<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>The Social Networking for eGovernment: An initial assessment of Web 2.0 tools used by the Kosovo Central Government</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Artan Rexhepi</string-name>
          <email>artan.rexhepi@uni-pr.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Sonja Filiposka</string-name>
          <email>sonja.filiposka@finki.ukim.mk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Vladimir Trajkovik</string-name>
          <email>trvlado@finki.ukim.mk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Faculty of Computer Science, and Engineering, Ss. Cyril and, Methodius University in Skopje</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Faculty of Electrical and, Computer Engineering, University of Prishtina</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The social media have introduced new methods for communication and are providing new opportunities for users to engage in community participation as powerful tools for citizen inclusion in government processes and trust towards eGovernment services. The question raised is to what extent the central government institutions (CGIs) understand the functions and roles of ICT and how they should be utilized for both strengthening the public administration institution they represent and for building relationship with stakeholders and citizens, which will allow the emergence of the second generation of e-participation. This paper analyses the status and provides an initial assessment of eGovernment implementation at central level in the context of usage of social media (SM). The insights emerging from the review of 28 CGIs show a gradually increased use of social networking tools and indicate several differences and similarities in the use of Web 2.0 between different CGIs. Implications and importance of findings are discussed.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1 Introduction</title>
      <p>The continuously growing pressures and
expectations from the citizens to the public
administration, aiming for governance with a modern
approach for an efficient and effective administration,
are resulting with a changed understanding of
governance and e-governance by government
institutions. With the growth of internet use, the
increased connected citizens are demanding that
governments are more transparent and deliver services
more rapidly and efficiently. The challenge remains for
governments to appropriately accommodate these
requests.</p>
      <p>According to Bonsón et al. [Bon12], the main
benefits that SM offer to public sector entities are the
enhancement of transparency and citizen participation.
SM refers to a set of online tools that are designed for
and centered around social interaction [Ber12]. With
their millions of users worldwide, the social media
have introduced new methods for communication and
are providing new opportunities for users to engage in
community participation as powerful tools for citizen
inclusion in government processes and trust towards
eGovernment services. Their use is increasingly seen
as a potential turning point with a developing change in
the role of users and represents a crucial development
in the use of ICT in eGovernment.</p>
      <p>Despite growing discussions that SM technologies
have the potential to enhance citizen engagement, there
remains a weak body of evidence on its adoption and
usage [Bon14]. The question is how much more needs
to be done before the government institutions can fully
utilize the capabilities provided through the new tools
and applications. SM technologies are now regularly
employed by the majority of internet users such as in
the U.S., where among young users, the use of these
tools is high, such as 87% of 18-29 year olds or 71% of
all internet users are regularly using SM [Dug14].</p>
      <p>Despite enormous value, there is also limited
research at Kosovo level on the extent to which the
CGIs are actually using SM to inform and engage
publics. Based on the lack of measurement of online
interactions between government and citizens, this
paper aims to provide an insight to the Kosovo
government usage of the main SM sites and to provide
an overview of key benefits that governments can
achieve from utilizing the potential of social media and
enhancing the on-line presence on SM networks for
effective communication between the CGIs and
citizens and promotion of participatory decision
making.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2 Background</title>
      <p>The e-participation and citizen engagement is
encouraged by the sophistication stage six of digital
governance and citizen inclusion [Bud12]. Through the
involvement of the public the governments ensure that
citizens have a direct voice in public decisions. The
political willingness, an adequate technological
infrastructure and an overall client oriented
development strategy remain the most critical factors
for implementation of e-governance projects [Rex12].
For identifying the requirements and addressing the
problems of citizens as well as for designing new
public policies and services, a proper involvement of
citizens throughout the decision making process is
required. Many governments are increasing their
efforts for enabling an increased participation of
citizens in policy design and implementation decision
making process for getting new ideas and feedback,
which would provide a better understanding and
recognition of needs. However, we continuously
witness cases where the agencies or carriers of public
institutions choose to exclude or minimize to its formal
aspect the citizens participation, claiming among others
citizen participation is expensive and time consuming.</p>
      <p>The 2013 survey on the state of use and penetration
of internet in Kosovo [Faz13] has shown that internet
users constitute 76% of total Kosovo population with
age above 10 years, while two-thirds of them regularly
use SM platforms. This study also showed that 73%,
7% and 43% of internet users regularly use the social
and media-sharing network services of Facebook,
Twitter and YouTube respectively.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3 Social media in public administration</title>
      <p>The web 2.0 technologies refer to a collection of SM
through which individuals are actively participating in
creating, organizing, editing, combining, sharing,
commenting are rating web content as well as forming
a social media through interacting and linking to each
other. Using SM for political discussion may enhance
the relationship between citizens and their governments
and provide a platform for the process by which public
concerns, needs and values are incorporated into
governmental and corporate decision making [Tam07].</p>
      <p>It is evident that the public participation through
electronic media may considerably benefit from the
increased usage of internet by citizens and other
stakeholders. The social media can be directly used by
the government to provide the means for the
empowerment of citizens to participate actively in the
decision-making process of government administration,
which would actively engage the citizens, it would
generate the acceptance and ownership of the
governmental decisions and their results and would
build trust among citizens and government
administration. For example the SM channels could be
used for grassroots mobilization and exchange of ideas
and information, by providing the information directly
to the citizens. This will decrease the further
disengagement of citizens while it would offer the
possibility for encouraging more active participation in
debate and decision-making.</p>
      <p>One of the greatest challenges for governments in
using the possibilities of SM is the change of behavior
of government structures and government officials. The
government needs to understand the benefits of SM
and to enable its officials the use of SM in their daily
work. The governmental officials need to be prepared
and trained in working in this environment, as there is a
big risk for the government in not being involved in the
use of the benefits of SM respectively in losing the
opportunities for real engagement, innovation, change
and transparency.</p>
      <p>While one group of researchers argue that media
applications or other online tools are radically
transforming the practices of government around the
globe, the other group argues that, while social media
does substantially expand the possible modes and
methods of gov-citizen interactions, high levels of
social media activity on the part of governments have,
as of yet, resulted in minimal effects on the outcomes
of public service [Hon12]. A study conducted by
Bonson at al. found that many governments have
realized the opportunities that SM represent and by
making their news available through SM, they can
considerably increase their audience reach at very low
cost [Bon12]. The government public administrators
are engaging SM similar to their active use of
egovernment and e-democracy platforms [Bry11]. The
study conducted by Graham and Avery of the use of
SM by governments and their perceptions of SM use
by their citizens, which involved government officials
across the United States, showed that the SM are
relatively underutilized, with about a 70% overall
usage rate with Facebook and Twitter as most
commonly used SM, while the perceptions of general
officials whether or not the citizens expected them to
use SM did not predict use [Gra13].</p>
      <p>It is assumed that the most used SM tools by the
public administration are those with more utilization in
the society. In 2014 Facebook had over 1 billion active
users worldwide, which is the equivalent of around
15% of the world’s population [Mar13]. Twitter’s more
than 288 million active users emit more than half a
billion Twitter messages (“tweets”) per day by
December 2014 [Twi14b]. In 2012 there were 700
department agencies and initiatives of the US
government with 3,000 Facebook pages, 1,000 Twitter
accounts and 700 YouTube channels [Mer13b]. In
comparison, in 2011 there were 698 U.S. department
agencies and initiatives with 2956 Facebook pages,
1016 Twitter accounts and 695 YouTube channels to
promote their online content to their citizens [Mer12].
The expected achievements to be accomplished with
the use of SM include openness, transparency, citizen
participation, policy effectiveness, cost savings, good
governance and public employee and citizen
satisfaction [Cri13], [Bai10], [Hrd10]. The third
dimension relates to the main features, theories framing
the usage of social media in government and methods
applied to its investigation.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4 Research method</title>
      <p>For analyzing the usage of social media applications
in local government context, it must first be examined
whether and which communication platforms are used
by governments, whether functional government
accounts exist on the web, to what extent are they used,
particularly if compared to personal campaign accounts
of government key officials, and whether they reach a
large audience. For this reason this research is focused
explicitly on SM platforms, which are examined in
light of the research questions formulated as follows:
(1) "Which are the main SM platforms that are used by
CGIs?" (2) "Do governments frequently publish SM
contents and is there a development trend?" (3) "To
what extent do the SM users show their interest for the
government accounts on SM platforms?" and (4) "To
what extent do the key officials of CGIs use the SM for
personal campaign purposes compared to its official
use?".</p>
      <p>This study is based on the inductive and explorative
research approach, aiming at identifying important
factors that may help understanding the challenges
related to the usage of social media for e-government
project implementation. A short literature review has
been conducted to explore how such tools correspond
to e-participation tools. The basis for research have
been the CGIs in Kosovo. The web-based research has
proven to be the most appropriate means to collect the
inputs needed to benchmark and rate the eGovernment
supply-side [Jae10]. In order to get the results related
to the use of social networks, it was first determined
whether the Web 2.0 tools were used, followed then by
their frequency. For determining the development
trends, the sites were observed in two different periods
of time.</p>
      <p>The data used for the purpose of this paper was
gathered through an online research from websites and
SM networks of main central governmental
institutions, through logging on to the current SM sites
of all CGIs and conducted a detailed analysis of
utilization their utilization. The population in this study
comprised 28 CGIs, representing all ministries and
selected central agencies. The sites selected are based
on the number of internet users [Int13], herewith this
explorative research focuses at the organizational
dynamics of the process while considering only the
new ICTs that are available to individuals through
normal market mechanisms [Mer13c] and most
commonly used social network services, namely
Facebook (social network services) and Twitter
(microblogging service). The study has also included Youtube
(video sharing services), as one of the three most
commonly used social network service globally.</p>
      <p>In the absence of a perfect measure, SM popularity
of government accounts will be illustrated using proxy
variables for the number of “followers” or “likes” on
Twitter or Facebook, respectively. This measure points
towards the interest of the wider population and
organizations in the content provided by government
institutions on SM. To enable for international
comparisons, the absolute numbers will be also divided
by the size of the respective population. In addition, a
harmonized measure for "tweets", respectively the
diffusion of content by the CGIs is also illustrated. This
measure indicates the degree of activity respectively
the content emitted by government institutions.</p>
      <p>Each platform was visited for determining whether
there is a valid social networking account, which was
validated, while taking note on the number of friends
and followers of Facebook accounts, the number of
tweets and followers of Twitter accounts and the
number of uploads, subscribers and views of YouTube
accounts. In case the website did not provide any link
to the social media sites, the search engines of social
media sites were used to determine if there were active
SM accounts of respective institutions. For additional
comparison, same data was gathered from personal SM
accounts of actual key officials of respective public
institutions. The information was collected during the
months of April and October 2014.</p>
      <p>In this section we will introduce the main finding
and observations and use of SM tools and applications
by Kosovo CGIs. Initially we will show the general
trend of SM implementation in 2014 and will focus
specifically on the evaluation of the use of Facebook
and Twitter, the most adopted Web 2.0 applications. In
addition, in view of the results of the survey [Faz13],
which shows that 43% of internet users regularly use
the media-sharing network services of YouTube, a
supplementary review of YouTube usage is performed.</p>
      <p>Facebook followed to some extend by Twitter. The
CGIs have not shown any diversity in the use of tools,
and this research has reflected that the main interest in
this type of communication is the provision of news to
citizens. For the purposes of this research, the table
outlined below shows the monitored governmental
institution with an indication, if the specific institution
is present or not on the three SM networks during the
two observations.</p>
      <p>The results shown in the table above outline that
61% of CGIs are present at Facebook SM network
service, 46% are utilizing the services of the
microblogging network Twitter while only 21% are present
in the YouTube media-sharing network. The second
observation conducted in October revealed that four
additional institutions started using new SM networks.
During the observation period, the number of
institutions that have neither accounts with Facebook
nor with Twitter decreased slightly from 29% to 25%.</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>5.1 Twitter Analysis</title>
        <p>As mentioned above, only 13 out of 28 CGIs have a
presence in Twitter. These figures are also similar with
the presence on individual basis of key officials of the
same institutions. The account that is followed by most
other Twitter users is the Twitter account of the
President, which is followed by 8,664 users, followed
by the account of MFA, followed by 7,142 users. The
active Twitter accounts of other 11 active CGIs are
followed by an average of 255 users. The following
table outlines the minimum, maximum, average and
total amount for both cases, the CGIs and personal
campaign accounts of key officials of same institutions:</p>
        <p>It is being emphasized that many institutions did not
use any of Web 2.0 tools, and if so, it was mainly the
er tn
t u
t
i o</p>
        <p>Tw cca
Followed
Following
Tweets
Followed
Following
Tweets
l
a
t
o</p>
        <p>T
18,616
3,481
8,074</p>
        <p>The interaction is the most important feature in the
use of this service. The analysis is showing that the
average tweets per account is 621. A remarkable
observation is that the average tweets at personal
campaign sites of key officials of these institutions is
significantly above the average number of tweets made
at the official institutional account, such as an average
of 1,015 tweets at personal campaign sites of key
officials at CGIs.</p>
        <p>The two observations were used to determine the
development trend of Twitter account usage. The
figure 3 outlines the changes in users’ follower over the
six-months period. The figure 4 outlines the total
tweets produced during the same period.
The figures 3 and 4 show that there we cannot make
a direct relation between the number of tweets and new
followers. Except in the case if office of President and
the MFA, it is difficult to prove the correlation between
the user's tweet volume and the increase trend of
follower count. The 13 institutions which have active
Twitter accounts have produced in average 37 tweets
each, compared to the average of 44 tweets each
produced over the same period through their personal
campaign user accounts. The figure 5 shows the count
of tweets produced over the study period through
personal campaign accounts.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>5.2 Facebook Analysis</title>
        <p>Facebook maintains two types of accounts, profile
accounts that relate to personal accounts, and pages
that are used to market a business, service group,
organization or politician. This study has analyzed the
public Facebook pages set by CGIs. In addition, for
comparison purposes, the public pages opened by key
officials of same institutions were also analyzed. Each
Facebook page has a network of users, who have
shown interest in the content by pressing the 'Like'
and/or 'Follow' button.
n
i
M
x
a
M</p>
        <p>Facebook remains definitely the social networking
with the largest presence at central level. Seventeen out
of 28 CGIs or 61% have a presence in Facebook. The
most notable account at the central level is that of the
MKSF with 25,548 users. The table 3 is outlining the
minimum, maximum, average and total number of
'likes' of CGIs as well as personal campaign accounts
of key officials of same institutions.
shown that out of 17 active CGIs on Facebook, 8 key
officials are considerably more active in their personal
campaign accounts compared to their activity and
number of followers of the official accounts of their
institutions.</p>
        <p>The figure 4 shows a visual comparison of the total
number of followers on official Facebook (shown in
blue) and Twitter (shown in red) accounts of Kosovo
CGIs. With the exception of the office of the President
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the majority of
institutions has a considerable larger number of
followers on Facebook compared to Twitter. This is a
direct result of Facebook popularity since 73.3% of
Internet users use the Facebook service meaning that
43.6% of Kosovo’s total population uses the Facebook
service.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-3">
        <title>5.3 Youtube Analysis</title>
        <p>The presence of the CGIs at YouTube video sharing
network remains low. Only six out of 28 CGIs or 21%
have a presence in YouTube with a total of only 39
uploaded video CGIs. The channel with most uploaded
videos at the central level is the Ministry of Culture
with 13 uploads. The table 4 outlines the minimum,
maximum, average and total number of uploaded
videos of CGIs as well as of personal campaign
accounts of key officials of same institutions.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>6 Discussion</title>
      <p>The introduction of SM presents many opportunities
for all types of organizations to communicate in
interactive and immediate ways. Numerous studies
have recognized how SM can add specific value to
public institutions in promoting dialogic, transparent
contact with their citizens [Gra13], [Azy12], [Bry11].
There are many governmental institutions that have
enthusiastically jumped onto the SM cart without
realizing that running a personal political campaign is
different to running government, where the vision for
technology must be still regulated through legislation,
regulations and other administrative instructions, while
the technology remains a process enabler and not a
solution [Azy12]. It is evident that the SM has raised
new issues for implementation for government
officials.</p>
      <p>Despite the initial perceptions that SM are heavily
underutilized by CGIs, the figures from this analysis of
usage of social media show converging views that the
key officials are continuously demonstrating an
increased understanding on the importance and
utilization of the SM across their public functions and
personal political campaigning. However, it has been
noted that that the clear priorities on the sides of public
officials remain on utilizing the personal campaigning
social networking sites in parallel with their official
institutional sites, which to a certain extent were used
more intensively than their public official accounts.
Political leaders are more popular on SM than the
institutions they represent. On Facebook the average
CGI leader counts at least six times more "likes" on his
personal campaign site than in the average institutional
account for the government institution he or she
represents. In comparison, the average popularity of
government leaders from 98 countries compared to
popularity of government institutions they represent is
at least four times higher [Twi14]. Political leaders are
capable to gather measurable returns on use of SM that
lead to more support or votes [Mic14]. In contrast, the
CGIs are still focused on the options of using SM
mainly for providing public information. There is also
no dedicated strategy or plan for institutional use of
SM, which would leverage SM for more advanced
purposes and use its potential for building the
confidence between the government and citizens.</p>
      <p>The fact that 61% of all country government
institutions are present on social media, is overall
encouraging. Considering the current general usage
figures of SM networks in Kosovo [Faz13] [Int13],
showing an estimated internet penetration of 76%
among the 1.85 million population, there is still a large
potential for a rapid substantial strengthening of
eparticipation component of eGovernment, which would
not only cover the public consultations processes, but
moreover it could strengthen the cooperation G2C at
central level as well as could significantly increase the
institutional transparency towards citizens thus
building on the missing trust of citizens towards
governmental institutions. The data gathered so far
shows that the government institutions have started to
make efforts to increase the utilization of social media
for interaction with citizens. On the other hand the
results also show that two-fifth of public institutions is
not using any SM for interaction with citizens, which
requires further consideration.</p>
      <p>The results shown in this study illustrate a general
progress in the implementation of Web 2.0. Facebook
remains the largest SM tool used by CGI to
communicate with citizens, mainly through one way
announcements, such as particular event information,
which support the creation of more informed citizenry
but does not necessarily build on the dialogue and the
transparency. The posting of one way announcements
is certainly easier and less engaging than more
dialogic, participatory posts and forums. That level of
investment is likely more feasible for officials with
limited resources but is not adequate in utilizing SM to
meet core democratic objectives [Gra13]. While the
majority, specifically 61% of CGIs show active
presence in Facebook, the number of CGIs that are
present in Twitter of 46% is also encouraging, while
the Youtube presence remains low with 21%. For
comparison, the 2012 census in U.S. has shown that
700 federal departments, agencies and initiatives had a
stock of around 3,000 Facebook pages, 1,000 Twitter
accounts and 700 YouTube channels [Mer13b] which
include specific public service areas that are better
recognized by the public.</p>
      <p>This study has also shown that the application of
SM by the government is not being understood as a
tool for open, inclusive and participatory policy
processes and as a tool for building the mutual trust
between the government and citizens. The key officials
of CGIs have begun to use the SM tool to share
information, send personal messages and share their
location, political activities, and personal messages and
this study has confirmed that the importance of
selfpromotion and political campaigning of government
officials is still dominating over the transparent,
participative, and citizen-oriented provision of public
services. The insights from this study show that the
government is mainly using the SM channels to
provide information in an one-way interaction mode,
where the citizens simply view and or comment the
government posts. As emphasized by Mergel, this
means of interaction leaves out large portions of the
possibilities SM applications provide that can help
government understand deeper levels of engagement.
The asking of citizens to submit their ideas and
comments highlights the potential for bi-directional
citizen participation and this content is actively pulled
in through crowdsourcing [Mer13a]. This would
demonstrate a higher level of engagement and
willingness of citizens to constructively work with the
content, to add their own ideas and create insights that
go beyond the one-way postings by government
officials themselves [Hal12]. In addition, whether or
not citizens actually participate online, social media
features may communicate the message that
government is more responsive, open, and democratic
by allowing citizens to express their views if they wish
[Hib02], even if the participation is more likely to
occur when individuals are dissatisfied.</p>
      <p>The Web 2.0 tools offer many possibilities for
transforming the relationship between citizens and
public institutions, but their utilization requires a clear
vision and a development of a digital implementation
strategy.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>7 Conclusion</title>
      <p>This paper presented the usage of web 2.0 tools in
Kosovo in the CGI context. The analysis was
conducted in the following different axes: usage of SM
platforms; availability of functional government SM
accounts; extent of their use compared to personal
campaign sites of government key officials; and
corresponding interest of audience. In general, the
analysis has been reasonably comprehensive
withstanding the fact that this research covered fully
the SM accounts of CGIs. It was expected that the
results will show that CGIs are taking advantage of
internet ubiquity and are shifting their main focus from
traditional media in favor of web 2.0 tools for
communication, promotion and participation.</p>
      <p>The study has confirmed the continuous growing
interest of citizens for the government accounts on SM
platforms and has confirmed a potential obstacle, that
the importance of self-promotion and political
campaigning of officials is still dominating over the
transparent, participative, and citizen-oriented
provision of public services. In specific terms, two
third of CGIs have either institutional key officials that
are much more active in their personal campaign
accounts and have much more followers compared to
the activity and number of followers of the official
accounts of their institutions, or are not present in SM.</p>
      <p>The insights emerging from this review may guide
researchers in their continued monitoring of SM
application by government institutions, and for
supporting the ingress of public administration in SM
as a new political instrument. Further research should
be made in order to determine the most relevant factors
that would improve the success of eGovernment in
relation to the change of administrative processes as
well as the establishment of appropriate
communication channels through SM platforms,
without replacing the existing communication forms
within the administration, aiming for increased
dialogue between citizens and the government, which
would generate a sense of responsibility, transparency
and assurance.
[Gra13]</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Azy12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Azyan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Government-To-Citizen Communications - Using Multiple Digital Channels Effectively</article-title>
          . from http://www.scribd.com/doc/32362140/Gover nment-To-
          <article-title>Citizen-</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Communications-UsingMultiple-Digital-</surname>
          </string-name>
          Channels-Effectively
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>[Bai10]</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Bailey &amp; R. Singleton</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ). National
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Ber12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.C.</given-names>
            <surname>Bertot</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.T.</given-names>
            <surname>Jaeger</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp; D. Hansen, (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges</article-title>
          , and
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Quarterly</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <volume>29</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>30</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>40</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bon14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Bonsón</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Royo &amp; M. Ratkai</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities: An Empirical Analysis of Activity and Citizens' Engagement</article-title>
          . Administration &amp; Society.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bon12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Bonsón</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Torresb</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. Royob. &amp; F.</given-names>
            <surname>Flores</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities</article-title>
          .
          <source>Government Information Quarterly</source>
          ,
          <volume>29</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>123</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>132</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bry11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Bryer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp; S.M.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zavattaro</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Social media and public administration</article-title>
          .
          <source>Administrative Theory &amp; Praxis</source>
          ,
          <volume>33</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>325</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>340</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Bud12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Budinoski</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp; V.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Trajkovik</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Incorporating Social Network Services in eGovernment Solutions: A Case Study</article-title>
          .
          <source>European Journal of ePractice 16</source>
          ,
          <fpage>58</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>70</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Cri13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>J.I. Criado</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Sandoval-Almazan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>&amp; J.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Gil-Garcia</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Government innovation through social media</article-title>
          .
          <source>Government Information Quarterly</source>
          ,
          <volume>30</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>319</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>326</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>[Dug14] M. Duggan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ellison</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lampe</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lenhart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Madden</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rainie</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp; A.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Smith</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
          <source>Social Media Update 2014</source>
          . Washington: Pew Research Center.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Faz13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Fazliu</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Internet Penetration and</article-title>
          Usage in Kosovo (pp.
          <fpage>18</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>24</lpage>
          ).
          <source>Prishtina: Kosovo Association of Information and Communication Technology.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Graham</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp; E.J.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Avery</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Media</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Public
          <source>Relations Journal</source>
          ,
          <volume>7</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>21</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Hal12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Halpern</surname>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>J.E. Katz</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>From egovernment to social network government: towards a transition model</article-title>
          .
          <source>Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference</source>
          , Evanston, Illinois.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Hib02]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Hibbing</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp; E.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Theiss-Morse</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2002</year>
          ). Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs About How Government Should Work: Cambridge University Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Hon12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Hong</surname>
          </string-name>
          &amp; D.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nadler</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign?: The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience</article-title>
          .
          <source>Government Information Quarterly</source>
          ,
          <volume>29</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>455</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>461</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Hrd10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Hrdinová</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Helbig</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.S. Peters</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Designing social media policy for government: Eight essential elements: The Research</article-title>
          Foundation of State University of New York
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>[Int13]</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>[Jae10]</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          Internet World Statistics. (
          <year>2013</year>
          ,
          <volume>02</volume>
          .
          <fpage>09</fpage>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>Retrieved</source>
          <volume>15</volume>
          .
          <fpage>09</fpage>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          , from
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa2.htm#kv</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>P.T. Jaeger</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bertot</surname>
          </string-name>
          , &amp; D.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hansen</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref25">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>Electronic Government Research</source>
          ,
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>17</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref26">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>[Mar13] J. Martin</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Facebook by the numbers: 1.06 billion monthly active users</article-title>
          .
          <source>CNET</source>
          . Retrieved from http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-by
          <article-title>-thenumbers-1-06-billion-monthly-active-users/</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref27">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Mer12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>I. Mergel</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Social Media in the public sector: Participation, collaboration and transparency in the networked world</article-title>
          . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref28">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>[Mer13a] I. Mergel (2013a). A framework for interpreting social media interactions</article-title>
          .
          <source>Government Information Quarterly</source>
          ,
          <volume>30</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>327</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>334</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref29">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>[Mer13b] I. Mergel (2013b)</source>
          .
          <article-title>Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government</article-title>
          .
          <source>Government Information Quarterly</source>
          ,
          <volume>30</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>123</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>130</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref30">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Mer13c]
          <string-name>
            <surname>I. Mergel &amp; S.I. Bretschneider</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <article-title>A Three-Stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use in Government</article-title>
          .
          <source>Public Administration Review</source>
          ,
          <volume>73</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>390</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>400</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref31">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Mic14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Mickoleit</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Social Media Use by Governments: A Policy Primer to Discuss Trends, Identify Policy Opportunities and Guide Decision Makers</article-title>
          .
          <source>OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 26</source>
          . Paris.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref32">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Rex12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Rexhepi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Rexha</surname>
          </string-name>
          &amp; A.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dika</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Assessment of success factors of egovernment project implementation: challenges for the Kosovo e-government perspective</article-title>
          .
          <source>Paper presented at the ICEGOV '12 - 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance</source>
          , Albany, New York.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref33">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Tam07]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Tambouris</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Liotas</surname>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>K. Tarabanis</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ).
          <article-title>A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools Paper presented at the System Sciences</article-title>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
          <source>HICSS</source>
          <year>2007</year>
          ,
          <source>40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref34">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Twi14] Twiplomacy. (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
          <source>Twiplomacy Study</source>
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref35">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Twi14b]
          <article-title>Twitter usage (</article-title>
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
          <source>Retrieved 15.02</source>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          , from https://about.twitter.com/company
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>