This research examines how citizen participation in local government social media relates to trust in public institutions. The study adopts a qualitative netnographic design, combining observation of government Facebook pages with interviews conducted with active citizens in urban regions of the Brazilian Amazon. This approach enables a deeper understanding of how online interactions reflect citizens’ perceptions of competence, benevolence, and integrity in local governments. The findings reveal distinct levels of participation and trust shaped by the communicative dynamics of social media, demonstrating how digital engagement practices influence citizens’ emotional connection and confidence in governmental actions. Overall, the study highlights the role of social media as both a technological and social space that mediates contemporary relationships between citizens and government.
AbdulkareemA.AbdulkareemZ.IsholaA.AkindeleI. (2022). Does e-government impact e-participation? The influence of trust in e-government. International Review of Public Administration, 27(2), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2022.2071540
2.
AlarabiatA.SoaresD.EstevezE. (2021). Determinants of citizens’ intention to engage in government-led electronic participation initiatives through Facebook. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101537
3.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
4.
BarbozaM. N. L.Arruda FilhoE. J. M. (2019). Green consumption values in mobile apps. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 31(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2018.1490052
5.
BarrettM.ObornE.OrlikowskiW. (2016). Creating value in online communities: The sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 704–723. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0648
6.
BauerM. (2014). Classical content analysis. In BauerM.GaskellG. (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131–151). Sage Publications.
7.
BauhrM.GrimesM. (2013). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12033
8.
BertotJ. C.JaegerP. T.GrimesJ. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
9.
BertotJ. C.JaegerP. T.HansenD. (2012). The impact of policies on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004
10.
BonsónE.TorresL.RoyoS.FloresF. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001
11.
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee [Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil - CGI]. (2020). Pesquisa sobre o uso das tecnologias de informação e comunicação no setor público brasileiro: TIC governo eletrônico 2019 [Research on the use of information and communication technologies in Brazil]. CGI.Br.
12.
BritoK.AdeodatoP. J. L. (2023). Machine learning for predicting elections in Latin America based on social media engagement and polls. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), 101782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101782
13.
CGI [Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil]. (2024). Pesquisa sobre o uso das tecnologias de informação e comunicação no setor público brasileiro: TIC Governo Eletrônico 2023. Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil.
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
16.
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
17.
CoelhoT. R.HinoM. R. M. C.VahldickS. M. O. (2019). The use of ICT in the informal recycling sector: The Brazilian case of Relix. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 85(3), e12078. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12078
18.
FreilingI.MatthesJ. (2023). Correcting climate change misinformation on social media: Reciprocal relationships between correcting others, anger, and environmental activism. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107769
19.
Garcia-GarciaJ.PenichetV.LozanoM.GarridoJ.LawE. (2018). Multimodal affective computing to enhance the user experience of educational software applications. Mobile Information Systems, 2018, 8751426. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8751426
20.
GiestS. (2019). Trust dynamics in innovation networks: The Chicago life science cluster. Administration & Society, 51(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716647159
21.
GilwaldA.MothobiO.GomezR. (2022). Meaningful connectivity: A new framework for assessing the depth of internet use. International Development Research Centre (IDRC.
GodoiC.MattosP. (2010). Entrevista qualitativa: Instrumento de pesquisa e evento dialógico. In GodoiC.MelloR.SilvaA. (Orgs.), Pesquisa qualitativa em estudos organizacionais (pp. 301–323). Saraiva.
24.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.KniesE. (2017). Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315585950
GuemesC. (2019). “Wish you were here”: Trust in public administration in Latin America. Revista de Administração Pública, 53(6), 1067–1090. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220180230x
27.
GuoJ.LiuN.WuY.ZhangC. (2021). Why do citizens participate on government social media accounts during crises? A civic voluntarism perspective. Information & Management, 57(3), 103286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103286
28.
HighfieldT. (2017). Social media and everyday politics. Polity Press.
29.
HomburgV.MoodyR. (2021). “@government there’s a pothole in my street!”: Canadian citizens’ adoption choices of social media use in citizen–government relations. Canadian Public Administration, 64(4), 631–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12441
30.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2024). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2024. ITU Publications. https://www.itu.int/
31.
KaplanA. M.HaenleinM. (2010). Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
32.
KhanF.YoonH.KimJ.ParkH. W. (2014). From e-government to social government: Twitter use by Korea’s central government. Online Information Review, 38(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-09-2012-0162
33.
KimS. (2010). Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter?Public Administration Review, 70(5), 801–810.
34.
KlijnE. H.SierraV.YsaT.BermanE.EdelenbosJ.ChenD. Y. (2016). The influence of trust on network performance in Taiwan, Spain, and The Netherlands: A cross-country comparison. International Public Management Journal, 19(1), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1115790
35.
KozinetsR. V. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research. Sage Publications.
36.
LeeD.HosanagarK.NairH. S. (2018). Advertising content and consumer engagement on social media: Evidence from Facebook. Management Science, 64(11), 5105–5131. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2902
37.
LeppertK.SalitererI.KoraćS. (2022). The role of emotions for citizen engagement via social media – A study of police departments using twitter. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101686
38.
LindersD. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
39.
LópezJ. (2022). Jóvenes en la Amazonía: Conectividad, cultura digital y participación. UNESCO.
40.
LuJ.QiL.YuX. (2019). Political trust in the internet context: A comparative study in 36 countries. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.003
MacintoshA. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE Computer Society Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300. >
43.
MansoorM. (2021). Citizens’ trust in government as a function of good governance and government agency’s provision of quality information on social media during COVID-19. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101597
44.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
45.
MeijerA.WebsterC. W. R. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and the information polity: An overview of responses and discussions in twenty-one countries from six continents. Information Polity, 25(3), 243–274. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200006
46.
MillerA.ListhaugO. (1999). Political performance and institutional trust. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198295685.003.0010
47.
MishlerW.RoseR. (1997). Trust, distrust and skepticism: Popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. The Journal of Politics, 59(2), 418–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381600053512
OrlikowskiW. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
50.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
51.
PapacharissiZ. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
52.
PicardR. W. (1997). Affective computing. MIT Press.
53.
PoellT.van DijckJ. (2018). Social media and new protest movements. In BurgessJ.MarwickA.PoellT. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 546–561). Sage Publications.
54.
PorumbescuG. A. (2017). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(5), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015607301
55.
PozzebonM.DinizE. H. (2012). Theorizing ICT and society in the Brazilian context: A multilevel, pluralistic and remixable framework. Brazilian Administration Review, 9(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922012000300004
56.
RanB.QiH. (2018). The entangled twins: Power and trust in collaborative governance. Administration & Society, 51(4), 607–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718801000
RodriguesJ. L.GomesS. C.BorgesF. Q. (2021). Electronic participation via Facebook: The potential from Brazilian municipalities. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(4), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-06-2019-0049
59.
SantaR.MacDonaldJ. B.FerrerM. (2019). The role of trust in e-government effectiveness, operational effectiveness and user satisfaction: Lessons from Saudi Arabia in e-G2B. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.007
60.
ScottS. V.OrlikowskiW. J. (2012). Reconfiguring relations of accountability: Materialization of social media in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.11.005
61.
SeligsonM. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 408–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00132
62.
Souza e SilvaA.TrindadeE. (2020). Digital urban networks: Locative media and social structures. Routledge.
63.
TanS. J.TambyahS. K. (2011). Generalized trust and trust in institutions in Confucian Asia. Social Indicators Research, 103(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9703-7
TufekciZ. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
66.
WuG.DengX.LiuB. (2022). Managing urban citizens’ panic levels and preventive behaviours during COVID-19 with pandemic information released by social media. Cities, 120, 103490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103490
67.
YuanY. P.DwivediY. K.TanG. W.-H.ChamT.-H.OoiK.-B.AwE.-C.CurrieW. (2023). Government digital transformation: Understanding the role of government social media. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), 101775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101775
68.
ZhaoD.HuW. (2015). Determinants of public trust in government: Empirical evidence from urban China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(2), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315582136
