mobile communication devices and government-public engagement

MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICES AND GOVERNMENT-PUBLIC

ENGAGEMENT

__________________________

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

__________________________

Under the Supervision of Nobuya Inagaki

Under the Mentorship of Alexa Dare

__________________________

__________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

__________________________

By

Lloyd D. Brown

December 2011

Mobile Communication and Government Engagement 2

SIGNATURE PAGE

Gonzaga University

MA Program in Communication and Leadership Studies


ABSTRACT

Americans have seemingly gone mobile. With a mobile communication device – cell phone,

smartphone, iPad or other tablet devices – people can send and receive information anytime and

anywhere. Meanwhile, government organizations primarily at the federal government level have

been encouraged to participate in and engage with the public through the internet. This project

uses a media ecology frame to look at whether the increasing mobility of communication made

possible through the acceptance and proliferation of wireless technology devices such as

smartphones, tablet and laptop computers and e-readers is affecting the relationship between

state department of transportation agencies and the public. The project used data collected from

two focus groups and 15 interviews to identify key themes and observations. The research

participants clearly described a transferability of the public-government engagement across

spaces, raising for many communicators the challenges in managing time, resources and public

expectations. However, most interestingly, their experience is less connected to the technology

than it is to the social media tools enabled by the technology. The findings suggest that future

research consider whether the growing public presence in mobile technology spaces offers

opportunity for a richer relationship with government.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5

Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 8 Organization of Remaining Chapters.................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 10

Media ecology ................................................................................................................... 10

Democratization of information ............................................................................. 10

Time and space ....................................................................................................... 12

Digital divide .......................................................................................................... 12

Mobile communication adoption ...................................................................................... 13 Government 2.0 vs. Mobile Government ......................................................................... 15 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3 - SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 20

Scope of the study ............................................................................................................. 20

Methodology of the study ................................................................................................. 20

Focus groups ........................................................................................................... 21 Qualitative interviews ............................................................................................. 22

Validity ............................................................................................................................. 23

Confidentiality .................................................................................................................. 24

CHAPTER 4 – THE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 25

Results ............................................................................................................................... 26

Pressures ................................................................................................................. 26 Time ............................................................................................................... 26

Changing media habits .................................................................................. 27 Coping/Managing ................................................................................................... 28

Clearly defining response times .................................................................... 29

The right tool for the job ............................................................................... 29 Barriers to implementation ..................................................................................... 30

Bureaucratic, conservative organizational cultural perspectives .................. 30 Additional engagement tools with shrinking budget and staff resources ...... 32

Legal concerns ........................................................................................................ 32

Results of the Study - Discussion ..................................................................................... 34

Mobile technology as social media ........................................................................ 34 New technologies and old challenges .................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 38

Limitations of the study .................................................................................................... 38 Implications for Future Research ...................................................................................... 38

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 41

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 46


CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Importance of the Study

Government organizations primarily at the federal government level have been

encouraged to participate in and engage with the public through the internet. In a 2009

memorandum to federal government agency directors, President Obama directed the managers to

use their agency websites to “create an unprecedented level of openness in Government”

(Obama, 2009). The memo declares that government agencies should be transparent,

participatory and collaborative in developing online strategies.

The Obama Administration pushed even further using Twitter, an online micro-blogging

service, to conduct what it called a “Twitter Town Hall,” answering questions from the public in

140-character statements (Twitter.com, 2011). The Obama Administration also this year

launched an online petition tool (White House, 2011) that allows the public to create a petition

that, once a number of people sign on to the petition, is forwarded to the appropriate federal

agency for consideration.

Meanwhile, Americans have seemingly gone mobile. With a mobile communication

device – cell phone, smartphone, iPad or other tablet devices – people can send and receive

information anytime and anywhere. For instance, friends talking about a movie over dinner at a

restaurant might wonder about the name of an actor. A few taps on a smartphone and they have

the answer. Need to know the balance on a checking account before making a purchase? Grab

the smartphone. Forget to order flowers for mom on Mother‟s Day? No problem with a handy

mobile communication device like an iPad.

How will this seeming desire for information, freed from the bonds of time and space,

influence the engagement between government and its public? Are government staffs


anticipating whether the rapid adoption of mobile phones and other wireless devices will

influence public expectations for how governments interact with their constituents? Are

government agencies anticipating and planning for consumer interest in mobile computing?

Statement of the Problem

This project asks whether state transportation officials perceive that the public expects

state departments of transportation to offer services and information optimized for a mobile

computing environment? And, if it does, in what ways will that expectation influence how the

government communications staffs budget for, prepare and deliver information? These questions

consider the influence of wireless technology from a media ecology perspective, which considers

how technology alters communication environments.

State transportation agencies typically engage with the public for a variety of purposes.

Traveler information is a primary concern. State transportation agencies operate the state

highway network, and therefore provide traveler information through a variety of tools including

toll free telephone lines, web pages, local broadcast radio and TV reports. A growing list of state

transportation agencies has found it helpful to provide information about traffic incidents and

congestion via Twitter feeds. Several state transportation agencies have created iPhone

applications featuring, among other things, current traffic information.

State transportation agencies also provide services to the commercial trucking and the

contracting industries. Web sites with information about trucking permits and construction

contracts are among the more popular pages managed by state departments of transportation.

State transportation agencies engage with the public when developing new projects and

establishing long-range transportation priorities. Specific federal and state rules and regulations

govern much of this engagement in an effort to try and ensure an open and transparent public


engagement processes. State departments of transportation also report generally about their

budget decisions and long-range planning in a process of government accountability and

transparency. But it is unclear how mobile internet communication devices will affect how the

state transportation agencies engage with the public during a project‟s development.

Corporations, meanwhile, are leading the way in the mobile computing environment by

building mobile phone applications, optimizing PC internet web sites for easy access by mobile

web browsing – Apple App Store offers more than 350,000 apps and the Google Android Market

Place offers more than 250,000 apps (Business Insider, 2011). The public seems to embrace the

mobile space. A recent national survey of Americans and their communication gadgets shows

that 85% of all adults now own a cell phone (Zickuhr, 2011). That percentage is even higher for

the so-called “millennial” generation of 18- to 35-year-old adults, with 95% now owning a cell

phone. And those cell phones are being used for more than just making calls. According to the

Pew Internet and American Life Project, 28% of cell phone owners use their phones to get

directions or other location specific information (listings of nearby restaurants, gas stations,

movie reviews) (Zickuhr & Smith, 2011). Nearly three-fourths of American cell phone owners

regularly text messages to others. More than a third of those text-ers prefer to receive text

messages to phone conversations (Smith, 2011).

More than a quarter of cell phone owners say they have used their phone for political

activity such as reading about political news; contributing money; telling friends they had voted;

or accessing information through a mobile phone application (Smith & Rainie, 2010). A 2010

survey found that more than a third of Americans with cell phones had software applications on

those cell phones, prompting the researchers to suggest that the proliferation of smart mobile

devices had created an “apps culture” in which the device becomes much more than a phone


(Purcell, Entner, & Henderson, 2010). Those software applications are also available on other

internet-capable mobile devices including iPads, computer tablets, Kindle and e-book readers, all

of which are also growing in popularity with consumers. Now, more than 12% of adults own an

e-book reader, and 8% of adults own an iPad or tablet computer device (Purcell, 2011). Laptop

computers are now more popular than desktop computers.

The adoption of a mobile culture in the United States seemingly crosses cultural and

economic boundaries, as well. While only 40% of lower income homes have broadband internet

connections, cell phones are owned by 75% of people making less than $30,000 annually and

90% of people earning more than $30,000 and less than $50,000 annually (Jansen, 2010).

Meanwhile, government agencies in the United States are generally unable to keep up with the

rapid innovation in communication technology being embraced by the general public. The

adoption of mobile communication technologies by the public could prove challenging for

government because it potentially changes expectations for how government will engage with

the public.

Definition of Terms

Mobile technology – For the context of this study, mobile technology describes tools that

facilitate a wireless connection to the internet such as smartphones, e-readers, tablet computers

(iPads), or laptop computers.

Social media – The term is used generally to describe internet-based engagement tools that

facilitate the sharing of information between people either in open networks or closed networks.

Examples might include Facebook.com, Twitter.com, MySpace.com and YouTube.com.


Communication professional/staff – Term is used to describe media relations officers, public

information officers and public involvement staffs responsible for public communication duties

at state transportation agencies.

Public – This project tries to avoid the term “citizen” since government is often challenged to

communicate with populations that are broader than just those that have citizenship. The goal in

using the term “public” is to describe the people living in relationship with government using the

local, state and federal transportation system.

Organization of Remaining Chapters

This work includes five chapters. The first chapter introduces the importance of the study

and discusses the main problem being considered. Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical basis for

the research, in this case primarily a media ecology perspective on the influence of wireless

technology in the relationship between governments and the public. Chapter 3 explains the

study‟s scope and the methodology used to investigate the theoretical question. Chapter 4

explains the data which was collected and discusses the data in relation to the research questions.

This thesis concludes with Chapter 5, which summarizes the research and the study‟s

conclusions, and offers suggestions for further study.


CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review looks at three related subject areas that help discuss mobile

government services, public engagement and what it means for the government communication

staffs expected to implement the new technologies. The review found research into why mobile

technology is being adopted by consumers; how “government 2.0” relates to “mobile

government”; and a media ecology perspective on how the mobile devices might be influencing

government-consumer relationships. Media ecology will be discussed first to establish the

theoretical framework for this study.

Media ecology

Media ecology, quite simply, is the study of media environments (Media Ecology

Association, 2011). If the mobile internet is a growing area of engagement for government and

the public, than a media ecology perspective helps frame potential issues related to expansion of

government services customized for a mobile internet. Such a perspective takes the research

beyond the question of “whether” something is happening and toward a deeper understanding of

how the communication relationship is evolving.

Neil Postman, noted author and media ecologist, helps to establish that media ecology

framework by offering a warning. Postman, who probably never imagined sending a “tweet” or

“friending” someone on Facebook, believed that there is a basic question, “What will a new

technology do?” that is no more important than the question, “What will a new technology

undo?” (Postman, 1998).

Democratization of information

Experts in the field of e-democracy, which uses web-based strategies to encourage civic

engagement, have written white papers and developed theories on the role of the internet in civic


engagement (Caldow, 2004; Coleman & Gotze, 2005). Coleman and Gotze argue that while

typical e-government policies offer the potential for efficiencies and cost savings in how

information is delivered to the public, there is no guarantee that these strategies lead to a

strengthened democracy and greater public participation. E-democracy strategies propose

moving the public-government interaction from simply a one-way exchange of information – a

static web page, for instance – to “proactive citizen engagement that can influence and improve

policymaking” (Caldow, 2004, p. 4). Coleman and Gotze claim key ingredients are required to

make this interactive relationship possible, including wireless technology strategies, customer

relationship tools and a rethinking of workflows and processes relating to public engagement.

According to Manuel Castells, society has been undergoing a restructuring prompted by

the emergence of information and communication technologies such as wireless technologies

(Castells, 2005). Castells, who developed a theory of a networked society – a social structure

based on information and communication technologies – argues that ultimately, this restructuring

has ramifications for government. Because the people who use these information and

communication technologies participate in “self-directed mass communication” in which the

information created by the individual bypasses traditional media systems, democratizing the

communication system (Castells, 2005, p. 12). Castells suggests that in networked society there

is a democracy of communication that challenges cultural status quo and the society‟s perceived

experts – including the government. That is why, according to Castells, government generally

praises innovation in communication technology while simultaneously fearing the loss of control

of information (p. 20).


Time and space

According to research by De Sousa e Silva (2006), mobile phones actually redefine for

users the context, or “space,” in which a social interaction takes place. Because mobile phones

free the users from the constraints of space and time, the social engagement takes place in what

De Sousa e Silva describes as “hybrid spaces.” She argues that because the conversations

continue as the participants move through physical space, the lines between “cyber-space” and

“physical-space” are blurred. Building on De Sousa e Silva‟s assertions, Rettie (2009) argues

that the medium itself shapes the expectations for how the interactants in a social relationship

behave toward each other. Rettie‟s research asserts that a medium‟s perception as

instantaneously sharing thoughts and information in real time, for instance the use of SMS

texting technology, carries with it an expectation that both parties in a conversation will respond

rapidly. The implication for government inherent in the growth of cell phones and other wireless

devices is in its basic relationship with the public.

A medium of instantaneous information, unbounded by time and space, has perhaps

established new expectations for access to government information and services. It is the public‟s

information and they want it now regardless of the time of day, where they are and what they are

doing. It is this expectation for immediacy of information delivery that a government

bureaucracy built around process could struggle to meet.

Digital divide

Even as government considers how to meet public expectations, it is faced with a

challenge from those potentially left behind in a digital world. Even with 75% of lower-income

people owning cell phones (Jansen, 2010), moving toward mobile government communication

will need to perhaps acknowledge differences in technology and internet access and usage by


ethnic minorities, those lower socio-economic backgrounds and disabled persons.

For example, studies suggest that even when considering the mountain of information

available online, there are still some population segments that have online access to specific

legislative information relevant to their own voting districts and some that do not (Narro, Mayor

& Miller, 2008; Smith, Lehman Schlozman, Verba, & Brady, 2009).

A 2007 study looked at how the internet and e-mail helped neighborhoods build local

social networks (Hampton, 2007). The study analyzed the results of three annual surveys of

Boston-area neighborhoods, suggesting that the internet can facilitate connectedness in those

neighborhoods that already have a propensity for being connected. But Hampton argues that

those who are already left out of the existing Web 2.0 world, for instance those at-risk

neighborhoods that have weak local off-line networks, could risk further alienation if

government services were only offered online.

With a quarter of Americans living with a disability, the issue of accessibility remains a

challenge. According to researchers, just 54% of adults living with a disability use the internet,

compared with 81% that did not have disabilities (Fox, 2011).

This kind of research reminds us that, as Postman and other media ecologists suggest, “It

is important to remember what can be done without computers, and it is also important to remind

ourselves of what may be lost when we do use them” (Postman, 1992, p. 120).

Mobile communication adoption

Despite Postman‟s warnings, the public is indeed turning to mobile communication

technology. A little more than a decade ago mobile phones were considered a luxury item by

many Americans, with just 36% of households owning a cell phone in 1998 (Rogers & Ryan,

2007). Yet, recent surveys found 83% of U.S. adults own cell phones (Smith, 2011).


Understanding why Americans are adopting a mobile lifestyle could help guide strategy for

developing a mobile government communication program.

Okazaki, Skapa and Grande (2008) used the technology acceptance model (TAM) to test

the growth of mobile phone game. The researchers surveyed teenage mobile game players in

four countries – Japan, Spain, Czech Republic and the United States. They found that TAM,

which argues that a person will adopt new technology if it is considered useful and if it is seen as

easy to use, helps predict the success of mobile technology adoption. According to the research,

the model worked well when the researchers substituted “convenience” for “usefulness” (p. 845).

The phones were convenient, always available, and the game programs were easy to use.

Clearly, a broader audience than teen-age mobile game players are purchasing and using

mobile phones. Still the TAM offers potential for continued research to determine whether the

researchers perhaps identified a key aspect of consumers‟ connection to their devices by

substituting “convenience” for “usefulness.” Convenience also could be a factor in how the

public rates and values access to government information, although immediacy of information

and “always on” are aspects of this research that seem important to analyze as well.

An international group of researchers also used TAM to study a specific kind of mobile

phone, the smartphone, a category that would include devices such as the iPhone, Droid, most

Blackberry phones, and Windows 7 phones (Verkasalo, Lopez-Nicolas, Molina-Castillo, &

Bouwman, 2010). They argue that the TAM helps explain the adoption of mobile phones by

consumers. The study, which analyzed how Finnish smartphone owners used the applications on

those phones, determined that the applications actually make it more likely that smartphone

owners will adopt “advanced mobile services” (p. 251). The researchers acknowledge that the

smartphones users that participated in the study would be classified as early adopters, which


perhaps might indicate a different behavioral model than researchers would find with a larger

pool of cell phone owners. Yet, even with the small sample size of early adopters, the researchers

warn that people who own a smartphone will not necessarily use all of its applications, in part

because of perceived technological barriers. The idea, therefore, that even with government

applications available for smartphones, and mobile cellular devices, there are few guarantees the

public will use those applications if those applications are not convenient and easy to use.

Government 2.0 vs. Mobile Government

President Barack Obama‟s call for greater government engagement online was a major

step in a process of moving government information online that began soon after the internet was

created. As early as the mid-1980s, researchers began to identify a connection between the

ability to engage in a two-way conversation between government and the public that potentially

increased constituent satisfaction with government. A survey of Wisconsin state legislators was

used to suggest that those legislators who engage in two-way communication with constituents

were better at predicting constituent views and had a better chance of getting reelected (Harris,

1985). At the time of this study, the internet as we know it today – the World Wide Web and its

graphical interface - did not exist. Yet the study recognized that computers could facilitate two-

way constituent-legislator communications at a time when most legislators depended on one-way

communications such as newsletters, news releases and public speeches.

Web sites have been the primary way in which governments have tried to offer

constituents information, although with varying degrees of success. A look at local governments

suggests that city web sites can enhance public participation and engagement (Kang & Gearhart,

2010). The study, which surveyed nearly 2,000 users of 204 city websites across the United

States, found that city web sites provide the public with basic information about events and


activities; public participation opportunities; and with information that helps track government

decision-making on issues like budget allocations or public policies. The researchers argue that

the survey show that city web sites play an important role in civic engagement. Specifically,

Kang and Gearhart suggest that a web site‟s interactive features combined with prompt feedback

from city staff lead to active participation in civic activities. While the researchers did not

consider mobile internet in their survey, their findings could suggest the ability to enhance civic

engagement through expanded mobile public engagement.

Even with the rise in popularity of mobile communication devices, early research

suggests that mobile government services would not replace government websites, but rather

enhance their effectiveness (Okazaki & Hirose, 2009). Okazaki and Hirose tested the niche

theory, which predicts that a new medium will compete with an established media for consumer

satisfaction, consumer time and advertising dollars (Dimmick, Chen, & Li, 2004). Okazaki and

Hirose built upon Dimmick‟s research, testing whether media displacement would occur between

traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers), traditional internet websites and mobile computing.

The researchers argued that the growth of mobile internet offers consumers the opportunity to

search for information any time and any place. Based on that, they studied whether certain types

of information were more likely to be sought via a specific media. The study analyzed 992

surveys from Japanese consumers, finding that overall PC internet and mobile internet generally

complement each other. They claim that PC and mobile internet users “are probably now capable

of using both tools with equal weight, and of distinguishing their use according to their specific

information needs” (Okazaki & Hirose, 2009, p. 99). This research, now more than two years

old, points to the ability of consumers to recognize the strengths and weakness of various

devices, which might mean government agencies may not need to engage in a mobile internet


presence if the public does not expect it to be there.

Okazaki and Hirose also claim that mobile internet enhances consumer satisfaction with

PC internet, making the linkage between the two media a likely strategy for communication

experts. This niche theory, which considers how a medium displaces another, can help illuminate

research into public expectations for government in a mobile internet environment.

While the relationship between PC internet and mobile internet is important, so is

research into why people use the internet at all and how that might inform public expectations for

government in a mobile space.

With the popularity of Wikipedia and search engines like Google.com, it is clear that the

internet acts as an information resource. Now, research suggests that while most people still use

the internet to search for information, they are becoming more civically minded in their online

activities (Rainie, Purcell, & Smith, 2011). The survey of 2,300 adults found that 80% of internet

users are active in some kind of political or advocacy group, and social media users are even

more active at 82%. That has ramifications for government communications programs that, like

their private sector counterparts, have opened social media accounts to try and connect with the

public. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that state departments of transportation

are using social media tools to provide information; support internal planning and administration;

engage in social networking with the public; and, analyze and evaluate communication activities

(Fine & Poe, 2010). The report does not identify any significant push toward customizing

services specifically for mobile technology.

The specific area of online public participation in transportation decision-making is still a

little studied area that has primarily been the purview of public and urban planning experts. A

survey of municipal planning departments – similar to state departments of transportation in that


they facilitate community decision-making processes – found that most city planning

departments still depend on simple one-way communication in public planning processes

(Evans-Cowley & Conroy, 2006). The survey identified technical and financial barriers among

the reasons for the simpler communication. The researchers also found that the city planners

perceived an increasing public expectation for more online interaction in public planning

decision-making processes. Despite this pressure for more engagement, the researchers report

that “Planning departments over the next five years plan rapid adoption of responsive dialogue

tools but have limited plans to institute opportunities for mutual discourse” (p.98).

Research Questions

The private sector sees mobile computing as a potential new frontier for commercial

development. According to a 2008 forecast by industry analyst Juniper Research, as many as 1.7

billion people could be using mobile internet services by 2013, a huge leap over the 577 million

using mobile phones in 2008 (Chard, 2008). Consumers, meanwhile, are adopting a mobile

communication lifestyle, with an estimated 90% of American adults living in a household with a

cell phone (Zickuhr, 2011). Researchers have found that the technology acceptance model helps

to explain why mobile devices have become so popular – the devices are easier than ever to use,

and they are convenient (Okazaki, Skapa, & Grande, 2008). Meanwhile, research also suggests

that rather than displace the regular internet, mobile internet devices are likely to enhance a

consumer‟s satisfaction with a traditional internet connection (Okazaki & Hirose, 2009).

So how is government looking at this tsunami of consumer technological adoption? The

federal government in many ways is setting the agenda. President Obama‟s administration has

directed federal agencies to increase online transparency and accountability. The President‟s staff

has conducted Twitter “town hall” meetings, and recently launched an online government


petition service.

Some initial research into how city planning departments are using the internet to

facilitate engagement shows that technological and financial barriers exist, slowing progress in

this area despite a recognized increasing demand from the public for more opportunities to shape

decision-making through online tools (Evans-Cowley & Conroy, 2006). There appears to be a

void in the research into online public participation and decision-making regarding the unique

influence of mobile technologies on the public demand for more engagement.

While much evidence exists to suggest that the adoption of mobile technologies is raising

expectation for government to offer more opportunities for mobile technology engagement, there

are some significant issues drawn from a media ecology perspective worth considering. How is

government looking to the mobile internet to engage with the public and how is that engagement

changing the public relationship with its government?


CHAPTER 3 - SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

Scope of the study

This project looks at whether mobile technology has affected the engagement between

state departments of transportation and the public. This project focused on the attitudes and

opinions of a specific group of government communication professionals working for state

transportation agencies and a small sample of non-profit special interest advocates that

commonly interact with state departments of transportation.

The author picked state transportation agencies because there are only 50 state

departments of transportation in the United States, a relatively small sample size. State

departments of transportation are regularly engaged with the public and organizations through

transportation projects that affect land use decisions, and local economic development. While the

overarching question remains whether government is looking to the mobile internet to engage

with the public and whether that engagement is changing the public relationship with its

government, there are three more specific questions proposed for this research study to help

focus the research.

1. How has the process of public engagement changed for transportation agencies in

response to the new technology?

2. In what ways are transportation agencies responding to changes in public expectations for

information delivery – perhaps in budgets, staffing, policies, strategic messaging?

3. Has the new technology improved the public relationship with transportation agencies?

Methodology of the study

This purposive sample represents a fixed group of professionals – there are only 50 state

departments of transportation and therefore only a small number of communication professionals


who specialize in transportation issues. These state transportation communication professionals

participate in a national association, which shares best practices and sponsors an annual meeting

each summer. Despite this national transportation communication association, each state

department of transportation features a different approach to public engagement, and different

budgets for communication resources and staff. The variety of agency sizes and approaches to

public engagement should provide a robust and varied set of responses to interview questions.

This study used two data gathering methodologies – focus groups and qualitative

interviews. The triangulation concept was considered in choosing multiple measurement tools in

order to better illuminate the research question (Neuman, 2006; Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).

Focus groups

Two focus group sessions, each with eight participants, took place during the annual

meeting of the transportation communication subcommittee meeting of the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in August 2011. Focus groups were

chosen as a methodology in order to observe the interaction between participants of various

experiences and backgrounds in the transportation communication field (Eriksson and

Kovalainen, 2008). The focus group format also offered the opportunity to not only determine

whether communication experts believe technology is changing the relationship with the public,

but also to delve further into why they believe that.

The focus group participants were state department of transportation communication staff

persons and hired communication consultants who were contacted through the national trade

association ahead of the national conference. An attempt was made to include in the focus groups

people who represented states of different sizes, people of varying communication

responsibilities and people of varying communication experiences. Due to government travel


restrictions, not all states that were contacted were able to participate in the conference and not

all states contacted could arrive at the conference in time to participate in the focus group

sessions.

The sessions followed similar formats with a series of questions being used to prompt

conversation between the professionals.

The nature of focus groups allowed for the testing of research questions. The anecdotal

examples and general discussions between communication experts were used to help frame

questions that were used during the qualitative interviews. The focus group sessions were

recorded on video. The data was analyzed using open coding to identify themes and axial coding

to organize those themes into key concepts (Neuman, 2006).

Qualitative interviews

The research plan also includes 10 interviews with state department of transportation

communication staff persons with various levels of responsibility – directors, managers, media

relations experts and public involvement staff members. The interview subjects were identified

through association rosters, agency web sites and personal contacts. An additional set of

interviews were conducted with representatives from special interest groups that might be

affected by changes in state department of transportation communication program activities,

specifically in the area of public input in project decision making where the public is often asked

its opinion for inclusion in the formal decision-making record.

Interview questions were written to prompt conversations and elicit the opinions of the

government and non-profit interviewees. For instance, both groups were asked “Looking ahead,

what do you see as the biggest communication challenge facing your agency?” in order to

establish whether wireless technology was included in their answer. Questions also focused on


whether the experts were aware of changes or trends in communication practices. For instance,

state department of transportation communications experts were asked, “What is your biggest

challenge in public interaction/engagement? How has that changed or remained consistent?”

The questionnaire answers were recorded in written notes. The notes were analyzed using

open coding to identify themes and axial coding to organize those themes into key concepts.

Validity

Quality of a qualitative research project derives from the ability to generalize its testing

and, in turn, its results, which increases the trustworthiness and validity of the research

(Golafshani, 2003). In addition, measuring something in different ways – triangulation – can help

reveal additional insights (Neuman, 2006). This project first collected data from focus groups

that was then analyzed and used to help craft questionnaires for qualitative interviews. The

quality of this research project was strengthened by the use of two data gathering techniques.

Observations noted in the focus groups were tested in the qualitative interviews, providing a

multi-view perspective on the research questions.

The focus groups were a valuable data gathering technique because they allowed for the

communication experts to discuss their own immediate experiences related to changing

dynamics of public engagement while also participating in a conversation with colleagues about

trends indentified generally throughout the country. While the participation in the focus groups

was limited, the participants experience with technology seems reasonably applicable to most

state transportation communication professionals.

The qualitative interviews allowed for the identification of themes, issues and concerns

related to whether and how transportation communication professionals think about mobile

communication devices. The additional interviews with non-profit advocacy groups provided


some limited insight into whether a specific segment of the public recognizes changes in public

engagement. These interviews were limited in number but focused on the primary

communication program decision makers in state departments of transportation. However, other

managers, staff persons and special interest groups that might also influence communication

engagement practices were not consulted for this study. For instance, state department of

transportation chief executives, who might establish overall agency priorities for public

engagement, were not included in our qualitative interview sample.

Confidentiality

Interviewee and focus group confidentiality was maintained through coded note taking.

Each interview subject was assigned a coded identifier: for example “Com1” for communication

staff person. The confidentiality was maintained so that the interview subject could feel

comfortable providing honest and confidential answers to the research questions without

revealing their identity. Since the pool of transportation communication professionals is

relatively small, special attention was given to ensure that gender and regional identifiers were

removed in the data analysis.


CHAPTER 4 – THE STUDY

The combination of focus group discussion and qualitative interviews revealed those state

departments of transportation communication professionals perceive a shift in public

communication expectations. Meanwhile, advocacy groups also acknowledged a shift in how the

general public communicates, but still generally prefer face-to-face meetings or person-to-person

phone calls when engaging with the government officials.

The research shows those state departments of transportation officials most frequently

cite the influence of social media when describing a shift in public engagement brought on by

mobile technology. State department of transportation officials tended to use the terms “social

media” and “mobile” communications interchangeably, discussing outreach via Facebook and

Twitter when asked about wireless technology. The comments identified major themes of

workplace pressures, the development of strategies for coping and managing with a changing

technology environment, and perceived barriers to fully embracing new technology.

In the following data analysis, focus group participants were labeled with “FG” and a

number. Interview participants were labeled either “Com” and a number for communication

professionals or “Adv” and a number to denote comments from a special interest advocate.

Data analysis followed a process outlined by Neuman (2006) that included open coding,

axial coding and selective coding. Notes were taken during the focus group sessions and the

sessions were recorded on video. Typed notes also were taken during the qualitative interviews,

with an attempt to capture as much direct dialogue from the participants as possible. During the

open coding review, the focus group video was viewed multiple times and comments and the

interview responses were reviewed. Key statements and themes were indentified during the

initial open coding review of focus group and interview notes. The axial coding step included


additional review of the written notes, which resulted in an initial set of themes. Final review of

the notes and identified themes – selective coding – revealed key statements by focus group

participants that helped illuminate the key themes.

Results

Pressures

The introduction of mobile technology into the public/government relationship has

intensified public expectations for the speed and frequency – most often described as

“immediacy” – with which information requests are handled, according to research participants.

Additionally, participants cited the public‟s changing media consumption habits as an outcome

of expanded mobile communication technology.

Time

Most of the interviewees and focus group participants expressed some kind of concern

about time and timeliness. The introduction of mobile technology has heightened a sense of

“immediacy,” according to research participants who described how time seemed compressed,

while demands on their time had increased. The public no longer seems willing to wait for

answers to their questions. FG1 said it this way, “I think the public has become „supersized‟ by

McDonalds in that everything has to be out that window right now. And if they (the public) don‟t

get a response right now then they‟ll just call the Governor.” FG9 added, “We are in an age that

has never not known the internet. They (the public) are very technology savvy and they expect us

as communicators to be able to answer their questions in real time.”

Time also is an issue for the government staffs. Com6 said, “It is very time consuming

once you‟ve made a commitment to social media. If you are going to uphold that (conversation)

it‟s a challenge. We would do more if we all had more time in our days.”


FG14 said the public‟s demand for instant information is not limited to traditional

business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Instead, the public is sending messages late into the evening.

“I‟m „on‟ (Twitter) every night and it‟s the last thing I look at every night before I go to bed. It‟s

incredibly tough to stay up with it and to do it right.”

The immediacy of information flows both ways. Using social media on a mobile device,

Com6 said that the immediacy ultimately is valuable because even if the government official

does not have an answer to a question, the public can know their request has been received and it

will be handled. FG14 said she is able to track what the public is saying about her agency, and

proactively engage in conversations to correct misperceptions. “The good news is that the things

we didn‟t know were problems or things we didn‟t know were issues with the public, now they

ask these questions back or they ask questions and we can respond,” FG14 said. Adv4 agrees that

technology has created a sense of immediacy, but ultimately she sees the most value in a

relationship that transcends time. “When I look at technology as a whole, particularly

communications technology, I look at it as an updated telephone. It has made things more

efficient and faster and more complete, but it still is all about people,” Adv4 said.

Changing media habits

Com1 said that he sees a major transition for his team as the general public depends less

on traditional media for their news, and more on social media. He noted the speed with which

Twitter and Facebook users were sharing news about an earthquake that hit the East Coast,

several minutes before mainstream news stations were able to deploy reporters and deliver the

story. Eventually, he asked, “Who is going to watch their local news if you already know what‟s

happened?” This change in news consumption was cited as a concern by several interviewees

both with government and with the advocacy groups since most state departments of


transportation use local news media to share information with the public. Com4 said that the shift

away from mainstream media has been so dramatic that he is challenging his staff to take on the

role of content producers – essentially making their own news that is shared directly with the

public. That state department of transportation has developed a full video production team. Every

front-line communication officer formerly worked as a member of the news media and the team

is expected to write information for the public as a news producer writes for a newscast.

Com6 said that keeping up with how people get their information is a constant challenge

because not everyone adopts new technologies at the same pace. That means that as

communication teams incorporate new tools, those teams must also maintain more traditional

communication channels. Most participants expressed the opinion that younger segments of the

public are leading the change to mobile, making the need to shift focus one of future relevancy.

FG16 said that more and more, young people never watch TV or read the newspaper, typical

department of transportation communication channels. Instead, FG16 believes young people are

sharing news through social media tools, facilitated by their mobile devices. “We (DOTs) have

to shift (focus) because we are missing a big demographic as we move forward,” FG16 said.

Coping/Managing

Communication staffs are developing strategies to manage public expectations. Com5

said her agency is managing the public‟s expectation of immediacy by using mobile technology

to upload images of events like ribbon-cutting celebrations as they are happening. Several

participants described the value of mobile technology during natural disasters not only in getting

information out to the public quickly, but also receiving information from the public on road

conditions. This back-and-forth sharing of information – crowdsourcing information from the

mobile public – seems to result in a bigger audience for state transportation information and


provides a better idea of the conditions in which the transportation officials are working. Com5

said her state experienced big growth in online Twitter followers during and after a recent flood

event. “We saw a whole network that continued to build on our emergency communications,”

said Com5, adding that crowdsourcing “gives us the opportunity to communicate more quickly,

immediately and accurately.”

Clearly defining response times

Several participants described a desire to try and manage the changing relationship

dynamics presented by new technology. Several participants mentioned the constant, “always

on,” approach to public communication as overwhelming to state transportation department

staffs. Some states said that they only respond to electronic communications during office hours.

FG12 said that her team monitors online social media conversations at least every 12 hours.

Meanwhile, other state participants said they have avoided opening social media accounts

because they did not want the public trying to reach their agency through that channel. Others

said that they try to update their existing correspondence policies – which determine acceptable

response times for phone calls, letters and email messages – to establish acceptable response

times for electronic public information requests through channels like Facebook and Twitter.

One participant said that the response times were really a secondary concern for her states. FG7

said “It‟s not so much that the guy (public) has to wait until Monday for his answer, but that the

issue is reported properly and it gets handled.”

The right tool for the job

An additional coping strategy cited by participants is a continuing search for the right

communication tool for the right situation. An expectation for effective communication comes

not only from the public, but also from internal customers who want recognition for various


programs and activities. Communication staffs said that new technology offers a variety of

options for specifically targeting audiences, leading them to recommend using certain tools and

not others depending on the communication goal. In one state, the staff that manages the annual

transportation planning process has abandoned a campaign of public meetings held around the

state in favor of an online strategy that utilizes web pages. Explaining the change of approach,

FG10 said, “You go through a lot of effort to host and to organize and plan public meetings and

only a very few people show up at them. And, the people who do show up tend to be the mayor

of the town the meetings being held in or a county commissioner, city councilman.”

Barriers to implementation

The focus group participants in particular identified several perceived barriers to updating

their public engagement programs. Chief among those barriers was a perceived organizational

cultural attitude toward public engagement that reflected in how communication teams around

the country described their relationships with other work groups, their program budgets and

resources, and legal interpretations.

Bureaucratic, conservative organizational cultural perspectives

Few of the participants said they felt that their organizations fully understood the

changing dynamics of communicating with the public. Some states do not even allow their

employees access to the internet, while other states do not allow employees access to streaming

media or social media web sites at the office. FG9 said that state departments of transportation

have not kept up with communication and engagement technologies, which means that “We do

have information that can be of value and benefit to the public that we are not communicating.”

Another participant, FG12 said the issue really is not even about technology, but rather a

reluctance to include the public in decision-making. “Some of our engineers probably wish the


public would go away and let them do their jobs,” FG12 said. Others suggested that the goal of

public engagement is more focused on managing potential crises and less on direct public

conversations. FG14 described it this way:

“I don‟t think that we are really trying to connect with the public … we label it the public

but I think it‟s the transportation insiders that we go with and try to keep happy. It‟s not

true public involvement. I think that‟s why there is always a disconnect a lot of times

between what the public wants and why we‟re always complaining that there‟s not

enough money for transportation.”

This concern about culture was echoed by Adv2, who said that it is a significant challenge for his

organization to access project information. He acknowledges that the local transportation

department is using social media and its web site to share information, but it is not the right

information to increase public participation in decision-making. Adv2 says that despite the large

volume of information he receives from the transportation department, the key pieces of

information he needs to engage his large advocacy group are still held closely by a different

organization within the transportation department.

The internal culture of state transportation departments was blamed for delays in

deploying technology. FG2 said that his communication staff is vulnerable to perceptions of the

public that the communication team was seen “tweeting” all day, “Social media is still

considered a “toy” in many respects.” Other participants said that turf battles within their

organizations over responsibilities, funding and resources have created barriers to implementing

new communication programs. One participant said that her colleagues battle for access to tools

and technical support with the agency‟s information technology group, which has responsibilities


for the agency‟s computers and databases. FG16 said, “Ours have been in our way … it has

crippled us.” FG13 describe a similar situation in her state until the department‟s chief executive

stepped in and clarified his expectations in favor of greater public access to department

information.

Additional engagement tools with shrinking budget and staff resources

Several participants said that mobile technology has added to their workload. Meanwhile,

all of the state participants said that they were coping with shrinking state budgets. FG7 said,

“The citizens want you to do things more like the private industry but you don‟t have the

resources to do that or the resources aren‟t placed in the right way to be meeting the expectations

of the customers.” FG9 said, “We‟re just treading water … we‟re staying above water but the

undertow is threatening to pull us under, to pull us down.”

Because budgets are so tight, states are not adding staff positions that specialize in the

new technologies, although several are asking current staff members to learn new skills on the

job. FG2 said, “We‟ve been struggling to figure out how to deploy the new channels of

communication without increasing staff. Because as we all know, that many of these – if you

want them to be two-way channels (of communication) – are very staff intensive and require a

lot of time and people to respond.” One participant said that the changing public media

consumption has changed how he approaches staff hiring, insisting that he will never hire

another staff person without that person having skills for communicating through social media.

Legal concerns

Throughout the United States, formal project decision requires some kind of public

involvement process. For federally funded projects, the National Environmental Policy Act

defines a formal public engagement process and most states have a similar state process. While


the formal federal and state rules do not preclude the use of mobile technologies in the formal

decision-making process, many states represented in the surveys and focus groups are still

depending on traditional public outreach and engagement tools such as media relations,

meetings, newsletters. “We in government are a little behind,” FG7 admitted. “I would really like

to be doing public meetings on a webcast or sit down and do a blog as a public meeting but our

lawyers won‟t let us do that.” FG7 said, “The public meetings to get input have not changed

with the times at all … we are still doing mailings to get people to the meetings.”

FG2 said that he believes government sends the public a mixed message by not using

mobile technologies in project decision making. FG2 pointed out that, in his state, government

organizations have closed traditional “brick and mortar” facilities in favor of offering more

services over the internet because it was publically popular and saved money. But, he said, “In

fact, our system of public meetings is essentially a kind of a variation of brick and mortar.

You‟ve got a public meeting at 7 o‟clock some evening and you have to physically show up if

you want to hear it or see it.”

However, the advocacy group participants did not express much interest in changing the

way in which the transportation departments conduct public meetings or solicit formal public

comments. Whether online or offline, the goal for the advocacy groups is to influence decision-

making, which is best done person-to-person, according to Adv1.

Many focus group participants argued that traditional public meetings are bound to

change because the technology will become so ubiquitous and popular with the public that states

will have no choice but to change their approach. “… they (the public) are going to come to

expect being able to participate with their smart phones or their iPad from their recliner in their


living room. And they shouldn‟t have to drive an hour to make their view known to an elected

commission,” FG2 said.

Other legal concerns expressed by the participants included questions about how to

preserve public records according to specific state laws, especially if mobile technology utilizes

private communication channels like Facebook and Twitter that are not managed on government

computer systems. Participants also said that some states have requirements for engaging with

non-English speaking populations. Also, a few participants said they had concerns about the

need to moderate or limit dialogue, opening government organizations up to claims of

censorship.

Discussion

The data collected during the focus group and individual interviews suggests that mobile

technology has indeed changed how state departments of transportation interact with the public.

However, the participants – both within government and those who interact with government –

suggest that the new technologies amplify challenges inherent in public engagement.

Mobile technology as social media

It is important to note from a media ecology perspective that the participants generally

talked about social media tools when asked about the influence of mobile technology. The

participants generally described the act of engagement in a mobile context – describing people

“on the go” or using mobile phones – but framing that engagement through the channels of social

media. It is not necessary to use a mobile device to communicate through Facebook or Twitter or

YouTube. Therefore, the participants recognized that the act of using the internet itself is no

longer tethered to time and space due to adoption of mobile devices. While participants tended to

talk about their traditional web pages and their social media channels as separate efforts, the


differences were focused on variations in public engagement – one-way versus two-way

communication, using the corporate “voice” versus a “human” voice. But there was not a

difference for participants between traditional web pages and social media in their sense of

“mobility.”

This observation builds upon and supports the observations of Okazaki and Hirose in

applying the niche theory to the use of PC internet and mobile internet (Okazaki & Hirose,

2009). Okazaki and Hirose observed that consumers were able to use either the PC internet or

mobile internet equally depending on what worked best for their specific information needs.

Meanwhile, government communication officers participating in these focus groups and

interviews described the public‟s use of the internet without differentiating the enabling

technology, suggesting that the pathway to the internet was not nearly as important as the

engagement which takes place via the internet.

This is similar to the blending of “cyber-space” and “physical-space” into a “hybrid-

space” described by De Sousa e Silva (2006). The research participants clearly described a

transferability of the public-government engagement across spaces, raising for many

communicators the challenges in managing time, resources and public expectations.

New technologies and old challenges

The research participants were consistent in their concern that new communication

technologies were changing the public relationship without solving traditional government

communication challenges. The communication officers described barriers to meeting these

emerging expectations in the form of shrinking budgets, untrained staff, legal concerns, and

organizational cultural biases. The advocacy groups also described that they recognized

increased timeliness of information from state transportation departments. But generally, the


advocacy groups preferred direct relationships that allowed them the opportunity to influence

decision-making within the agency.

This seems to be the situation Castells (2005) describes in his networked society theory.

Castells argues that in a networked society there is a democratization of information as the public

itself becomes a content creator. However, Castells also recognizes that such a shift presents a

threat to the status quo, and while government – in this case state transportation departments –

share a general acknowledgement and support for communication innovation, they also share a

simultaneous fear of losing control. This fear is not only expressed in the barriers internal to the

transportation department structures but also in the organized advocacy groups‟ focus on

individual relationships to influence decision-making.

Meanwhile, it is worth again considering Postman‟s question about new technology –

what will it undo? While not answered directly by the focus group and survey participants, there

was recognition of a public digital divide. The communication staffs acknowledged that different

populations they served adopt new technologies at different rates, hence the reluctance by state

officials to move away from more traditional communication tools even as mobile technologies

gain in popularity. Especially in the focus group setting, the communication professionals

discussed mobile technology adoption in relation to socio-economic disparities, age

demographics and foreign language barriers. Castells‟ networked society may be at hand, but

government seems likely to take its time transitioning. At least for now, the burden of

communicating to all demographics within a population cannot be accomplished with a single

tool.

This study attempted to answer three primary questions which were indeed illuminated

by the data collected from the focus groups and interviews. Communication professionals


perceive that the process of public engagement has indeed changed for transportation agencies in

direct response to the public‟s use of technology. This was described specifically in terms of

“time” and “timeliness.”

In response, transportation communication staffs are developing strategies to cope with

shifting public expectations, in some cases limiting access to communication channels and in

other situations attempting to manage public expectations for how the public should expect the

transportation agency to behave in the new communication spaces. But barriers exist that are

limiting how transportation communication staffs engage with the public. Those barriers include

government agencies‟ bureaucratic culture, limited program budgets and limited staffing

resources.

Finally, it remains unclear for transportation communications staffs whether mobile

technology is providing for an improved public relationship. Communication professionals

discussed their desire to meet public expectations for timeliness of information, but also to

ensure that the public received accurate information. In addition, there was recognition that while

wireless technology might hold the promise of a more inclusive participatory decision-making

process, the transportation agency decision-making processes generally have not embraced the

new technology.


CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the study

This study used data collected during two focus groups and multiple one-on-one

interviews. The study used two different data gathering techniques to triangulate toward the

question of whether mobile technologies were influencing the relationship between government

and the public. The study‟s focus on the work of state transportation agencies provides for a

focused report, but it also makes for a limited perspective on government. Other government

organizations might have different experiences with mobile communications because the nature

of their business might not be as dependent on immediate information as transportation. The

concerns and challenges expressed by state transportation communications participants might

differ from those of a local city or county government.

Finally, by focusing on the communication staff, this study evaluates the perspectives of

one facet of what are traditionally very complex bureaucratic organizations. It is likely that

additional research into the perspectives and opinions of other groups within the organization

might further illuminate the questions raised in this study. For instance, planning staffs that

generally manage long-range project planning and community-level dialogue at state

transportation agencies might not perceive as much of a shift in public expectations for

engagement since federal and state planning regulations do not necessarily account for the use of

mobile communication tools like Facebook and Twitter.

Implications for Future Research

This study focused on the changing relationship between government and the public from

a media ecology perspective. Further research in this area may choose to move beyond whether

the relationship is being affected by new technology and ask the question whether the


engagement is richer or more effective. Further research in this area might also consider whether

a digital divide is made greater by increasing use of mobile technology. Also, additional research

might consider from a media ecology perspective the way in which wireless technology is no

longer an observable part of the communication process between government and the public.

Conclusion

The state transportation communication officers and staffs that are directly responsible

for communicating with the public are keenly aware that their relationship with the public is

changing. They describe shifting public expectations regarding the availability of information,

and the immediacy of information. The government officials and their advocacy group

counterparts recognize that mobile communication devices that give the public access to the

internet anytime and anywhere are part of this changing relationship. However, most

interestingly, their experience is less connected to the technology than it is to the social media

tools enabled by the technology.

The emphasis by communication officers on the influence of social media tools seems to

fit with Castells‟ networked society theory. Castells argues that the social structure will be based

on technology and that the people who reside in this technological space will participate in “self-

directed mass communication” (Castells, 2005, p. 12). It is the social media that make it possible

for individual people to create content that is easily distributed, shared with others and

commented upon. The government communication officers are realizing that not only are

governments more capable to creating mass media content, the public is as well. The mobile

technologies seem to make it easier for the public and government to use the social media tools

but the mobile technologies are not the reason for the engagement.

De Sousa e Silva similarly describes how wireless technology creates hybrid


communication spaces. The lines between physical spaces and virtual spaces are blurred by

mobile technology. This also seems like a key aspect of the experience of transportation

department communication officers, who discuss developing strategies to manage additional

demands on time, staffs and budget resources due to what they perceive to be growing public

expectations for nearly non-stop communication and information sharing.

Ultimately, the experience of the communication officers are qualitative evidence of the

development of De Sousa e Silva‟s hybrid spaces and Castell‟s evolving social structure being

created by the growing use of mobile technologies by the public. The ramifications of the

evolving social relationship are being seen in how the communication officers establish

strategies for coping in a changing communication environment. But additional consideration

should be given to how the evolving relationship will affect public decision-making processes, as

well as how government program managers budget their resources and create their public

engagement strategies. Despite the evidence that a digital divide exists for some in the public, the

growing public presence in mobile spaces will likely demand increasing attention from

government officials interested in public comments and feedback.


REFERENCES

Business Insider. (2011, March 13). Google is closing the gap on apple's app store. Retrieved

from http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-of-the-week-ipad-competition-is-toast-2011-

3#google-is-closing-the-gap-on-apples-app-store-3

Caldow, J. (2004, January 1). E-democracy: Putting down global roots. Retrieved February 12,

2011, from Institute for Electronic Government: http://www-

01.ibm.com/industries/government/ieg/pdf/e-

democracy%20putting%20down%20roots.pdf

Castells, M. (2005). The network society: from knowledge to policy. In M. Castells and G.

Cardoso (Eds.), The network society from knowledge to policy (pp. 3-21). Washington,

DC: John Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2005. Retrieved October 5, 2011,

from http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/research/pdfs/JF_NetworkSociety.pdf.

Chard, I. (2008, June 25). Mobile web users to top 1.7bn by 2013, driven by new web 2.0

collaborative business models, says Juniper Research. Retrieved February 5, 2011, from

http://juniperresearch.com/viewpressrelease.php?pr=96

Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2005, September 1). Bowling together: Online engagement in policy

deliberations. Retrieved from Hansard Society:

http://www.johnkeane.net/pdf_docs/teaching_sources/coleman/bowlingtogether.pdf

de Souza e Silva, A. (2006). Cyber to hybrid: Mobile technologies as interfaces to hybrid spaces.

Space and Culture, 9(3), 261-278. Retrieved from

http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/publications/bitstream/1840.2/80/1/SpaceandCulture_01180

6pre.pdf

Dimmick, J., Chen, Y., & Li, Z. (2004, January 1). Competition between the internet and


traditional news media: The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. The Journal of

Media Economics, 17(1), 19-33. Retrieved from

http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di

rect=true&db=bth&AN=12062155&site=ehost-live

Ericksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research. London,

England: Sage Publications Ltd.

Evans-Cowley, J., & Conroy, M. M. (2006). The growth of e-government in municipal planning.

Journal of Urban Technology, 13(1), 81-107.

Fine, A., & Poe, C. (2010, March 1). Current uses of web 2.0 applications in transportation.

Retrieved February 5, 2011, from U.S. Department of Transportation, The Volpe Center:

http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm

Fox, S. (2011, January 21). Americans living with disability and their technology profile.

Retrieved February 5, 2011, from Pew Internet & American Life Project:

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Disability.aspx

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf

Hampton, K. (2007, October). Neighborhoods in the network society: The e-neighborhood study.

Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 714-748.

Harris, A. (1985, September). Computers in constituent communications. Public Relations

Review, 11(3), 34-37.

Jansen, J. (2010, November 24). Use of the internet in higher-income households. Retrieved

February 5, 2011, from Pew Internet & American Life Project:


http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Better-off-households/Overview.aspx

Kang, S., & Gearhart, S. (2010, September). E-government and civic engagement: How is

citizens' use of city web sites related with civic involvement and political behavior.

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(3), 443-462.

Media Ecology Association. (2011). What is media ecology. Retrieved from http://www.media-

ecology.org/media_ecology/index.html

Mobile Government Consortium International. (2011). MGCI. Retrieved February 5, 2011, from

www.mgovernment.org.

Narro, A., Mayo, C., & Miller, A. (2008). Legislators and constituents: Examining

demographics and online communication tools. Conference Papers -- National

Communication Association. Retrieved from

http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di

rect=true&db=ufh&AN=44853109&site=ehost-live

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Obama, B. (2009, January 21). Memorandum for heads of executive agencies. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/

Okazaki, S., & Hirose, M. (2009). Effects of displacement-reinforcement between traditional

media, PC internet and mobile internet. International Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 77-

104.

Okazaki, S., Skapa, R., & Grande, I. (2008, September 2). Capturing global youth: Mobile

gaming in the U.S., Spain and the Czech Republic. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 13(4), 827-855. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00421.x


Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage

Books.

Postman, N. (1998). Five things we need to know about technological change. Talk delivered in

Denver Colorado. Denver, CO. Retrieved from

http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf

Purcell, K., Entner, R., & Henderson, N. (2010, September 1). The rise of apps culture.

Retrieved January 19, 2011, from Pew Internet & American Life Project:

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/The-Rise-of-Apps-Culture.aspx

Purcell, K. (2011, June 27). E-reader ownership doubles in six months. Retrieved October 1,

2011, from Pew Internet & American Life Project:

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/E-readers-and-tablets/Report.aspx

Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Smith, A. (2011, January 1). The social side of the internet. Retrieved

January 19, 2011, from Pew Internet & American Life Project:

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The-Social-Side-of-the-Internet/Summary.aspx

Rettie, R. (2009, December 1). SMS: Exploiting the interactional characteristics of near-

synchrony. Information, Communication & Society, 12(8), 1131–1148.

Rogers, A., & Ryan, C. (2007, April 1). Extended measures of well-being: Living conditions in

the United States, 2003. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from U.S. Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p70-110.pdf

Smith, A. (2011, August 15). Americans and their cell phones. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from

Pew Internet & American Life Project:

http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/Cell%20Phones%202011.pdf

Smith, A. (2011, September 19). Americans and text messaging. Retrieved October 1, 2011,


from Pew Internet & American Life Project:

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/Americans%20and%20Text%2

0Messaging.pdf

Smith, A., Lehman Schlozman, K., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009, September 1). The internet

and civic engagement. Retrieved February 5, 2011, from Pew Internet & American Life

Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/15--The-Internet-and-Civic-

Engagement.aspx

Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2010, December 23). Politics goes mobile. Retrieved February 5, 2011,


http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Politics.aspx

Twitter.com. (2011, July 6). Twitter presents town hall at the white house. Retrieved October 1,

2011, from Twitter.com: http://askobama.twitter.com

Verkasalo, H., Lopez-Nicolas, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Bouwman, H. (2010, August).

Analysis of users and non-users of smartphone applications. Telmatics & Informatics,

27(3), 242-255.

White House. (2011). We the people: Your voice in our government. Retrieved October 1, 2011,

from Whitehouse.gov: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions

Zickuhr, K. & Smith, A. (2011, September 6). 28% of American adults use mobile and social

location-based services. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from Pew Internet & American Life

Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/PIP_Location-based-services.pdf.

Zickuhr, K. (2011, February 3). Generations and their gadgets. Retrieved February 5, 2011,


http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Generations-and-gadgets.aspx


APPENDIX A

The Influence of Mobile Internet Devices on Transportation Agency

Communication Practices

Focus Group Tool

Focus group participants will be selected from attendees of the National Transportation Public

Affairs Workshop, the annual meeting of state department of transportation communication

officers. Each of the two focus groups will include eight participants. The 90-minute sessions

will be recorded on video. The participants will be given a written explanation of the research

project, as well as a statement of confidentiality.

Script

Greeting/Introduction:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group

I know that most of you understand what a focus group is and why we use them. But let

me take a moment and explain the format and expectations just in case.

o First, this is a conversation. Please try to allow opportunities for everyone to

share. I will occasionally offer some questions or call upon some of you to make

sure we get a range of input from this group.

o Second, we are not looking for “right” answers. In a moment I‟m going to explain

in some detail the focus on our research. Our goal here is to open a dialogue and

learn some things.

Overview of the research project:

Mobile internet capable devices are popular. How many of you in this room have an

internet capable mobile device? (RECORD ANSWER). Great … !


This research is focused on an issue related to internet-capable mobile devices and their

popularity is influencing government/citizen engagement. (ANY QUESTIONS?)

Question 1: How do you most commonly interact/engage with the public?

Question 2: Has that interaction/engagement changed? In what ways?

Question 3: What is your biggest challenge in public interaction/engagement? How has that

changed or remained consistent?

Question 4: We discussed earlier the growing popularity of mobile internet communication

devices like iPhones, iPads, and tablet computers. How do you think these kinds of devices

might affect consumer behavior toward government?

Question 5: Based on our discussion so far, what can you tell me about how you are anticipating

changes in public engagement from mobile internet devices? Are you planning new

tactics/techniques? Why or why not?


APPENDIX B



Interview Tool – Government Transportation Official

The interview subjects will be identified through association rosters, agency web sites and

personal contacts. These up to 30-minute interviews will allow for the identification of themes,

issues and concerns related to whether and how transportation communication professionals

think about mobile/wireless communication technology. The participants will be given a verbal

explanation of the research project, as well as a statement of confidentiality.


Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. I know you are busy, so I hope to

keep this interview short – not more than 30 minutes.

Let me take a moment and explain the format and expectations for this interview.

o First, this is a conversation. I have a set of questions that I hope to cover with you.

However, feel free to digress and answer freely in whatever way you like.



learn some things.


Mobile internet/wireless capable devices are popular. Do you have an internet capable

mobile/wireless device? (RECORD ANSWER). Great!


This research is focused on whether internet-capable mobile technology and its

popularity is influencing government/public engagement. (ANY QUESTIONS?)

Demographic Questions:

Position in the transportation agency?

How many years in that role?

Do you have responsibility for advanced planning or budgets?

Question 1: Looking ahead, what do you see as the biggest communication challenge facing your

agency?

Question 2: How do you most commonly interact/engage with the public?




Question 5: We discussed earlier the growing popularity of mobile internet/wireless technology

used in devices like iPhones, iPads, and tablet computers. How do you think the technology and

these kinds of devices might affect consumer behavior toward government?


changes in public engagement from mobile/wireless technology? Are you planning new

tactics/techniques? Why or why not (Note: allow respondent to fully expand in this area)?

Question 7: How do you think mobile/wireless technology could be used in the public

participation process?

Question 8: Is your state currently allowing for public participation through alternative


communication channels that might be facilitated by wireless technology? For instance,

comments on a Facebook page, or texting in support or opposition for a bridge design?


APPENDIX C



Interview Tool – Non-government transportation stakeholder

The interview subjects will be identified through advocacy organization rosters, web sites and

personal contacts. These up to 30-minute interviews will allow for the identification of themes,

issues and concerns related to whether and how transportation advocacy stakeholders – those

people affected by public participation policies – think about mobile/wireless technology‟s

influence of public participation. The participants will be given a verbal explanation of the

research project, as well as a statement of confidentiality.


Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. I know you are busy, so I hope to

keep this interview short – not more than 30 minutes.

Let me take a moment and explain the format and expectations for this interview.

o First, this is a conversation. I have a set of questions that I hope to cover with you.

However, feel free to digress and answer freely in whatever way you like.



learn some things.


Mobile internet/wireless capable devices are popular. Do you have an internet capable

mobile/wireless device? (RECORD ANSWER). Great!


This research is focused on whether internet-capable mobile technology and its

popularity is influencing government/public engagement. (ANY QUESTIONS?)

Demographic Questions:

What is your position with your public advocacy organization?

How many years in that role?

Question 1: How do you most commonly interact/engage with government projects, programs

affecting your advocacy organization?




Question 4: We discussed earlier the growing popularity of mobile internet/wireless technology

used in devices like iPhones, iPads, and tablet computers. How do you think the technology and

these kinds of devices might affect consumer behavior toward government?


changes in public engagement from mobile internet/wireless communication devices? Are you

planning new tactics/techniques? Why or why not?

Question 6: Looking ahead, what do you see as the biggest communication challenge facing your

advocacy organization?

mobile communication devices and government-public engagement

Documents