Social media platforms are crucial for the government to connect with its citizens, especially during a crisis, when information dissemination is crucial. It enables the timely dissemination of information and allows the public to start a real-time dialogue with the government. This investigation offers a systematic review of scholarly papers from over 20 years (2003–2023), such as Citizen Engagement on Government Social Media (CEGSM), during a crisis. The documented knowledge is analysed through theories, contexts, characteristics, and methodology (TCCM framework). The review highlights that although the field has gained recent popularity, the use of theories remains sparse. There is also a need for more research to extend beyond the scope of the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses the gaps in the field of CEGSM, thereby providing directions for future research. These findings can help the government and crisis managers to use social media for more effective and efficient communication that drives more engagement by using the framework proposed in the article that integrates various crisis communication theories. Improved CEGSM can also increase the management of the crisis by spreading meaningful information to the desired people quickly and removing doubts through more engagement.
AbitbolA., & LeeS. Y. (2017). Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 796–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.05.002
2.
AkhtarN., SiddiqiU. I., AhmadW., UsmanM., ChenX., & IslamT. (2021). Effects of service encounter barriers on situational abnormality and consumers’ behavioral intentions at food and beverage restaurants. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33(7), 1513–1534. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2020-0192
3.
AlhassanF. M., & AlDossaryS. A. (2021). The Saudi Ministry of Health’s Twitter Communication Strategies and Public Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Content Analysis Study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 7(7), e27942. https://doi.org/10.2196/27942
4.
BilloreS., & AnisimovaT. (2021). Panic buying research: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 777–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12669
5.
BirdD., LingM., & HaynesK. (2012). Flooding Facebook ? The use of social media during the Queensland and Victorian floods. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(1), 27–33.
6.
BonsónE., PereaD., & BednárováM. (2019). Twitter as a tool for citizen engagement: An empirical study of the Andalusian municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.001
7.
BonsónE., RoyoS., & RatkaiM. (2017). Facebook practices in Western European municipalities: An empirical analysis of activity and citizens’ engagement. Administration & Society, 49(3), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714544945
8.
CharlwoodJ., DennisA., GissingA., QuickL., & VarmaS. (2012). Use of social media during flood events. Alliance Strategic Research. www.floodplainconference.com/Papers2012/Jilly%20Charlwood%20Full%20Paper.Pdf
9.
ChatfieldA. T., & ReddickC. G. (2018). All hands on deck to tweet #sandy: Networked governance of citizen coproduction in turbulent times. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.09.004
10.
ChatfieldA. T., SchollH. J. (Jochen), & BrajawidagdaU. (2013). Tsunami early warnings via Twitter in government: Net-savvy citizens’ co-production of time-critical public information services. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.021
11.
ChenQ., MinC., ZhangW., MaX., & EvansR. (2021). Factors driving citizen engagement with government TikTok accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic: Model Development and Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(2), e21463. https://doi.org/10.2196/21463
12.
ChenQ., MinC., ZhangW., WangG., MaX., & EvansR. (2020). Unpacking the black box: How to promote citizen engagement through government social media during the COVID-19 crisis. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106380
13.
ChoiY. K., SeoY., & YoonS. (2017). E-WOM messaging on social media: Social ties, temporal distance, and message concreteness. Internet Research, 27(3), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-07-2016-0198
14.
CoombsW. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
15.
DaftR. L., & LengelR. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, Media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
16.
FengS., HossainL., CrawfordJ. W., & BossomaierT. (2018). Quantifying network dynamics and information flow across Chinese social media during the African Ebola outbreak. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 12(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2017.29
17.
Gálvez-RodríguezM. D. M., Haro-de-RosarioA., García-TabuyoM., & Caba-PérezC. (2019). Building online citizen engagement for enhancing emergency management in local European government: The case of the November 2015 Paris attacks. Online Information Review, 43(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2016-0286
18.
Gil De ZúñigaH., JungN., & ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, Civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
19.
GuoJ., LiuN., WuY., & ZhangC. (2021). Why do citizens participate on government social media accounts during crises? A civic voluntarism perspective. Information & Management, 58(1), 103286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103286
20.
HofmannS., BeverungenD., RäckersM., & BeckerJ. (2013). What makes local governments’ online communications successful? Insights from a multi-method analysis of Facebook. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.013
21.
HughesA., PalenL., & PetersonS. (2014). Social media in emergency management: Academic perspective. In TrainorJ. E. & Subbio (Éds.)T., Critical issues in disaster science and management: A dialogue between scientists and emergency managers (pp. 349–392). University of Delaware.
22.
HuntS. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: Toward a general theory of marketing (illustrated ed.). ME Sharpe.
23.
IslmT., MengH., PitafiA. H., Ullah ZafarA., SheikhZ., Shujaat MubarikM., & LiangX. (2021). Why do citizens engage in government social media accounts during COVID-19 pandemic? A comparative study. Telematics and Informatics, 62, 101619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101619
24.
JebarajakirthyC., MaseehH. I., MorshedZ., ShankarA., ArliD., & PentecostR. (2021). Mobile advertising: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(6), 1258–1291. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12728
25.
KentM. L., & TaylorM. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
26.
KhlystovaO., KalyuzhnovaY., & BelitskiM. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the creative industries: A literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1192–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.062
27.
KimJ., & HastakM. (2018). Social network analysis: Characteristics of online social networks after a disaster. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.003
28.
Kumar & Benbasat. (2002). Para-Social presence and communication capabilities of a web site: A theoretical perspective. E-Service Journal, 1(3), 5. https://doi.org/10.2979/esj.2002.1.3.5
29.
LandiS., CostantiniA., FasanM., & BonazziM. (2022). Public engagement and dialogic accounting through social media during COVID-19 crisis: A missed opportunity?Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2020-4884
30.
LeeC. H., & YuH. (2020). The impact of language on retweeting during acute natural disasters: Uncertainty reduction and language expectancy perspectives. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(8), 1501–1519. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2019-0711
31.
LiK., ZhouC., & YuX. (2021). Exploring the differences of users’ interaction behaviors on microblog: The moderating role of microblogger’s effort. Telematics and Informatics, 59, 101553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101553
32.
LiuB. F., FraustinoJ. D., & JinY. (2015). How disaster information form, source, type, and prior disaster exposure affect public outcomes: Jumping on the social media bandwagon?Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.982685
33.
LiuW., XuW. (Wayne), & TsaiJ.-Y. (Jenny). (2020). Developing a multi-level organization-public dialogic communication framework to assess social media-mediated disaster communication and engagement outcomes. Public Relations Review, 46(4), 101949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101949
34.
LuneH., & BergB. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
35.
LwinM. O., LuJ., SheldenkarA., & SchulzP. J. (2018). Strategic uses of Facebook in Zika outbreak communication: Implications for the crisis and emergency risk communication model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1974. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091974
36.
MeltzerM., ȘtefănescuL., & OzunuA. (2018). Keep them engaged: Romanian county inspectorates for emergency situations’ Facebook usage for disaster risk communication and beyond. Sustainability, 10(5), 1411. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051411
37.
MoherD., LiberatiA., TetzlaffJ., AltmanD. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
38.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. (n.d.). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5977662/
39.
NgaiC. S. B., SinghR. G., LuW., & KoonA. C. (2020). Grappling with the COVID-19 health crisis: Content analysis of communication strategies and their effects on public engagement on social media. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e21360. https://doi.org/10.2196/21360
40.
PalenL., & ViewegS. (2008). The emergence of online widescale interaction in unexpected events: Assistance, alliance and retreat. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460583
41.
PalenL., ViewegS., SuttonJ., LiuS. B., & HughesA. (2007, October7–9). Crisis informatics: Studying crisis in a networked world [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on E-Social Science, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
42.
PaulJ., KhatriP., & Kaur DuggalH. (2024). Frameworks for developing impactful systematic literature reviews and theory building: What, why and how?Journal of Decision Systems, 33(4), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2197700
43.
PaulJ., & Rosado-SerranoA. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global/international new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280
44.
PaulS., & DasS. (2023). Investigating information dissemination and citizen engagement through government social media during the COVID-19 crisis. Online Information Review, 47(2), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2021-0307
45.
PhangC. W., KankanhalliA., & TanB. C. Y. (2015). What motivates contributors vs. lurkers? An investigation of online feedback forums. Information Systems Research, 26(4), 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0599
Psynso. (n.d.). Heuristic-systematic model of information processing. https://psynso.com/heuristic-systematic-model-information-processing/
48.
ReynoldsB., & W. SeegerM. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730590904571
49.
RoyK. C., HasanS., SadriA. M., & CebrianM. (2020). Understanding the efficiency of social media-based crisis communication during Hurricane Sandy. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102060
50.
SeltzerE. K., Horst-MartzE., LuM., & MerchantR. M. (2017). Public sentiment and discourse about Zika virus on Instagram. Public Health, 150, 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.015
51.
SinghS., AkbaniI., & DhirS. (2020). Service innovation implementation: A systematic review and research agenda. The Service Industries Journal, 40(7–8), 491–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1731477
52.
SrivastavaS., SinghS., & DhirS. (2020). Culture and international business research: A review and research agenda. International Business Review, 29(4), 101709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101709
53.
StoneJ. A., & CanS. H. (2020). Linguistic analysis of municipal Twitter feeds: Factors influencing frequency and engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101468
54.
SuttonJ., PalenL., & ShklovskiI. (2008, May). Backchannels on the front lines: Emergent uses of social media in the 2007 Southern California wildfires [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference, Washington, DC, USA.
55.
TangL., LiuW., ThomasB., TranH. T. N., ZouW., ZhangX., & ZhiD. (2021). Texas public agencies’ tweets and public engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: Natural language processing approach. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 7(4), e26720. https://doi.org/10.2196/26720
56.
WangY., & YangY. (2020). Dialogic communication on social media: How organizations use Twitter to build dialogic relationships with their publics. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106183
57.
XuW. (Wayne), & ZhangC. (2018). Sentiment, richness, authority, and relevance model of information sharing during social Crises—The case of #MH370 tweets. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.041
58.
YangS., & StewartB. (2019). @Houstonpolice: An exploratory case of Twitter during Hurricane Harvey. Online Information Review, 43(7), 1334–1351. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-09-2018-0279
59.
YangY., DengW., ZhangY., & MaoZ. (2020). Promoting public engagement during the COVID-19 crisis: How effective is the Wuhan local government’s information release?International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010118
60.
ZavattaroS. M., FrenchP. E., & MohantyS. D. (2015). A sentiment analysis of U.S. local government tweets: The connection between tone and citizen involvement. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.003
61.
ZavattaroS. M., & SementelliA. J. (2014). A critical examination of social media adoption in government: Introducing omnipresence. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.007
62.
ZhangW., YuanH., ZhuC., ChenQ., & EvansR. (2022). Does citizen engagement with government social media accounts differ during the different stages of public health crises? An empirical examination of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 807459. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.807459
63.
ZhuR., & HuX. (2023). The public needs more: The informational and emotional support of public communication amidst the COVID-19 in China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 84, 103469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103469
