Electronic Portals of Executive Bodies of the State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation as Communicative Tool: The Empirical Research Results
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2020-3-24-38Keywords:
state communication policy, electronic portals of public authorities, focus-group research, industrial policyAbstract
The purpose of the article is to substantiate the directions of improving the communication potential of electronic portals of public authorities of the Russian Federation through an empirical analysis of their main problems and specific characteristics. The methodological basis of the paper is the focus group research with the participation of key stakeholders of the communication tools of regional authorities responsible for the development of industry. The study was attended by representatives of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation responsible for interaction with industrial enterprises, representatives of industrial enterprises themselves, as well as representatives of research institutions or universities that are engaged in development for industry. The scenario of each focus group included both an assessment of the websites of the authorities responsible for the implementation of the industrial policy in the region and, in general, a description of the communication policy of the public authorities, which was based on the experience of respondents (stakeholders). The results of the analysis made it possible to rank the official portals of public authorities responsible for industrial development. The study concludes that the main barriers to the development of information society communication policies include: technological and infrastructural problems; the use of non-working or outdated communication tools, in particular, the lack of communication with social media accounts; the lack of visual and contextual content that emphasizes the specifics of the region; excessive politicization of the site; the information reporting nature of the site and the use of an exclusively bureaucratic language. These problems are systemic in nature and reflect the general problems of the communication policy of the public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as a result of which the organization of interaction with key stakeholders is not based on common ideas, objectives and meanings, but on disparate interests. Interaction of public authorities with key stakeholders within the framework of the government portal can be improved by working with the competence potential of public authorities; technological development of communication tools of public authorities, including the assessment of their effectiveness; formation of growth points and directions of transformation of communication policy in the context of the development of the information society.Downloads
References
Белоусов А. Б. Дискретная модель лоббистской коммуникации // Полис. Политические исследования. 2006. № 4. С. 87-101.
Кашина М. А., Древаль И. В. Развитие системы дополнительного профессионального образования государственных гражданских служащих в контексте болонского процесса // Управленческое консультирование. 2011. № 2. С. 8-17.
Кузнецов П. У. Концептуальные условия государственной политики в сфере цифровой трансформации общества // Российское право. 2018. №6. C. 12-16.
Максимов А. М. Трансформация системы связей с общественностью в региональных органах государственной власти в Российской Федерации. Архангельск, 2011.
Малышева В. В. Профессиональная компетентность государственных служащих и ее формирование в условиях непрерывного образования // Известия Волгоградского государственного педагогического университета. 2007. № 5. С. 87-91.
Медведев В. А. Глобальная экономика: тенденции и противостояния // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2010. № 2. С. 3-10.
Некрасов В. Н., Архипова О. И. Электронное правительство как инструмент повышения эффективности публичного управления // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки СКАГС. 2014. № 4. C. 66-83.
Шамахов В. А., Балашов А. И. Новая общественно-политическая нормальность и уроки модернизации постсоветской системы управления // Управленческое консультирование. 2016. № 12(96). С. 6-15.
Шохин А. Н. Бизнес и власть в России: теория и практика взаимодействия. М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2011.
Barbero M. J. Digital Convergence in Cultural Communication. Popular Communication. 2009. 7 (3). P. 147-157.
Carver T., Pikalo J. Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008.
Castells M., Cardoso G. The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2006.
Dolnicar V., Prevodnik K., Vehovar V. Measuring the Dynamics of Information Societies: Empowering Stakeholders Amid the Digital Divide. The Information Society. 2014. 30 (3). P. 212-228.
Gerstle J. Political Communication: from international institutionalization to national conquest of scientific legitimacy // The Oxford Handbook of French Politics / ed. by R. Elgie, E. Grossman, A. G. Mazur. P. 383-410.
Goldfinch S. Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector. Public Administration Review. 2007. 67 (5). P. 917-929.
Klievink B., Bharosa N., Tan Y.-H. The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public-private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly. 2016. 33 (1). P. 67-79.
Menou M. M., Taylor R. D. A "Grand Challenge": Measuring Information Societies. The Information Society. 2006. 22 (5). P. 261-267.
Napoli P. M. Foundations of Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Electronic Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc., 2001.
Norris P. Political Communication // Comparative Politics / ed. by D. Caramani. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 375-409.
Raboy M., Landry N., Shtern J. Digital Solidarities, Communication Policy and Multi-Stakeholder Global Governance. New York: Peter Lang, 2010.
Rhodes Rod A. W. Recovering the Craft of Public Administration. Public Administration Review. 2015. 76 (4). P. 638-47
Sassen S. Towards a sociology of information technology. Current Sociology. 2002. N 50(3). Р. 365-88.
Seale C., Gobo G., Gubrium J. F. Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage, 2007.
Skyrius R., Winer C. R. Challenges of Information Technology Management in the 21st Century: 2000 Information Resources Management Association International Conference: Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 2000.
Tsekeris C. Industry 4.0 and the digitalisation of society: Curse or cure? Homo Virtualis. 2018. 1 (1). P. 4-12.
Van den Bulck H. Tracing media policy decisions: Of stakeholders, networks and advocacy coalitions. Price M et al. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Media Law. London: Routledge. 2012. Р. 17-34.