revealed that citizens still prefer traditional offline communication channels when contacting municipality. Calling by phone was the most preferred way which was followed by going personally. Social media was one of the least preferred communication channels. Integrated model was widely known and frequently used although not consciously all the time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Citizen attitude, Online communication, Local government, Governance, Integrated multi-channel platform

Kaynakça

• Aiello, G. & Tosoni, S. (2016). Going About the City: Methods and Methodologies for Urban Communication Research. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1252–1262. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5416
• The Australian Government Information Management Office - AGIMO (2009). Engage Getting on with Government 2.0. Report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce, Australian Government Information Management Office. Retrieved from https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/Government20TaskforceReport.pdf?v=1/
• Bergquist, M., Ljungberg, J., Remneland, B. & Rolandsson, B. (2017). From E-Government To E-Governance: Social Media and Public Authorities Legitimacy Work. In Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (pp. 858-872). Guimarães, Portugal. https://hh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1153414/FULLTEXT01.pdf
• Bonson, E., Torres, L., Royo, S. & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001
• Bonson, E., Royo, S. & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens' engagement on local governments' Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.001
• Bonson, E., Royo, S. & Ratkai, M. (2017). Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities: An Empirical Analysis of Activity and Citizens’ Engagement. Administration & Society, 49 (3), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714544945
• Borge, R., Colombo, C. & Welp, Y. (2009). Online and Offline Participation at The Local Level. Information, Communication & Society, 12 (6), 899-928. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180802483054
• Cho, S., Mossberger, K., Swindell, D. & Selby, J.D. (2021). Experimenting with Public Engagement Platforms in Local Government. Urban Affairs Review, 57(3), 763–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419897821
• Chu, H. & Xu, C. (2009). Web 2.0 and its dimensions in the scholarly world. Scientometrics, 80(3), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2103-y
• Desouza, K. C. & Bhagwatwar, A. (2014). Technology-Enabled Participatory Platforms for Civic Engagement: The Case of U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(4), 25-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.954898
• Dunleavy, P. & Margetts, H. (2010, September). ‘The second wave of digital era governance’. In: American Political Science Association Conference, Washington DC, USA. (Unpublished) LSE Research Online. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27684/
• Dunleavy, P. & Margetts, H. (2015, September). Design principles for essentially digital governance. 111th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, American Political Science Association. LSE Research Online. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64125/
• Edmiston, K. (2003). State and Local E-Government Prospects and Challenges. The American Review of Public Administration, 33 (1), 20-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074002250255
• Epstein, B., Bode, L. & Connolly, J. M. (2021). ‘Do squeaky wheels get the grease? Understanding when and how municipalities respond to online requests’, New Media & Society, 00(0),1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211031249
• Firmstone, J. & Coleman, S. (2015). Public engagement in local government: the voice and influence of citizens in online communicative spaces. Information, Community & Society, 18 (6), 680-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.986180
• Fusi, F. & Feeney, M.K. (2016). Social Media in the Workplace: Information Exchange, Productivity, or Waste?. The American Review of Public Administration, 48 (5), 395-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016675722
• Guillamón, M.D., Ríos, A.M., Gesuele, B. & Metallo, C. (2016). Factors influencing social media use in local governments: The case of Italy and Spain. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.005
• Hardey, M. & Loader, B. (2009). The Informatization of Welfare: Older People and the Role of Digital Services. British Journal of Social Work 39: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp024
• Hatuka, T., & Zur, H. (2020). Who is the ‘smart’ resident in the digital age? The varied profiles of users and non-users in the contemporary city. Urban Studies, 57(6), 1260–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019835690
• Hendriks, F. (2014). Understanding Good Urban Governance: Essentials, Shifts, and Values. Urban Affairs Review 50(4): 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087413511782
• Jeffres, L.W. & Lin, C.A. (2006). Metropolitan Websites as Urban Communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(4): 957–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00303.x
• Karkin, N. (2014). Barriers for Sustainable e-Participation Process: The Case of Turkey. In L.G. Anthopoulos & C.G. Reddick (Eds.), Government e-strategic planning and management: practices, patterns, and roadmaps, (pp. 227-243). New York: Springer
• Kim, S. & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Government. Public Administration Review, 72, 819-828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x
• Kooiman, J. (1993). Social-Political Governance: Introduction. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern Governance: New Government-Society (pp.1-8). London: Sage Publication
• Li, W., Feng, T., Timmermans, H. J. P. & Zhang, M. (2020). The Public’s Acceptance of and Intention to Use ICTs when Participating in Urban Planning Processes. Journal of Urban Technology, 27:3, 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1852816
• Magro, M.J. (2012). A Review of Social Media Use in E-Government. Administrative Sciences 2: 148-161. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci2020148
• Meijer, A.J. (2011). Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 598-607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x
• Moon, M.J. (2002). The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196
• Muratpasa Municipality Website (2018). Retrieved from https://muratpasa-bld.gov.tr/
• OECD (2001). Understanding the Digital Divide. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/1888451.pdf/
• OECD (2003a). The e-government imperative: main findings, OECD Policy Brief, OECD Observer, Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN015120.pdf/
• OECD (2003b). Promise and problems of E-democracy: challenges of online citizen engagement, Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/35176328.pdf/
• Oliveira, G.H.M. & Welch, E.W. (2013). Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.019
• Patti, D. & d’Antonio, S. (2016). Interactive Cities; Digital social media and user-generated content improving urban governance, Urban Interactive Cities, European Programme for Sustainable Urban Development. Retrieved from http://www.forumdascidades.pt/?q=content/interactive-cities-digital-social-media-and-user-generated-content-improving-urban/
• Pina, V., Torres, L. & Royo, S. (2017). Comparing online with offline citizen engagement for climate change: Findings from Austria, Germany and Spain. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.009
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaer, G. (2004). Public Management Reform – A Comparative Analysis. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Singh, A.K. & Sahu, R. (2008). Integrating Internet, telephones, and call centers for delivering better quality e-governance to all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 477-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.001
• Stamati, T., Papadopoulos, T. & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2015). Social media for openness and accountability in the public sector: Cases in the Greek context. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 12-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.004
• Statistical Institute of Turkey (2018, August 27). Address-Based Demographic Statistics. Retrieved from https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr/
• United Nations (2009). What is Good Governance?, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf/
• Uzun, M. M., Yildiz, M., & Onder, M. (2022). Big questions of artificial intelligence (AI) in public administration and policy. SİYASAL: Journal of Political Sciences, 31(2), 423–442. http://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1121900
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. & Davis, F.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425-478. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3375136
• Vromen, A. (2007). Australian young people's participatory practices and internet use, Information, Community & Society 10(1): 48-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701193044
• Williamson, W. & Parolin, B. (2012). Review of Web-Based Communications for Town Planning in Local Government. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(1): 43-63, https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.626702
• Yang, Y. (2017). Towards a New Digital Era: Observing Local E-Government Services Adoption in a Chinese Municipality, Future Internet, 9 (53), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi9030053
• Yetano, A. & Royo, S. (2017). Keeping Citizens Engaged: A Comparison Between Online and Offline Participants. Administration & Society, 49(3): 394–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715581625
• Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002