How Internet Is Upsetting the Communication Between Organizations and Their Stakeholders: A Tentative Research Agenda

Conference paper


A new phenomenon is already visible around us: the use of the Internet as a platform to gather and diffuse information has been deployed to the casting of official data about politics provided by unofficial subjects, like citizens, whistle-blowers and so on. The increased data availability on behaviour and decisions of governors and administrators may profoundly alter their agenda and the relationships with the citizens, introducing a broader public control. However this change may also encounter a lot of limitations, which can lower its strength and relevance. This paper is a first step of a research programme on such phenomenon, its characteristics, novelty, and limits.


Internet User Football Player Media Operator Official Data Emergent Phenomenon 
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. 1.
    (2011) Internet Usage Statistics – The Internet Big Picture,, Accessed March 2011.
  2. 2.
    Kaufman, D. (2005). Special report, Transparency matters: The ‘Second generation’ of Institutional Reform, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gant, D.B. and Gant, J.P. (2002). Enhancing e-Service Delivery. E-Government Series, State Web Portals: Delivering and Financing e-Services, PriceWaterhouse Coopers Endowment.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Islam, R. (2003). Do more transparent governments govern better? Policy Research Working Paper 3077, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publishing, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Governo Italiano (2010), Wikileaks, precisazioni da Palazzo Chigi,, last accessed: September 2011.
  7. 7.
    Arf, F., Mathieu, M., Hajdenberg, M. (2011). Quotas dans le foot: la vérité au mot près. Mediapart,, Accessed June 2011.
  8. 8.
    Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C. & Willmott, H. (2007). Chapter 3: Critical Management Studies. The Academy of Management Annals, 1 119–179.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dahl, R.A. (1961), Who Governs? Power and Democracy in an American City, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen W., and D. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), pp. 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zahra, S. A., and George, G. Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Academy of Management Review (27:2), 2002, pp. 185–203.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, H. A. (1969). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1): 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bandura, A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon 9(5), pp. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eisenhardt, M, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TusciaViterboItaly
  2. 2.LUISS Guido Carli UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations