Laura Alcaide Muñoz
email: lauraam@ugr.es

Manuel Pedro
email: manuelp@ugr.es

Rodríguez Bolívar

Theoretical support for Social Media research. A Scientometric Analysis

Keywords: social media, scientometric study, research opportunities, theories

We seek to analyze the research into the field of social media implementation in public administrations, examining the theories that support the use of social media, the main use of this technology for public administrations and the trends and research innovations in this area in the future. In addition, a comparative study will be performed in order to identify differences of research, research gaps and interest on the different domains of this topic into different contexts. To achieve the aims, the scientometric methodology will be applied to a sample of papers published in journals listed in the fields of Public Administration, Information Sciences and Communication. In this sense, the research about social media has not been the same in all areas. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities are identified from these observations, which reveal changes in the research methods applied, reinforcing the development of a theoretical framework so that the application of social media may efficiently contribute to improving management in the public sector.

Introduction

The e-Strategies have been the key-elements for Governments in order to perform investment planning on Information Communication and Technologies (ICTs), and to manage social change [START_REF] Anthopoulos | Trends in e-Strategic Management: How do Governments Transform their Policies?[END_REF]. In this regards, e-government development has been characterized by a three stage process [START_REF] Taylor | The Information Polity: Towards a two speed future?[END_REF]. The first one is called the era of "direct government" and it is characterized by offering static, limited and basic information, such as links to ministries/departments, archived information, and regional/local government services (unidirectional government-to citizen (G2C) information flows). In the second stage, called "orthodox government", services tailored to individual needs, more joined-up government services connected government initiatives [START_REF]Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis[END_REF] and opportunities for a 'mixed economy' of service provision were promised. In fact, citizen to government interactions -C2G interactions-are present in this stage of development.

Finally, from 2005 to the present time, under the "transformational government", the government encourages participatory deliberative decision-making and is willing and able to involve the society in a two way open dialogue (Open Government Initiative) [START_REF] Peedu | Enhancing Public Service User Experience in Information Society[END_REF]. Under this third stage, governments must strengthen their capacity to assess the needs of users (both private and commercial) and involve user groups through the use of second generation web technologies (Web 2.0) in order to listen, to engage users in the design of services and in the production of policies and to forge collective initiatives and interaction [START_REF]Efficient e-Government for Smarter Service Delivery[END_REF]. Indeed, social media, particularly internet social networking has profound effects on all facets of social life and has fundamentally altered the nature of social relations [START_REF] Li | Online social network acceptance: a social perspective[END_REF], changing the nature of political and public dialogue [START_REF] Osimo | Web 2.0 in Government: Why? and How?[END_REF].

Continuing interest in the question is reflected in the large number of studies published in this respect in the last years. It draws upon various reference disciplines, including public administration, information science and communication. Since its appearance, social media researchers in public administration have mainly analyzed the usefulness of social media for different purposes such as political campaigns [START_REF] Williams | Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the Congressional elections of 2006 and 2008[END_REF], the disclosure of greater volume of information to a wider range of citizens [START_REF] Bonsón | Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities[END_REF] and the citizen coproduction initiatives [START_REF] Linders | From e-government to e-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media[END_REF]. The first two of these aspects concern the transparency and visibility of local government actions, while the second, in addition, favors more participative management.

In order to understand the construction of theoretical support underpinning the question of social media, it is of critical importance to explore its intellectual core, by analyzing the cumulative body of knowledge rather than looking at individual works [START_REF] Holsapple | The pulse of multiparticipant systems[END_REF]. Therefore, comprehensive reviews are needed, to integrate contributions and to provide a critical outlook on work in this field, to improve our understanding of e-government and to gain a broad view of the current situation and of possibilities for future research. For this purpose, we propose a scientometric methodology [START_REF] Neufeld | The IS identity crisis[END_REF] that has been comprehensively tested in the field of information science [START_REF] Cocosila | Exploring the management information systems discipline: a scientometric study of ICIS, PACIS, and ASAC[END_REF]. This specific approach has been used, among other reasons, as an attempt to understand the identity of a scientific discipline in a particular academic area [START_REF] Straub | The value of scientometric studies: An introduction to a debate on IS as a reference discipline[END_REF]. In this paper, the underlying assumption of our approach is that the theoretical framework of a scholarly discipline is built upon the high quality body of knowledge published in the leading channels established for this purpose. Nevertheless, to date prior research has not analyzed this item in social media field of knowledge.

To fill this gap, the objective of the present paper is to analyze the research into the field of social media implementation in public administrations, examining the theories that support the use of social media, the research topics that have found in theories a fundamental pillar for building knowledge in the social media area, the relation between the use of theories and field of knowledge as well as the association between the use of theories and the quality of the journal in which research on social media is published. In addition, a comparative study will be performed in order to identify differences of research, research gaps and interest on the different domains of this topic into different contexts. The ultimate objective of this paper is to build fundamental pillar for the research area of social media as well as for assisting researchers in the development and direction of future analysis in the implementation of Social Media in public administrations into different contexts.

Background

The advent of social media using Web 2.0 technologies has opened up unprecedented new possibilities of engaging the public in government work and has changed the public's expectations about how government work should be done [START_REF] Mcdermott | Building open government[END_REF]. Indeed, social media applications provide channels not just for mass dissemination but also for mass production and collaboration, and have become acceptable information and communication channels in governments [START_REF] Mergel | Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government[END_REF], playing an important role in implementing open government and in rendering online public services.

In this regard, driven by rising citizen expectations and the need for government innovation, social media has become a central component of e-government in a very short period of time [START_REF] Bertot | The impact of policies on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations[END_REF]. Nonetheless, the introduction of social media in public administration requires a thorough analysis of theoretical support in relation this role in the innovation of social communication between public administrations and citizens. Indeed, previous research shows that an effective review of theories creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge [START_REF] Peng | Mapping the landscape of Internet Studies: Text mining of social science journal articles 2000-2009[END_REF]. It facilitates development of knowledge and scientific research, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed [START_REF] Webster | Analyzing the pas to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review[END_REF][START_REF] Woolcock | Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy[END_REF].

In addition, as evidenced previous studies, the implementation of NPM models [START_REF] Bolívar | Cultural contexts and government digital reporting[END_REF] and the evolution of e-government [START_REF] Rodríguez Domínguez | Determining factors of e-government development: A worldwide national approach[END_REF] have been implemented worldwide but in widely varying forms. These differences are due to the bureaucratic structures and legal systems as well as differences in administrative cultures [START_REF] Bolívar | Determinants of Financial Transparency in Government[END_REF][START_REF] Bolívar | Governance, Transparency and Accountability: An International Comparison[END_REF]. Therefore, it would be interesting to know whether this theoretical basis differs in relation to the knowledge area or countries that have investigated about social media.

Therefore, with the aim at analyzing the contribution of social media to the sphere of public administrations, and analyze the degree of maturity it would be necessary to undertake scientometric analyses, which seek to help organize the information available to consolidate research and to highlight useful areas for future research. In addition, this analysis could help to know the theoretical underpinnings of the use of social media into the public sector environment.

Nonetheless, to date, scientometric projects in social media in public administrations have not been examined. This absence of comprehensive scientometric studies could mean that an interesting aspect of social media research has remained unexamined [START_REF] Khan | Social media-based systems: an emerging area of information systems research and practice[END_REF], despite the fact that social media, in terms of the use of information technology, has been studied from diverse standpoints. Therefore, it would be interesting to analyze the research published in the main fields of knowledge [START_REF] Tomasello | New media research publication trends and outlets in communication, 1990-2006[END_REF] and thus acquire different perspectives of social media research. Our first research question is: RQ1: How many social media articles have been published in JCR journals in the fields of Public Administration, of Information Science & Library Science and of Communication?

As noted above, scientometric projects seek to identify a discipline, to structure the information available and to highlight potential areas for future research [START_REF] Khan | Network of the core: mapping and visualizing the core of scientific domains[END_REF]. In this regard, the analysis of the most commonly published questions in the field of social media could inform researchers of the state of the art and highlight research gaps. In addition, the analysis of the use of the one to support research topics and the field of knowledge in which the research is published could be very useful for assisting scholars in future research. In other words, this analysis could be valuable as a tool guiding social media research [START_REF] Serenko | Investigating information systems research in Canada[END_REF]. Therefore, the following research question is proposed: RQ2: How many articles used theories in order to support their findings?

Journals allow researchers to directly communicate their ideas to a wider audience, become aware of recent developments, learn about seminal works, accumulate references, and preserve the scientific body of knowledge for the future generations of scholars and practitioners [START_REF] Nabatchi | Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: The Potential of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration[END_REF]. Therefore, in the field of e-government research, it could be interesting to analyze the leading high quality journals which include social media as one of their areas of interest. Accordingly, the third research question addressed is: RQ3: Which journals publish such papers most frequently?

It could be of interest to analyze if the use of theories to support social media research is focused, or not, in concrete countries because it could indicate the different perspective in public management in these countries. In addition, a study of different social media experiences around the world could enhance our understanding of the instruments used to promote the social media implementation in public affairs and thus facilitate a resolution of democratic deficits [START_REF] Coursaris | A scientometric analysis of social media research (2004-2011[END_REF], improving the efficiency, acceptance and legitimacy of political processes. In addition, the different interests of researchers in this field of knowledge could be the result of the universities to which they belong to, and could be a reflection of the concerns of the country in which social media is analyzed by the universities. The following research question is therefore derived: RQ4: What are the countries analyzed when academic researchers used theories in their articles?

Previous research show that social media is a highly multi-disciplinary domain of research [START_REF] Khan | Social media-based systems: an emerging area of information systems research and practice[END_REF][START_REF] Löfstedt | E-Government -Assessment of current research and some proposals for future direction[END_REF], so, it is necessary more search to better understand the social media concept. Hence, we think that it could be interesting to analyzed different perspectives in which the social media is to examine, because it is revealed hidden structural characteristics which will help understand the structural differences among theories [START_REF] Serenko | Investigating information systems research in Canada[END_REF]. In addition, these perspectives may reflect the possibility of publishing in a journal with greater or lesser impact. Similarly, we want to examine whether these differences occasionally to the way in which each knowledge area addresses the problem of research. The following research question is therefore derived: RQ5: Is there any relationship between the use of the theories to support the findings of the studies and the ranking of the journal published? Is there a trend in terms of academic area analyzed? Also, we propose the following general and specific hypotheses for each area of knowledge. H 0 : There is a relationship between the use of theories in articles to support the findings and the impact factor of journals where they are published. H 1A : There is a relationship between the use of theories in articles to support the findings and the impact factor of Communication journals where they are published. H 1B : There is a relationship between the use of theories in articles to support the findings and the impact factor of Information Science and Library Science journals where they are published. H 1C : There is a relationship between the use of theories in articles to support the findings and the impact factor of Public Administration journals where they are published.

To address these research questions, we conducted a descriptive scientometric study [START_REF] Cocosila | Exploring the management information systems discipline: a scientometric study of ICIS, PACIS, and ASAC[END_REF] of social media articles published in the Journal Citation Report-listed (JCR) international journals in the areas of "Information Science & Library Science", "Communication" and "Public Administration", as described in the methodology section of this paper -Table 1-.

Research Methodology

The Scientometric methodology allows scholars to identify the historical roots of a determined field of study [START_REF] Peng | Mapping the landscape of Internet Studies: Text mining of social science journal articles 2000-2009[END_REF], to identify prospects for future research, and to decide the right direction in which to focus subsequent research [START_REF] Rodríguez | Trends of e-government research. Contextualization and research opportunities[END_REF]. Therefore, this article not only serves as a synopsis of existing research, but also as an identifier of emerging trends, gaps, and areas for future study.

This tool has been widely used in research field such as Communication about the internet and new media [START_REF] Khan | Social media-based systems: an emerging area of information systems research and practice[END_REF][START_REF] Löfstedt | E-Government -Assessment of current research and some proposals for future direction[END_REF], allowing the knowledge of the evolution of this interdisciplinary field, journals taken as a reference by researchers, the input knowledge, research gaps, trends and future opportunities.

All these studies focus on social media in general terms. However, in previous literature, there are no scientometric studies which have analyzed the research into the field of social media implementation in public administrations, examining the theories that support the use of social media, the main use of this technology for public administrations and the trends and research innovations in this area in the future. Therefore, this article tries to cover this gap in the academic literature.

Sample Selection

Journals analyzed

In order to provide a complete review of the current state of research into social media in public sector management context, previous studies have indicated that this topic is one of the main research topics of e-Government [START_REF] Rodríguez | Scientometric Study of the Progress and Development of e-Government Research During the Period 2000-2012[END_REF] and papers about this topic are mainly published in two areas: "Information Science & Library Science" and "Public Administration". Nonetheless, with the aim of avoiding potential errors in search, we carried out a systematic research, entering the descriptors "social media", "electronic government", "e-Participation", "e-Democracy" into the ISI Web of Knowledge database. This first search enabled us to examine the main academic areas that provide most contributions on this topic and it also provided the articles that would be included in our database.

The results of this search showed that more than 42.53% of the articles on social media were published in journals listed in the fields of "Information Science & Library Science", "Public Administration" and "Communication". The rest of papers about social media are published in other areas such as paediatrics or medical analysis, but these areas are not related to the field of public sector management and they also can be considered as residual areas of analysis because none of them concentrated a high volume of papers. Also, papers published in other areas such as Computer Science or Information Systems are also residuals and, mainly, of very technical nature without a clear link to public sector management. Therefore, our study research is focused on papers published in the above mentioned fields.

This study is focused on analyzing journal publications, in the view that they constitute a resource that is often used by academics as a source of new knowledge and as a medium for its disclosure [START_REF] Gordon | Citation Ranking versus Subjective Evaluation in the Determination of Journal Hierarchies in the Social Sciences[END_REF], and at the same time, as an indicator of scientific productivity [START_REF] Gordon | Citation Ranking versus Subjective Evaluation in the Determination of Journal Hierarchies in the Social Sciences[END_REF]. In addition, with the aim of analysing high quality contributions to the field of social media, we have used objective criteria [START_REF] Forrester | An assessment of public administration journals: the perspective of editors and editorial board members[END_REF] to select the journals. This way, based on prior research [START_REF] Bolívar | Comparative Scientometric Analysis in Social Media: What Can We Learn? And What Is Next?[END_REF], only journals indexed in the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in the above-mentioned sample areas for the year 2013 were selected for analysis. Therefore, e-Government, e-Participation or e-Democracy journals were excluded from our analysis if they were not listed in the ISI index. In addition, prior research has indicated that total citations and the impact factor of journals are considered indicators of research quality [START_REF] Garfield | Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation[END_REF]. Thus, we excluded listed journals of marginal importance, i.e. those with an impact factor of less than 0.25 or with fewer than 50 total citations [START_REF] Plümber | Publish or perish? Publications and citations of Italian political scientists in international political science journals, 1990-2002[END_REF].

We analyzed all journals and articles that met the exclusion-inclusion criteria. In consequence, our sample was comprised of 27 journals listed in the area of Communication, 45 journals listed in the area of Public Administration and 69 journals listed in the area of Information Science & Library Science, indexed in the ISI Web of Knowledge for the year 2013. However, not all of these journals have published articles on social media. Therefore, Table 1 lists only the journals that, within the sample, have published articles on social media in public administration.

Articles selected

In determining the articles to be included in the sample, we analyzed all the articles published in the journals that met the above-described criteria for inclusion. To do this, we first examined the title and the keywords of each one [START_REF] Bolívar | Comparative Scientometric Analysis in Social Media: What Can We Learn? And What Is Next?[END_REF]. If the keywords offered were generic, we then read the abstract, to obtain a better view of the article. If doubts remained, we then read the introduction to identify the research goals and to determine the main factors analyzed. As a result, we obtained a database composed of 107 articles published during the period 2000-2013, although the first article that we have found was published in 2008 (see Table 1).

Collection and data encoding

In order to achieve our research goals, each of the articles included in our database was manually examined and catalogued, using MS Excel software, by the journal title, the country in which the study was carried out, the main topic addressed, the principal methodology used, and the theories used by the author to support the knowledge.

In order to determine the research topics analysed in each study, we based our initial classification on the topics used in previous public administration research [START_REF] Lan | A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test[END_REF]. However, since egovernment and social media are research fields that have only recently appeared to a considerable degree in conferences, journals and books, we encountered some research topics that could not be classified under any of the descriptions offered in previous studies, especially for issues related to improving e-democracy, promoting citizens' participation in public affairs, the supply of public services through the internet, increasing access to information through greater transparency, and enhanced accountability [START_REF] Rodríguez | Scientometric Study of the Progress and Development of e-Government Research During the Period 2000-2012[END_REF]. In consequence, we included some new additional categories -see Table 2-.

To determine these new research topics, we carried out an exploratory content analysis of each of the articles in the sample [START_REF] Lan | A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test[END_REF]. Keywords are derived from the literature review. During this phase of the study, QSR NVivo v.10 software was used to automate the coding of the articles [START_REF] Krippendorff | Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology[END_REF]. This coding was conducted using the random tags option of the software, which enabled us to obtain a hierarchical concept structure to group and adapt this published research on e-government.

In this encoding phase, the researchers held several meetings to decide the labels to be assigned and the topics to be included (see Table 2). Subsequently, each of the articles incorporated in the study sample was encoded separately, and any disagreements concerning the definition of the categories to be analyzed were discussed and resolved.

Analysis of the results

RQ1: How many social media articles have been published in JCR journals in the fields of Public Administration, of Information Science & Library Science and of Communication? RQ3: Which journals publish such papers most frequently?

Public administration have adopted different Web 2.0 tools, which have attracted the interest of researchers and scholars, and this has been reflected in a gradual increase in the number of studies published in international journals since 2011 (see Table 1).

In this sense, most of these articles were published in Information Science & Library Science journals (52.73%), followed closely by Communication journals (38.18%), while the rest (9.09%) are set out in Public Administration journals. At this regard, 81.03% of the articles (47) are published in two journals in Information Science & Library Science -Government Information Quarterly (GIQ) (51.72%; 30/58) and Social Science Computer Review (SSCORE) (29.31%; 17/58)-. Meanwhile, in the case of Communication journals, table 1 show that 42.86% of the articles published correspond to a single journal, New Media and Society, which accounts for 18 of the 42 article included in this knowledge are. Finally, in the case of Public Administration, there is no exist clear preference for published articles about social media. RQ2: How many articles used theories in order to support their findings?

Regarding theories, there are 66.36% (71/107) published articles that do not use theories to support their findings, only 33.64% (36/107) of the articles use theories -see Table 4-, and these are varied to analyze the same topic, which seems to be a common indicator of research topic of social media, regardless of where it is analyzed [START_REF] Coursaris | A scientometric analysis of social media research (2004-2011[END_REF] -see Table 2-. Similarly, the same theory is used to analyze different research topics.

Hence, it appears the social media is still far removed from establishing its theoretical foundations. In this sense, we can observe that Innovation Diffusion Theory is used for explaining the studies' findings about different research topics in the field under study, such as disclosure information, delivery public services and e-campaign, or Cognitive Dissonance Theory is used for supporting the empirical findings about e-campaign and democracy and participation. Similarly, communication researchers used Habermas Theory for analyzing disclosure information and democracy and participation phenomena. On the other hand, communication and information science academics used Democratic Theory and Gatekeeping Theory for finding evidence about democratic and participation and disclosure information, respectively. RQ4: What are the countries analyzed when academic researchers used theories in their articles?

In this sense, the main studies on social media focus on analyzing this phenomenon in countries of United States of America and Europe, followed distantly by Australia (Table 3). In addition, these studies are usually carried on for universities of their countries. Hence, it seems likely that these countries will be able to initially invest heavily in research institutions, attract top faculty and provide research support to further research in this area. This in turn facilitates the production of more scholarship in those selected countries, resulting in an hegemony of a few elite scientific nations [START_REF] Coursaris | A scientometric analysis of social media research (2004-2011[END_REF]. On the other hand, the USA and European academics used a variety of theories to analyze and support studies on social media. However, we can observer that in the case of Arab World studies are focused on production, dissemination, procession and effects of information both through media and interpersonally, within a political contest, thus researchers usually used Political Communication Theory. It seems to be that academics are trying to analyze if it is producing social and political changes towards greater democracy and transparency of information in these countries. Hence, these articles deal with the studies of information media, the analysis of speeches by politicians and those that are trying to influence the political process, and formal and informal conversations among members of the public, among other aspects. RQ5: Is there any relationship between the use of the theories to support the findings of the studies and the ranking of the journal published? Is there a trend in terms of academic area analyzed?

In this regard, Table 4 shows that the articles are usually published in first quartile journals (top journals), regardless the use, or not, of theories to support their findings. As there is not clearly perceived a certain trend in publishing articles that support their findings with theories, we performed a regression analysis to confirm o not this research question. Furthermore, we do not know if there is a trend based on a specific academic area. The results of this regression analysis are showed in the table 5. They show that there is a positive and not statistically significant relationship between use of theories in articles and the impact factor of journals, in general terns (r = 0.1167; ρ > 0.10), i.e. it seems to be that when the articles used theories are more likely to be published in journals with higher impact factor. However, this is not a behavior that extends to all analyzed subjects. In the case of Communication subject, this relationship is positive and statistically significant (r = 0.370, ρ < 0.05), thus, the findings made in the studies under this area of knowledge are usually supported by theories if they would be published in high-impact journals. In the case of Information Science and Library Science area, the relationship is negative and not statistically significant (r = -0.019; ρ > 0.10), therefore, under this area of knowledge the articles published in high-impact journals do not have to be supported by theories. Finally, in the case of Public Administration area, the relationship is positive but not statistically significant (r = 0.050; ρ > 0.10), which leads us to conclude that there are more options to publish an article in a top Public Administration journal, when it takes a theoretical framework to support its findings.

Conclusions and discussion

According to our results, there are an increasing number of papers published in JCR journals about the use of social media in public administrations and it is growing in the last years (RQ 1). In fact, social media in public administrations has mainly attracted the attention of researchers in the last three years. It is a reflection of the increasing incorporation of these technologies in the social life of people and the need of public administrations of implementing these technologies in the public affairs.

Table 5. Hypothesis test results

Source: Own Elaboration Nonetheless, the research about social media implementation, and similarly their use in public administrations, has not been the same in all fields of knowledge (RQ 1) or in the journals in which they are published (RQ 3). Indeed, whereas the electronic participation has been the main research theme published in the communication and information science fields of knowledge -mainly in the journals of GIQ and SSCORE-, the delivery of public services is increasingly being the key theme in the public administration area -no preference for publishing in a particular journal in this field exists-. This result highlights the different perspective of the fields of knowledge analyzed in this paper, and it also reflects the concerns of social media in its implementation in public administrations. In fact, results indicate that the electronic participation has been the first concern of public administrations in implementing these new technologies. It seems that governments have tried to take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies as other channels for a wider representation of the government actions or the elected political party into the Internet.

On the other hand, this new field of research needs grounded theories to support social media application into public administrations (RQ 2). Our review indicates that several different theories have been called to be applied in the application of social media in public administrations. But which one of them prevails? Many of them are embedded from other areas of study. In this regards, is social media a field of knowledge that need a deep analysis of theories or can it embedded theories from other fields of knowledge? Why? Does your application depend on contextual factors or training of research? All these questions remain currently without appropriated answer. Therefore, future research could undertake theoretical studies on this issue.

In addition, the main studies on social media focus on analyzing this phenomenon in countries of USA, Europe and Australia. However, it is increasingly common that the main university of these countries invest in research about Arab World and developing countries (RQ4). These studies are focused on political affair and public debate, which are theories used in political science about processes and effects of the media communication in a political context.

Finally, the regression results show that there is relationship between use of theories in articles and the impact factor of journals, specially, in Information Science and Library Science subject (RQ5). It appears that the social media concept has a higher theoretical support in this area, although this phenomenon is a relatively new one [START_REF] Löfstedt | E-Government -Assessment of current research and some proposals for future direction[END_REF], because it brings in revolutionary paradigms for information science research and practical use. So, a main research question to be answered by future research could be: are there journals classified inside certain academic areas that are more attracted to articles based on theoretical foundations?, i.e., when you base your research on theoretical foundations, is it more likely to publish your research in journals cataloged in certain areas with higher theoretical roots?

To conclude, the review presented in this paper provides a comprehensive summary of the research into social media within the fields of Communication, Information Science and Public Administration, highlighting the main research topics and theories used. Explanations and clarifications are given whenever possible. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities are identified from these observations, which reveal changes in the research methods applied, reinforcing the development of a theoretical framework so that the application of social media may efficiently contribute to improving management in the public sector. Nonetheless, future research could analyze other journals different from those included in the sample selection of this paper such as, for example, those not listed in the ISI index or those included in other different fields of knowledge, with the aim of completing the whole picture of social media regardless its link to public sector management.

Table 1 .

 1 Articles about social media and journals that are published (chronological evolution) Source: Authors * NOTE: This table shows only those journals that have published articles about social media in public administration. **NOTE: There are two journals -Journal of Computer-Mediate Communication and Telecommunication Policy-that are classified in Communication and Information Science, so they appear in both areas.

Table 2 .

 2 Research topics, subject areas and theories used There are articles that support their findings on more than one theory. **NOTE: This percentage is based on the total of articles with theory. This percentage is based on the total of articles in each area.

	THEORIES / RESEARCH TOPICS*	DISCLOSURE INFORMATION		DELIVERY PUBLIC SERVICES	REGULATORY ASPECTS	SOCIAL MEDIA IN GENERAL TERMS	ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY	E-CAMPAING		DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION
		COM	IS	PA	COM	IS	PA	COM	IS	PA	COM	IS	PA	COM	IS	PA	COM	IS	PA	COM	IS	PA
	Agenda setting Theory																	2.7% 6.7%
	Cognitive Dissonance Theory																	2.7% 6.7%		2.7% 5.9%
	Commodity Theory	2.7%** 5.9%***
	Communication Privacy Management Theory	2.7% 5.9%
	Convergence Culture Theory																			2.7% 5.9%
	Democratic Theory																			2.7% 5.9%	5.4% 13.3%
	Development Theory																			2.7% 5.9%
	Domestication Theory																			2.7% 5.9%
	Equalization and Normalization Theory																2.7% 2.9%
	Exemplification Theory																2.7% 5.9%
	Framing Theory																	2.7% 6.7%
	Galbraith's Information-Processing Theory						2.7% 25.0%
	Gatekeeping Theory	2.7% 5.9%	2.7% 6.7%
	Habermas Theory	2.7% 5.9%																		5.4% 11.8%
	Informal Learning Theory																				2.7% 6.7%
	Inglehart's Postmaterialist Theory																			2.7% 5.9%
	Innovation Diffusion Theory		2.7% 25.0%		2.7% 6.7%												2.7% 6.7%
	Lasswell's policy sciences																					2.7% 25.0%
	Theory of Affondances											2.7% 6.7%
	Mediatization Theory																	2.7% 6.7%

*** NOTE:

Table 3 .

 3 Countries and theories used

Source: Own Elaboration *NOTE: There are articles that support their findings on more than one theory and country

Table 4 .

 4 Articles with and without theories, and quartiles of journals

	QUARTILES JOURNALS	ARTICLES WITH THEORIES	ARTICLES WITHOUT THEORIES
	JOURNALS IN FIRST QUARTILE	30 -83.34%	49 -69.01%
	JOURNALS IN SECOND QUARTILE	3 -8.33%	9 -12.68%
	JOURNALS IN THIRD QUARTILE	3 -8.33%	13 -18.31%
	TOTAL	36 -33.64%	71 -66.36%

Source: Own Elaboration

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out with financial support from the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain), Department of Innovation, Science and Enterprise (Research Project No. P11-SEJ-7700).


Rui Pedro Lourenço

Suzanne Piotrowski

Alex Ingrams

Public accountability ICT support: a detailed account of public accountability process and tasks

Keywords: Open Government, Accountability, ICT, Task-Technology Fit

A key objective of open government programs is to promote public accountability by using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to release data on the internal working of public agencies. However, it is not clear how actual accountability (such as sanctions or rewards) may be achieved from the data disclosed. Nor it is clear how ICT in general should support it. To better understand how ICT can support open data initiated accountability processes in achieving their goal, this paper considers the three phases (information, discussion, and consequences) usually used to describe such processes. Defining ICT support for these major phases is a difficult effort, since each phase encompasses different tasks and support requirements. This paper aims to address this problem by providing a detailed account of the tasks associated with the whole public accountability process. This may be used by those responsible for open government programs to design and deploy comprehensive ICT support platforms using a task-technology fit perspective.

Introduction

A central pillar of open government initiatives is the active disclosure of data held by public agencies. The creation of open data portals (e.g. Data.gov) has subsequently become associated with the expression Open Government Data (OGD). In the context of open government, the release of data might serve two main purposes [START_REF] Linders | What is Open Government? One Year after the Directive[END_REF]: 1) allowing the re-use of such data to enable the creation of new products and services by the private sector; or 2), transparency for accountability, where public agencies disclose data about their internal works allowing the general public to monitor their actions and performance [START_REF] Grimmelikhuijsen | The Effect of Transparency on Trust in Government: A Cross-National Comparative Experiment[END_REF], [START_REF] Meijer | Understanding the Complex Dynamics of Transparency[END_REF]. Despite the apparent success and high impact of open data portals, Yu and Robinson [START_REF] Yu | The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF] draw attention to the ambiguity of the expression Open Government Data as it may convey two very different meanings: 1) the disclosure of politically relevant data, whether or not using information technology or 2) the usage of technological plat-forms to facilitate access to government held data, whether or not politically relevant. Yu and Robinson [START_REF] Yu | The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF] also point out that these initiatives focus "more on technological innovation and service delivery" and public agencies "have tended to release data that helps them serve their existing goals without throwing open the doors for uncomfortable increases in public scrutiny."

Despite the doubts raised by Yu and Robinson [START_REF] Yu | The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF], OGD portals may be considered as an example of how ICTs may support public accountability. Even so, as Bovens [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF] notes, transparency as data disclosure is certainly a pre-requisite for public accountability but the latter also requires the scrutiny of the data provided and the possibility to award rewards or sanctions accordingly. Therefore, OGD portals could, at most, be considered as a technology that supports the initial phase (data disclosure) of the whole public accountability process which comprises three main phases: information/transparency, debate, and consequences.

The discussion on how ICTs might help to support public accountability needs to look beyond OGD portals and data disclosure, and a Task-Technology Fit (TTF) [START_REF] Zigurs | A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness[END_REF] perspective may be useful to frame such discussion. TTF was advanced in the context of Computer-Mediated Communications (CMC) and Group Support Systems (GSS) to stress the importance and impact of a good fit between the task to be performed by groups and technologies used, on the effectiveness of group support (CMC, GSS). To determine a 'good fit' it is necessary to consider both the attributes of task(s) to be performed and the relevant technology characteristics.

The problem of finding the 'best fit' technologies to support public participation, in part or as a whole process, is also illustrated by Robinson, Yu, Zeller, and Felten [START_REF] Robinson | Government Data and the Invisible Hand[END_REF] who, when describing a set of ICT tools that have the potential to support data presentation and visualization, ended their analysis with this sentence: "Exactly which of these features to use in which case, and how to combine advanced features with data presentation, is an open question." To design a complete public accountability platform that goes beyond simple data disclosure it is necessary to consider:  What tasks need to be supported along the whole public accountability process?  What type of support is required for each task?  What kind of applications have the potential to support each task?  How to design, develop and implement a comprehensive public accountability platform by selecting and combining the 'best fit' applications and technologies to meet the requirements?

We identify and characterize the tasks performed in the context of a public accountability process (providing an answer to the first question) and therefore provide the solid ground upon which a TTF approach might be used. We start by characterizing public accountability (section 2), including its main phases and parties involved. In section 3, the three main phases of the public accountability process are further analyzed and divided into discrete tasks according to the literature. Within section 4, we identify a set of abstract data patterns performed along the process which already indicate the type of ICTs adequate to support them. By the end of section 4, each public accountability task is associated with one or more abstract task patterns thus providing a starting point to design a comprehensive public accountability support platform under a TTF approach.

Public accountability

The concept of accountability is complex ("an ever-expanding concept" [START_REF] Mulgan | Accountability': An Ever-Expanding Concept?[END_REF]) and is subject to many interpretations and disagreement about its meanings [START_REF] Koppell | Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of 'Multiple Accountabilities Disorder[END_REF]- [START_REF] Brandsma | The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability[END_REF]. Several authors have advanced definitions of accountability [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], [START_REF] Sinclair | The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses[END_REF], [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF], and have proposed accountability typologies [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], [START_REF] Sinclair | The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses[END_REF], [START_REF] Behn | Rethinking democratic accountability[END_REF], [START_REF] Dubnick | Accountable agents: federal performance measurement and third-party government[END_REF] (see also Steccolini [16,p. 332] -Table 1 for a list of such typologies). In this paper we will consider Bovens' definition:

"Accountability is a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences." [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF] Moreover, our focuses is on public accountability, that is, the accountability of organizations or officials exercising public authority, from a perspective concerned with democratic control over those institutions and individuals [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF]. Fig. 1 illustrates the simplified accountability model considered here (inspired by [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], p. 454 -Figure 1), depicting the main stages and main parties involved in public accountability process. [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], p. 454 -Figure 1).

The main stages depicted in Fig. 1, usually considered in any public accountability processes [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], [START_REF] Schillemans | Innovations in Accountability[END_REF], are:

1. Information, sometimes also equated to transparency [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF] or data disclosure, where the 'actor' discloses the information needed to account for its actions ("to explain and to justify his or her conduct"); 2. Debate, during which the information gathered is processed by the 'principal' [START_REF] Biela | Strategies for Assessing and Measuring Agency Accountability[END_REF],

who has the right to ask for additional information and justifications under the principle of 'answerability' [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF]; 3. Consequences, during which the 'principal' passes judgment based on the information analyzed, and decides whether or not to sanction or reward the 'actor' for his or her actions.

Fig. 1 also depicts the main parties involved in public accountability. Representative democracies may be considered as "a concatenation of principal-agent relationships" [START_REF] Bovens | Towards a More Accountable EU: Retrospective and Roadmap[END_REF] between citizens (the forum), their elected political representatives, and public officials (the actor) to whom actual administrative actions are delegated and who have an obligation to account for their actions to whom they represent. However, not all accountability relationships derive from this principal-agent principle.

The fragmentation of the public sector as a result of the adoption of new public management (NPM) policies [START_REF] Scott | Accountability in the Regulatory State[END_REF], for instance, led to an increase in the complexity of these chains of delegation which effectively turn into 'networks' or 'webs' of accountability [START_REF] Bovens | Towards a More Accountable EU: Retrospective and Roadmap[END_REF], [START_REF] Scott | Accountability in the Regulatory State[END_REF]. These may include entities from "third-party government" [START_REF] Dubnick | Accountable agents: federal performance measurement and third-party government[END_REF], "decentralised agencies" [START_REF] Busuioc | Accountability, Control and Independence: The Case of European Agencies[END_REF] or semi-autonomous agencies [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF] to whom the full principal-agent relationship may not apply, thus giving origin to horizontal and diagonal types of accountability [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF].

Even if we might consider citizens as the 'ultimate public accountability forum' and public agencies, public officials and political representatives as the general actor, we must also consider the role of other parties. As an example, while courts might not fit directly into this 'actor'-'forum' accountability relationship, they might be crucial for citizens to effectively apply legal sanctions. Information brokers [START_REF] Rutherford | Developing a conceptual framework for central government financial reporting: intermediate users and indirect control[END_REF], [START_REF] Heald | Fiscal transparency: concepts, measurement and UK practice[END_REF] or infomediaries [START_REF] Carter | Transparency and accountability[END_REF] such as the media, CSOs or NGOs may also play an important role in accountability relations by helping to collect data, process it and produce information in a format ordinary citizens find easy to understand, or to reinforce the influence of indirect, informal sanction mechanisms such as 'blame and shame' [START_REF] Biela | Strategies for Assessing and Measuring Agency Accountability[END_REF], [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF], [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF].

3

The process of public accountability and its tasks

From the macro view of the accountability process presented in the last section, it is possible, by analyzing accountability related literature, to break it down into more discrete tasks. We identified eleven such tasks:

1. Voluntary disclosed data. To address the forum's "direct and passive information rights" [START_REF] Biela | Strategies for Assessing and Measuring Agency Accountability[END_REF], actors need to voluntarily and proactively [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF] disclose ac-countability related data. The data organization should facilitate analysis and reusability according to the objectives of open government [START_REF] Linders | What is Open Government? One Year after the Directive[END_REF]. 2. Requested and disclosed data. Voluntarily disclosed data might not be sufficient for forums to hold public agents accountable. Forums may therefore need to request additional data from public agencies according to "demand-driven access" to information [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF]. 3. Data from other sources. But even when public agencies make available additional data as a response to requests from the accountability forum, it still may not be sufficient. Therefore it may be necessary for the forum to collect data from other sources. This task can include searching for data, collecting data in hard copy and converting it to digital format [START_REF] Van Zyl | How Civil Society Organizations Close the Gap between Transparency and Accountability[END_REF], collecting data in digital format from other sources, or even asking third-parties (such as audit offices) to disclose it. 4. Distribute and increase visibility of data. Peixoto [START_REF] Peixoto | The Uncertain Relationship Between Open Data and Accountability: A Response to Yu and Robinson's The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF] explicitly refers to the "publicity condition" (publicized transparency) which implies the existence of a free press and a facilitated access to the internet as a preferred means to distribute information. While these publicity conditions exist in contemporary representative democracies, there may still be necessary additional efforts on the part of the accountability forum to further improve data visibility [START_REF] Van Zyl | How Civil Society Organizations Close the Gap between Transparency and Accountability[END_REF] and therefore "reach the intended public" [START_REF] Peixoto | The Uncertain Relationship Between Open Data and Accountability: A Response to Yu and Robinson's The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF]. 5. Data quality and suitability. Not all data releases through open government data portals are relevant for accountability [START_REF] Yu | The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF]. Fox [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF] reinforces this perspective and uses the expression "opaque or fuzzy transparency" to designate the "dissemination of information that does not reveal how institutions actually behave", but also "to information that is divulged only nominally, or which is revealed but turns out to be unreliable." Some OGD platforms explicitly state that all disclosed data adheres to some kind of quality assurance policy1 . 6. Process and merge data. The result of previous tasks is a repository of accountability relevant, complete and high quality data. This task in the accountability process is to organize it, merge it, process it and produce new data and information [START_REF] Van Zyl | How Civil Society Organizations Close the Gap between Transparency and Accountability[END_REF]. This requires accountability forums such as NGOs, CSOs, or ordinary citizens to possess the time, personnel, competence, and technical capabilities to process the available data [START_REF] Biela | Strategies for Assessing and Measuring Agency Accountability[END_REF], [START_REF] Peixoto | The Uncertain Relationship Between Open Data and Accountability: A Response to Yu and Robinson's The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF]. 7. Interpretation and identification of an issue. The end result of the previous tasks is reliable information. In this task the forum continuously monitors and interprets the information to identify and characterize potential accountability issues. This has been described as arriving "at a shared definition of the problem", including determining "why and how the current situation has arisen" [START_REF] Schillemans | Innovations in Accountability[END_REF]. 8. Request additional information and ask for justifications. Having fully characterized the accountability issue, including the identification of the relevant accountability actors involved, it should be possible for the forum to further interro-gate the actor and question the legitimacy of conduct [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], ask for additional information [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF], pose follow-up questions [START_REF] Brandsma | The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability[END_REF], and demand explanations [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF] concerning a specific issue. This task marks the beginning of the debate phase between the forum and the actor [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF] which might be considered as a transition between transparency and accountability [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF]. 9. Clarify and justify. Still part of the debating phase, actors are expected to explain their behavior and justify their actions in response to public reaction and questioning [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], [START_REF] Brandsma | The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability[END_REF], [START_REF] Peixoto | The Uncertain Relationship Between Open Data and Accountability: A Response to Yu and Robinson's The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government[END_REF]. 10. Assess and judge. At some point the debate between the forum and the actor involved in a particular issue should reach an end. All available information is considered by the forum [START_REF] Brandsma | The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability[END_REF] in order reach a concluding judgment about the actor's actions regarding a particular issue under analysis [START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], [START_REF] Brandsma | The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability[END_REF]. 11. Select and apply sanctions. If there is a decision to sanction the actor, the task is now to select which of the available sanction mechanisms should be used [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF].The array of possible options depends on the accountability issue type, the type and nature of the actor, and the nature of the accountability involved. (a) Negative publicity ('blame and shame'). In the spectrum of accountability sanctions, negative publicity or 'blame and shame' sanctions are considered an indirect and informal sanctioning mechanism [START_REF] Biela | Strategies for Assessing and Measuring Agency Accountability[END_REF], [START_REF] Brandsma | The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability[END_REF]. This sanction mechanism might be easier to apply since it depends mostly on the forum's ability to make visible or 'shame' the actor involved. However, in practice, the 'shaming' power depends on how other information brokers, mass media or specialized forum such as policy or public administration networks, deal with and publicize such issues [START_REF] Schillemans | Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies[END_REF], [START_REF] Fox | The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability[END_REF]. To reinforce the impact of a sanction mechanism, accountability forums might partner with media to regularly report on the issues, use social media to publicize the sanction in social networks and forums, or use notification mechanisms to increase citizens' awareness. (b) Seek legal sanctions. When deemed appropriate, the accountability forum might consider the possibility of taking the actor (agency or public official responsible) to court. Again, the success of this sanctioning option would depend on third parties (in this case, the judicial system). Recognizing this, it is considered an indirect sanctioning mechanism [START_REF] Biela | Strategies for Assessing and Measuring Agency Accountability[END_REF]. (c) Influence supervisory or sanctioning bodies. Just like the courts, supervisory and sanctioning bodies have the possibility to directly enforce sanctions on public officials and public agencies. Accountability forums may try to indirectly influence these bodies through the press using 'blame and shame' or directly influence them through petitions or research support [START_REF] Van Zyl | How Civil Society Organizations Close the Gap between Transparency and Accountability[END_REF]. (d) Influence hierarchy. One possible 'weak' accountability arrangement available to accountability forums outside the actors' hierarchical structure includes influencing and appealing to agencies or public officials in higher positions to apply sanctions which may include cutting budgets and bonuses, termination of contracts, tightened regulations, fines, discharge of management or increase control and reduce independence [13][11]. (e) Influence political and electoral sanctions. Elections are a powerful sanction mechanism for political representatives who anticipate the retrospective control and sanctions of future electoral moments and act in order to maximize their reelection possibilities [START_REF] Elster | Introduction[END_REF]. In order to effectively apply these types of sanctions, accountability platforms need to increase the impact of 'blame and shame' on voters, political parties, campaign donors and alike by keeping an up-to-date record of the issues discussed and decisions reached. (f) Influence participative forums. Some actors (public agencies) promote internal participatory forums. These might function themselves as accountability forums with privileged access to data and hierarchy, and possibly with the power to impose sanctions directly. In this case, an external accountability platform might function as an internal analysis support tool, or as a way to pressure these forums to initiate accountability processes and impose sanctions.

Abstract task patterns

The tasks presented in the previous section define the high-level requirements to develop a comprehensive accountability support platform. This section aims to contribute to a platform design proposal, inspired by TTF theory and Collaboration Patterns ("classify group activities based on the changes-of-state they produce") [START_REF] Briggs | Defining key concepts for collaboration engineering[END_REF], by suggesting a set of abstract task patterns already linked to some examples of elementary technologies and applications:

1. Disclose, organize and link data. Traditionally, public agencies have been using their own web sites to publish accountability related data2 . However, many public agencies now publish in one-stop government data portals such as Data.gov or Data.gov.uk [START_REF] Kalampokis | A classification scheme for open government data: towards linking decentralized data[END_REF].These portals are at the core of what Schillemans, Van Twist et al. [START_REF] Schillemans | Innovations in Accountability[END_REF] designate as "dynamic accountability" which allows citizens to monitor government in near real-time Accountability forums outside governmental control might find it difficult to perform some of the tasks identified previously when using government platforms such as portals, which seems to indicate that 'independent' platforms may be needed. One important aspect to consider is the adoption of the principles of Linked Data: "data published on the Web in such a way that it is machine-readable, its meaning is explicitly defined, it is linked to other external data sets, and can in turn be linked to from external data sets." [START_REF] Bizer | Linked data -the story so far[END_REF]

Rate and categorize (data, issues, and sanctions).

There is a need to properly categorize data in order to help distinguish accountability related data (and their different topics) from other type of data that coexist in today's open data government portals. Rating mechanisms might also help to improve the impact and influence of accountability processes on the general public, particularly when there is a time lapse between the moment of discovery and discussion of an issue and the actual sanctioning moment (at elections, for instance).One way to complement official quality assurance and categorization mechanisms finds inspiration in crowd sourcing -"using the collective wisdom of a large group of people to help solve problems" [START_REF] Pedersen | Conceptual Foundations of Crowdsourcing: A Review of IS Research[END_REF]. 3. Notify and increase awareness. Even in high profile open government portals, accountability relevant data may be 'hidden' by the sheer amount of datasets available. It is therefore necessary not only to create specific organizing structures within those general purpose portals [START_REF] Lourenço | Open Government Portals Assessment: A Transparency for Accountability Perspective[END_REF] to increase this data visibility but also to use awareness mechanisms (such as Real Simple Syndication -RSSand social networkse.g. Twitter).

Communicate (directed).

In some cases open government data portals offer the possibility to request additional datasets (using request forms or email) and even allow users to monitor the request process by providing request status information 3 . Yet in other situations, 'traditional' Freedom of Information Act mechanisms and channels may be used to request such data 4 . Accountability forums and information brokers should facilitate such requests by providing seamless communication channels and independent monitoring of the whole process. 5. Search and discover. Independent platforms run by accountability forums can play a crucial brokerage role by providing a single interface to accept data requests and look for the data or, at least, find out where it can be obtained. Platforms might use crowdsourcing efforts for that purpose, complemented by technical resources like search engines or web crawlers to identify potential databases of interest and thus catalogue data resources. 6. Process data (format and analyze). Business Intelligence and Analytics systems [START_REF] Hsinchun | Business Intelligence and Analytics: from Big Data to Big Impact[END_REF] may provide the necessary tools, including Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) capabilities, to produce a data repository adequate for further processing and analysis. In general, accountability platforms (such as governmental portals or those privately maintained) should offer data mining and statistical analysis capabilities including the possibility to build new "mashup" datasets, to build and compare data-based performance indicators or to identify 'peculiar' cases. 7. Decide (issue, sanction and sanction type). Several tasks associated with the accountability process require users from the accountability forum to characterize an emergent issue, to decide whether or not to sanction an actor or to choose from a set of possible sanction types. In a broader context, such tasks might be considered as "Evaluate" and "Build Commitment" tasks of group collaboration efforts [START_REF] Briggs | Defining key concepts for collaboration engineering[END_REF] or may be referred to, in social media contexts, as "Crowd voting" [START_REF] Pedersen | Conceptual Foundations of Crowdsourcing: A Review of IS Research[END_REF]. 8. Discuss and debate. Several tasks require members of the accountability forum to debate among themselves while other tasks would require debating with the involved actors, similar to the divergent phase of groups strategic planning activities [START_REF] Orwig | A multi-agent view of strategic planning using group support systems and artificial intelligence[END_REF] and the 'generate' collaborative patterns [START_REF] Briggs | Defining key concepts for collaboration engineering[END_REF]. These discussions are crucial to identify potential accountability issues, to formulate new questions, or to precede the elaboration of 'blame and shame' documents. 9. Reduce, filter and clarify (issue and question). In some cases, the discussion is just part of a process for defining new issues or new questions to ask accountabil-ity actors. In this case it is necessary to filter the whole pool of suggestions and ideas (removing inappropriate questions, for instance) and to consolidate similar or redundant ideas into a single one. Care must be taken so that this would not constitute a form of censorship eliminating opposing points of view. 10. Create ('blame and shame' document, legal document, or petition). Producing accountability documents from a divergent pool of ideas resulting from the debate phase is a challenge and it is considered the "convergent" part of any group cognitive task [START_REF] Orwig | A multi-agent view of strategic planning using group support systems and artificial intelligence[END_REF]. In general, web collaborative writing tools such as wikis might provide support for this task, while blikis [START_REF] Lourenço | A bliki model to support political discourse formation[END_REF] may provide a bridge between the discussion (divergent) phase and the collaborative writing (convergent) phase. 11. Manage progress (issues, legal processes). When the forum decides that sanctions should be awarded in the form of a legal process, it is important to know at each moment and for each legal process, what its status is. To accomplish this, workflow systems or issue tracking systems (used in software engineering, for instance) might be adopted. 12. Obtain specialized resources. Throughout the accountability process several tasks require resources, such as specialized skills and competences or financial resources, which an isolated citizen might not possess. To support the forum in obtaining such resources (and account for their usages), the accountability platform can adopt crowdsourcing tools. 13. Supporting the overall process: facilitation. In group settings, facilitation is understood as "a set of functions or activities carried out before, during, and after a meeting to help the group achieve its own outcomes" [START_REF] Bostrom | Group facilitation and group support systems[END_REF]. It may be performed without any technology support ("human facilitation"), solely by technology ("automated facilitation"), or by human facilitators with technological support [START_REF] Seeber | Opening the Black Box of Team Processes and Emergent States: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Team Facilitation[END_REF].

Table 1 links each accountability task and process stage with several predominant abstract task patterns. Together with the illustrative technology examples provided, this detailed account of abstract task patterns occurring during the complete public accountability process forms a contribution to a tentative support platform design proposal. The abstract task patterns proposed above are now more easily associated with particular supporting technologies in a TTF perspective and provide an answer to the first two questions elaborated in the Introduction section.

Conclusion

The potential of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to support democratic processes (eDemocracy) and governmental service provision (eGovernment) has been recognized for quite some time now. Recently, scholars and practitioners have turned their attention to open government and, specifically, to governmental transparency and public accountability. Open government efforts led to the creation of dataset portals such as data.gov which enable open data initiated accountability processes. The internet and social media applications, for instance, have also been generically recognized as having the potential to support data disclosure and dissemination, and public debate. But this recognition does not take into account all accountability process stages, or the specific requirements of each stage. To go beyond such generic descriptions of the ICT potential to support public accountability it is necessary, first and foremost, to have a detailed and comprehensive account of the tasks performed by the different parties involved in the process. Only then a Task-Technology Fit approach might be used to select the appropriate technology or application needed to support each individual task and therefore, provide a comprehensive public accountability support platform.

This paper contributes to the design of a comprehensive public accountability support platform by considering the three main stages of the accountability process and, supported by relevant research literature, details them into more specific tasks. Then, inspired by the collaboration patterns used to support group tasks, identifies a set of abstract task patterns occurring along the accountability process whose description is now suitable for a Task-Technology Fit approach. As such, this work answers the first two questions elaborated in the Introduction section. Further research is needed to fully answer the remaining two questions, and it is expected that scholars and practitioners use the proposed detailed account of a public accountability process as a solid foundation to design and develop comprehensive accountability support platforms.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Public accountability model considered (inspired by[START_REF] Bovens | Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF], p. 454 -Figure1).

Table 1 .

 1 Stages, tasks and abstract task patterns in the public accountability process

	Stages	Tasks Abstract task patterns
	Information	1	1
		2	4, 1
		3	5, 6, 1
		4	1, 3
		5	2
	Debate/Discuss 6	6, 1
		7	8, 9, 7, 11
		8	8, 9, 4
		9	4
	Consequences	10	8, 7
		11	8, 7
		11.a	10, 2, 3
		11.b	12, 10, 11, 3
		11.c	10, 3
		11.d	10, 3
		11.e	10, 2, 3
		11.f	6, 10, 3

"All information accessed through Data.gov is subject to the Information Quality Act (P.L. 106-554). … each agency has confirmed that the data being provided through this site meets the agency's Information Quality Guidelines." From Data.gov (https://www.data.gov/datapolicy) last visited in 30/10/2014.

See[START_REF] Lourenço | Data disclosure and transparency for accountability: A strategy and case analysis[END_REF] for a list of online transparency assessment efforts based on individual website analysis.

See, for instance, the New Zealand data portal (https://data.govt.nz/latest-data-requests/)

"How do I make a FOIA Request?" (http://www.foia.gov/how-to.html)

Acknowledgements. This work has been partially supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under project grant UID/MULTI/00308/2013.