icegov2012 proceedings

A similar pattern can be observed about e-government courses.
First reason of spread of e-government courses is about faculties’
academic interests. Our research shows that e-government courses
were included to the curricula mainly because of at least one
faculty’s demand. If a faculty were interested in e-government or
information and communication technologies, he/she demand to
add these courses to curricula. Faculties, who received their MA
or Ph.D. degrees in European or American universities, become
another transfer agent for the e-government courses. Most of these
received similar courses during their studies, and after the graduation
they transferred the courses to Turkish universities. Faculty,
who took these lessons, would be a new instrument for a secondary
transfer, and it is the third reason for the spread of egovernment
course, which could be seen above in Figure 1.
Figure 1
33%
25%
42%
Academic Interest
Transfer by Abroad
Studied Faculty
Secondary Transfer
Although current lecturers of e-government courses are optimistic
that these courses will be developed and core courses in the near
future, we do not expect it due to existing traditions in PA Departments
and lack of interest of academic staff. In terms of Rogers’
diffusion of innovations, it could be claimed that inclusion of
e-government courses are generally optional and personal choice
[19]. The decision rests mostly on the interested lecturer or department
chair that is responsible for updating the curricula. Some
of the “early adapters” find it difficult to open or sustain the
course which is included in the curriculum because of lack of
academic staff or because this course was not really meant to be
opened at all. In this case, the curriculum looks right, but the
courses, in fact, only nominally exist. Thus, the course becomes a
product of isomorphism rather than innovation.
4.2 Content of the Courses and Students’ Opinions
about E-Government Courses
Looking at the contents of the course, e-government issues can be
categorized, which are derived from interviews and syllabi. According
to this data, Turkish e-government education includes
these titles: Basic e-government literature, e-government theories,
e-government applications, e-government policies, e-governance,
e-participation, e-democracy, e-municipality and problems of egovernment.
These titles are used in almost every university.
Three of ten faculties, named the topics; cyber crimes and esignature
as basic, and two others named as subtopic. An advising
report of UNESCO, which is prepared for the African countries,
includes almost the same topics. [20] E-government courses
generally begin with theoretical backgrounds and basic concepts.
Towards the middle of the term, they turned to e-government
applications.
If we look to the students’ opinions about the courses, some of
would be outshining. The ranking means and the standard deviations
of the ratings are presented in Table 1. Test results show that
there is a significant difference among the departments with respect
to the importance rating of e-signature, theories of egovernment,
properties of the information society, system design,
e-democracy, e-trade/e-business, e-government experiences in
Turkey, success/failure factors and internet penal law.
73
Table 1: Stated Importance Ratings of E-Government Topics
(Students, N: 186)
TOPIC MEAN STD.DEV.
Information Security 6,102 1,4576
Right to Internet Access 6,003 1,2884
Right to Information 5,944 1,3210
E-Government and Public Adm. 5,795 1,5052
E-Signature 5,706 1,6790
Theories of E-Government 5,116 1,5277
Public/Private Partnership 5,050 1,5007
Technological Dependency 4,596 1,8363
Significant difference among the departments could be explained
by the interests of the lecturers and could be considered as natural.
However this may also carry the risk of “speci-centrism” as Yildiz
et al. have defined in their own study [23].
It could be argued that the answers of the students are promising
about the sustainability of the e-government courses. When the
options “Totally Agree” ve “Agree” are combined, it is found that
79,6% of the students asserts positive opinions about interest in
the topics of the course. On the other hand, 61,3% percent of the
students think that the e-government course has provided advantages
for their careers. Perceived advantage of taking egovernment
courses would be another factor in development of egovernment
courses in Turkey. There is a high level of satisfaction
(81,1%) about the courses and 79% of the respondents says
they would recommend this course to other students. When the
responses for the above mentioned expressions are considered
together, it could be argued that e-government courses would
attract enough students if they were included in the curriculums of
the departments which have not opened a course about egovernment.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The findings present a mixed case. E-government is developing
fast in Turkey, and research on e-government draws significant
attention. But, currently, the number of public administration
departments which offer courses about e-government may not be
considered as adequate. The opinions of lecturers and students are
promising about the e-government courses in the future, yet lack
of interest on academics’ side may hinder the development of
these courses. Proliferation of e-government courses in Turkey is
needed, but this is not without risks. These courses have been
spreading among PA departments in the last five years. Although
the courses which aim to improve basic computer skills could be
traced to 1990s, first e-government courses in Turkey date back to
2006. Currently, 22% of the departments have e-government
courses in their curricula. At this point the problem of institutional
isomorphism becomes critical [5]. As Park and Park acknowledge,
the curricula of leading universities in South Korea were followed
by other institutions and that there is possibility of normative
isomorphism [16]. In a similar vein, latest developments in the
field of higher education in Turkey, especially Bologna process,
have created coercive and imitative institutionalization among PA
departments. This isomorphic trend may end up in curricula which
reflects “the politically right” but which do not correspond to the
real resources of the departments that are required to sustain IT
and e-government related courses. As a conclusion, it is important
to emphasize the need to build necessary resources and skills