Webcare in Public Services: Deliver Better with Less?

  • Arthur Edwards
  • Dennis de KoolEmail author


Social media monitoring and webcare are gradually becoming common practice in public organizations in the Netherlands. This chapter focuses on webcare, i.e. the act of engaging in online communication with citizens to address client feedback. We investigate four cases of webcare by Dutch public organizations. The main goal of webcare is to gain a better insight into relevant sentiments within target groups. Reputation management and anticipation of clients’ questions and needs prevail in this endeavour. Improvement of information provision and service delivery on the basis of citizens’ feedback are other important motives. In some of our cases, signs of co-production are visible. However, in none of the cases are the impacts of webcare systematically monitored.


Social media Social media monitoring Webcare Public service delivery 


  1. 1.
    Bannister, F. (2005). The panoptic state: Privacy, surveillance and the balance of risk. Information Polity, 10, 65–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some initial considerations. Retrieved from
  3. 3.
    Bekkers, V. J. J. M., Edwards, A. R., Moody, R., & Beunders, H. (2011). Caught by surprise? Micro-mobilization, new media and the management of strategic surprises. Public Management Review, 13, 1003–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bekkers, V., Edwards, A., & de Kool, D. (2013). Social media monitoring: Responsive governance in the shadow of surveillance. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carr, N. (2005). The amorality of Web 2.0, Nicolas Carr’s blog. Retrieved from
  6. 6.
    Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0. New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5, 9–41.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chun, S. A., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0. Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15, 1–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Croll, A., & Power, S. (2009). Complete web monitoring. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Koster, W. (2010). ‘Nowhere I could talk like that: Togetherness and identity on online forums. PhD dissertation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eggers, W. D. (2007). Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce gridlock, and enhance democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fensel, D., Leiter, B. & Stavrakantonakis, I. (2012). Social media monitoring. Innsbruck: Semantic Technology Institute. Retrieved from
  13. 13.
    Khan, G. F., Swar, B., & Lee, S. K. (2014). Social media risks and benefits: A public sector perspective. Social Science Computer Review, 32, 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    King, S. A. (1996). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society: An International Journal, 12, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Intelligence, Media. (2012). Twitter Analyse Belastingdienst. Leiden: Media Intelligence.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mergel, I. (2013). A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meijer, A. J., Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Bos, A., & Fictorie, D. (2011). Burgernet via Twitter: onderzoek naar de waarde van dit nieuwe medium. Utrecht: USBO, Universiteit van Utrecht. Retrieved from
  19. 19.
    Meijer, A. J., et al. (2013). Politie & sociale media. Utrecht, Rotterdam: Universiteit Utrecht, Center for Public Innovation.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meijer, A. J., & Torenvlied R. (2014). Social media and the new organization of government communications: An empirical analysis of twitter usage by the Dutch police. American Review of Public Administration, 1–19. doi: 10.1177/0275074014551381
  21. 21.
    Mickoleit, A. (2014). Social media use by governments: A policy primer to discuss trends, identify policy opportunities and guide decision makers. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 26. Paris: OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mizrahi, S. (2011). Self-provision of public services: Its evolution and impact. Public Administration Review, 72, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prins, C., Broeder, D., Griffioen, H., Keizer, H. G., & Keymolen, E. (2011). iGovernment. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwartz, B. (2004). Paradox of choices: Why more is less. New York: Reed.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sen, E. (2011). Social media monitoring für Unternehmen. Cologne: Social Media Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media. Foreign Affairs, 90, 28–41.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Steimel, B., Halemba, Chr, & Dimitrova, T. (2010). Social media monitoring: Erst zuhören, dann mitreden in den Mitmachmedien!. Meerbusch, Germany: MIND.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sutton, J. N. (2009). Social media monitoring and the democratic national convention: New tasks and emergent processes. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 6, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Teelken, Chr. (1999). Market mechanisms in education: School choice in the Netherlands, England and Scotland in a comparative perspective. Comparative Education, 35, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Noort, G., & Willemsen, L. M. (2011). Online damage control: The effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms. Online first. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Verhoeven, I., & Tonkens, E. (2013). Talking active citizenship: Framing welfare state reform in England and the Netherlands. Social Policy and Society, 12, 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration, Center for Public InnovationErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations