Kamu Yönetiminde Vatandaş Katılımı ve Şeffaflığın Sağlanmasında Dijital İletişim Uygulamalarının Rolü

Yönetim paradigmasından yönetişim paradigmasına geçişle birlikte, yönetim erkinin toplumu oluşturan aktörlerle paylaşılması gündeme gelmiştir. Yönetişimin önerdiği çok aktörlü yapı içinde vatandaşlar temel bir paydaş grubunu oluşturmaktadır. Yönetişim yaklaşımının başarılı biçimde uygulamaya aktarılabilmesi için ise kamu sektöründe vatandaşların yönetime katılımlarının desteklenmesi ve kamu yönetiminde şeffaflığın güçlendirilmesi gereklilik taşımaktadır. Alan yazında pek çok çalışmanın dijital iletişim uygulamalarının kamu yönetiminde şeffaflığı ve vatandaş katılımını güçlendirdiğine vurgu yaptığı dikkat çekmektedir. Bu bilgilerden hareketle söz konusu çalışmada, kamu kurumlarının dijital iletişim uygulamaları yönetişim yaklaşımı yönünden ele alınmış ve dijital iletişim uygulamalarına yönelik vatandaşlardan oluşan hedef kitlelerin değerlendirmelerinin ortaya konması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma ile elde edilen bulgular, kamu yönetiminde vatandaş katılımı ve şeffaflığın sağlanmasında dijital iletişim uygulamalarının önemli bir rol üstlendiğine işaret etmektedir.

The Role of Digital Communication Practices in Ensuring Citizen Participation and Transparency in Public Administration

Together with the transition from the management paradigm to the governance paradigm, sharing of the management power with the all actors of society has come to the fore. Within the multi-actor structure which is proposed by governance, citizens are a key stakeholder group. For successful implementation of governance paradigm, it is necessary to support citizen participation and strengthen transparency in public administration. In the literature, it is noteworthy that many studies emphasize that digital communication practices strengthen citizen participation and transparency in public administration. In the light of this information, digital communication efforts of public institutions are discussed in terms of governance paradigm and it is aimed to determine evaluations of citizens towards public institutions’ digital communication practices in this study. Findings obtained from the research has indicated that digital communication practices play an important role in ensuring citizen participation and transparency in public administration.

___

  • Agostino, D. (2013). “Using Social Media to Engage Citizens: A Study of Italian Municipalities”. Public Relations Review, 39, 232 – 234.
  • Alfonso, G. H. ve R. V. Miguel (2006). “Trends in Online Media Relations: Web – Based Corporate Press Rooms in Leading International Companies”. Public Relations Review, 32, 267 – 275.
  • Baskin, O., C. Aronoff ve D. Lattimore (1997). Public Relations the Profession and the Practice. 4th edition. Boston: McGraw Hill.
  • Baştan, S. ve R. Gökbunar (2004). “Kamu Hizmetlerinin Sunumunda E – Devletle İlgili Yeni Gelişmeler: Tümleşik E – Devlet Sistemlerine Doğru”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19 (1), 71 – 89.
  • Bellamy, C. (2009). Managing ICTs in Public Sector Organizations. Public Management and Governance. (Ed. Bovaird, T. ve E., Löffler). 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
  • Bertot, J. C., P. T. Jaeger ve J. M. Grimes (2010). “Using ICTs to Create a Culture of Transparency: E – government and Social Media as Opennes and Anti – Corrupiton Tools for Societies”. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264 – 271.
  • Bertot, J. C., P. T. Jaeger ve D. Hansen (2012a). “The Impact of Polices on Government Social Media Usage: Issues, Challenges, and Recommendations”. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 30 – 40.
  • Bertot, J. C. , P. T. Jaeger ve J. M. Grimes (2012b). “Promoting Transparency and Accountability Through ICTs, Social Media, and Collaborative E – Government”. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6 (1)., 78 – 91.
  • Bingham, L. B., T. Nabatchi ve R. O’Leary (2005). “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government”. Public Administration Review, 65 (5), 547 – 558.
  • Bonson, E., L. Torres, S. Royo ve F. Flores (2012). “Local E – Government 2.0: Social Media and Corporate Transparency in Municipalities”. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 123 – 132.
  • Bortree, D. S. ve T. Seltzer (2009). “Dialogic Strategies and Outcomes: An Analysis of Environmental Advocacy Groups’ Facebook Profiles”. Public Relations Review, 35, 317 – 319.
  • Bovaird, T. ve E., Löffler (Ed.) (2009). Public Management and Governance. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
  • Boztepe, H. (2014). Kamusal Halkla İlişkiler. İstanbul: Derin Yayınları.
  • Böke, K. (2009). Örnekleme. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri (Ed. Böke, K.). 3. Baskı. İstanbul: Alfa Basım.
  • Bruning, S. D. ve K. Lambe (2002). “Relationship Building and Behavioral Outcomes: Exploring the Connection Between Relationship Attitudes and Key Constituent Behavior”. Communication Research Report, 19 (4), 327 – 337.
  • Bruning, S. D., M. Dials ve A. Shirka (2008). “Using Dialogue to Build Organization – Public Relationships, Engage Publics and Positively Affect Organizational Outcomes”. Public Relations Review, 34, 25 – 41.
  • Crable, R. E. ve S. L. Vibbert (1986). Public Relations As Communication Management. USA: Bellwether Press.
  • Cutlip, S. M., A. H. Center ve G. M. Broom (2006). Effective Public Relations. 9th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
  • De Feranti, D., J. Jacinto ve A. J. Ody (2009). How to Improve Governance: A New Framework for Analysis and Action. USA: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Frahm, K. A. ve L. L. Martin (2009). “From Government to Governance: Implications For Social Work Administration”. Administration in Social Work, 33, 407 – 422.
  • Gershon, I. ve J. A., Bell (2013). “Introduction: The Newness of New Media”. Culture, Theory and Critique, 54 (3), 259 – 264.
  • Gregory, A. (2004). Public Relations and Management. The Public Relations Handbook. (Ed. Theaker, A.). 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
  • Grunig, J. E. (2006). “After 50 Years: The Value and Values of Public Relations”. The Institute for Public Relations 45th Annual Distinguished Lecture. New York.
  • Guillamón, M. D., A. M. Ríos, B. Gesuele ve C. Metallo (2016). “Factors Influencing Social Media Use in Local Governments: The Case of Italy and Spain”. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 460 – 471.
  • Kaplan, A. M. ve M. Haenlein (2010). “Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media”. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59 – 68.
  • Karasar, N. (1984). Bilimsel Araştırma Metodu. Ankara: Hacettepe Taş Kitapçılık.
  • Lee, G. ve Kwak, Y. H. (2012). “An Open Government Maturity Model for Social Media – Based Public Engagement”. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 492 – 503.
  • Lovari, A. ve L. Parisi (2015). “Listening to Digital Publics: Investigating Citizens’ Voices and Engagement within Italian Municipalities’ Facebook Pages”. Public Relations Review, 41, 205 – 213.
  • Löffler, E. (2009). Public Governance in a Network Society. Public Management and Governance. (Ed. Bovaird, T. ve E., Löffler). 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
  • Mossberger, K., Y. Wu ve J. Crawford (2013). “Connecting Citizens and Local Governments? Social Media and Interactivity in Major U.S. Cities”. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 351 – 358.
  • Manovich, L. (2006). “What is New Media?”. New Media Theory Reader. (Ed. Hassan, R. ve Thomas, J.). Buckingham: McGraw – Hill Education.
  • Medaglia, R. ve L. Zheng (2017). “Mapping Government Social Media Research and Moving It Forward: A Framework and A Research Agenda”. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 496 – 510.
  • Mergel, I. (2012). Social Media in the Public Sector: A Guide to Participation, Collaboration and Transparency in the Networked World. USA: Wiley.
  • OECD - Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). Governance in the 21st Century. Paris: OECD Publications.
  • Oliveira, G. H. M. ve E. W. Welch (2013). “Social Media Use in Local Government: Linkage of Technology, Task, and Organizational Context”. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 397 – 405.
  • Picazo-Vela, S., I. Gutiérrez-Martínez ve L. F. Luna – Reyes (2012). “Understanding Risks, Benefits, and Strategic Alternatives of Social Media Applications in the Public Sector”. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 504 – 511.
  • Smitko, K. (2012). “Donor Engagement Through Twitter”. Public Relations Review, 38, 633 – 635.
  • Solis, B. ve D. Breakenridge (2009). Putting the Public Back in Public Relations. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  • United Nations Development Programme UNDP (2006). UNDP and Governance Experiences and Lessons Learned. UNDP Publications.
  • Valaskakis, K. (2001). Long – term Trends in Global Governance: From ‘Westphalia’ to ‘Seattle’. Governance in the 21st Century. Paris: OECD Publications.
  • Watson, T. ve P. Noble (2005). Evaluating Public Relations. London: Kogan Page.
  • We Are Social (2019). Digital in 2019 Report, https://wearesocial.com/global-digital-report-2019 (20.02.2019).
  • Yazıcıoğlu, Y. ve S. Erdoğan (2004). SPSS Uygulamalı Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Zacher, L. W. (2008). E – government in the Information Society. Electronic Government: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, And Applications. (Ed. Anttiroiko, A.). Hershey: Information Science Reference.