Government–Citizen Interactions Using Web 2.0 Tools: The Case of Twitter in Mexico

  • Rodrigo Sandoval-AlmazanEmail author
  • J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 1)


Web 2.0 tools and applications encourage citizens to interact with government and they provide tools for government to communicate, collaborate, and engage with citizens. The distinguishing characteristics of some of these tools provide unusual opportunities for citizen participation in government decision-making and exercising influence on diverse policy domains. However, there is limited research on the role of specific tools and applications in government–citizen interactions. In fact, there are relatively few studies that attempt to understand how governments and citizens are using these tools to interact with one other. Based on three powerful stories from Mexico, this chapter focuses on one of these tools: Twitter. It analyzes both citizen and government use of this application, provides practical recommendations, and suggestions for future research about this topic.


Citizen Participation Armed Group Twitter User Social Computing Twitter Account 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bannister, Frank, and Regina Connolly. 2011. Trust and transformational government: A proposed framework for research. Government Information Quarterly 28 (2):137–147. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.010.
  2. Belanger, France, and Lemuria Carter. 2008. Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17 (2):165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002.Google Scholar
  3. Bertot, John Carlo, and Paul T. Jaeger. 2011. Promoting social inclusion through public library e-government partnerships. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  4. Bertot, John Carlo, Paul T. Jaeger, and Derek Hansen. 2012. The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly 29 (1):30–40. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004.
  5. Blaser, Britt, David Weinberger, and Joe Trippi. 2009. Digital government through social networks: how citizens can aggregate their money and votes to define digital government: Digital Government Society of North America.Google Scholar
  6. Curtin, Deirdre, and Albert Jacob Meijer. 2006. Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? Information Polity 11 (2):109–122.Google Scholar
  7. Cheong, Marc, and Vincent Lee. 2011. A microblogging-based approach to terrorism informatics: Exploration and chronicling civilian sentiment and response to terrorism events via Twitter. Information Systems Frontiers 13 (1):45–59. doi: 10.1007/s10796-010-9273-x.
  8. Chi, Feng, and Nathan Yang. 2010. Twitter in Congress : Outreach vs Transparency. Social Sciences:1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Expansion, CNN. 2010. Twitter, ¿Enemigo del Alcoholimetro? Accessed 09 febrero 2011 2012.
  10. Diakopoulos, Nicholas A., and David A. Shamma. 2010. Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Milenio Diario. 2011. Tras detención de tuiteros, disminuye uso del hashtag #verfollow. 12 Septiembre 2011.Google Scholar
  12. Dutton, William H. 2009. The Fifth Estate Emerging through the Network of Networks. Prometheus 27 (1):1–15 %U doi: 10.1080/08109020802657453.Google Scholar
  13. Estalella, Adolfo, and Elisenda Ardevol. 2011. e-research: challenges and opportunities for social sciences. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales 18 (55):87–111.Google Scholar
  14. Gallupe, R. Brent. 2007. The Tyranny of Methodologies in Information Systems Research 1. Data Base For Advances In Information Systems 38 (3):20–28. doi: 10.1145/1278253.1278258.
  15. Golbeck, Jennifer, Justin M Grimes, and Anthony Rogers. 2010. Twitter Use by the U. S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 61:1612–1621. doi: 10.1002/asi.
  16. Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan G. 2010. Transparency of Public Decision-Making: Towards Trust in Local Government? Policy & Internet 2 (1). doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1024.
  17. Harfoush, Rahaf. 2009. Yes We Did! An inside look at how social media built the Obama brand 1st Aufl.: New Riders Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hechos. 2010. Testigo reveló en Twitter balacera frente al ITESM. In noticias, ed. noticias: You Tube.Google Scholar
  19. Hewson, Claire. 2008. Internet-mediated research as an emergent method and its potential role in facilitating mixed methods research. In Handbook of Emergent Methods, eds. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy, Leavy, and Patricia, 543–570. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  20. INEGI. 2011. Population by State. Accessed 1 November 2011 2011.
  21. Juarez, Geraldine. 2011a. Gobierno veracruzano plantea legislación exprés para juzgar a los “tuiteros” presos. Mexico City: Alt1040.Google Scholar
  22. Juarez, Geraldine. 2011b. Se dicta auto de formal prisión a los dos “tuiteros” veracruzanos. In Alt1040. Mexico City: Alt1040.Google Scholar
  23. Linders, Dennis. 2011. We-Government: an anatomy of citizen coproduction in the information age. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  24. Maciel, Cristiano, Lic Roque, nio, and Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia. 2009. Democratic citizenship community: a social network to promote e-deliberative process: Digital Government Society of North America.Google Scholar
  25. Maciel, Cristiano, Lic Roque, nio, and Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia. 2010. Interaction and communication resources in collaborative e-democratic environments: The democratic citizenship community. Info. Pol. 15 (1,2):73–88.Google Scholar
  26. Martinez, Regina. 2011. Liberan a cibernautas acusados de terrorismo y sabotaje. Proceso.Google Scholar
  27. Monroy-Hernández, Andrés. 2011. Gritar fuego con un hashtag o las consecuencias del supuesto twitterrorismo. In Blog de la Redaccion. Mexico DF: Revista Nexos.Google Scholar
  28. Näkki, Pirjo, Asta Bäck, Teemu Ropponen, Juha Kronqvist, Kari A Hintikka, and Auli Harju. 2011. Social media for citizen participation Report on the Somus project. In Vtt Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Oates, Sarah, Diana Marie Owen, and Rachel Kay Gibson. 2006. The Internet and politics : citizens, voters and activists. Democratization studies. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. El pais. 2009. La cruzada de Internet Necesario. 28 octubre 2009.Google Scholar
  31. Rose, J. 2009. The role of Social networking software in eParticipation. DEMOnet Booklet 28:403–426. doi: 10.1177/0894439309341626.
  32. Soberanes, Rodrigo. 2011. Un rumor en ‘Twitter’ despierta psicosis en Veracruz; desalojaron escuelas. CNN Mexico.Google Scholar
  33. Noticias, SDP. 2010. Estudiante Narra por Twitter irrupcion del Ejercito en el Tec de Monterrey. Accessed febrero 8, 2012 2010.
  34. Wilson, David W., Xiaolin Lin, Phil Longstreet, and Saonee Sarker. 2011. Web 2.0: A Definition, Literature Review, and Directions for Future Research. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit Michigan.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, Jason. 2011. Playing with politics: Political fans and Twitter faking in post-broadcast democracy. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17 (4):445–461.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma del Estado de MéxicoTolucaMexico
  2. 2.Department of Public AdministrationCentro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas Carretera Mexico-TolucaMéxico, D.F.Mexico

Personalised recommendations