• Janssen, Charalabidis, and Zuiderwijk, 2012 (†351)

    Janssen, Marlijn, Yannis Charalabidis, and Anneke Zuiderwijk. "Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government." Information Systems Management 29, no. 4 (2012): 258-268.

Existing Citations

  • open data : In this research, we define open data as non-privacy-restricted and non-confidential data which is produced with public money and is made available without any restrictions on its usage or distribution. Private, confidential, and classified data is excluded, as this type of data is inappropriate to publicize. Data can be provided by public and private organizations, as the essence is that the data is funded by public money. (†333)
  • open data : Open data mends the traditional separation between public organizations and users. The opening of data leads to two important assumptions about government. First, it leads to an assumption of the readiness of public agencies for an opening process which considers influences, discourses, and exchanges as constructive and welcomes opposing views and inputs. Second, it leads to an assumption that government is to give up control, at least to some extent, demanding considerable transformations of the public sector. Instead of reinforcing current processes, open data should result in open government, in which the government acts as an open system and interacts with its environment. Not only should data be published, but they should actively be sought for knowledge on how to improve the government. The publicizing of data could have far-reaching effects on the public sector. Mechanisms for monitoring and responding to the questions asked by the public are therefore necessary, and the government should be viewed as an open system interacting with its environment. (†334)
  • open data : Open data on its own has little intrinsic value; the value is created by its use. (†335)
  • open government : Myth 5: Open Data Will Result in Open Government. Open government promotes transparency and engagement to allow effective oversight. This myth suggests that full, immediate, and widespread disclosure of public data results in an accountable and transparent government (see for example European Commission, 2010). However, at least two main assumptions challenge this myth. The first is that one is able to find the right data and is able to interpret and process the data in a uniform way, whereas the reality is that finding the right data might be difficult, there might be a huge information overload, and large differences in the way open-data analysts and how an individual might analyze the same data may draw different conclusions. Furthermore, open-data sources might not be consistent and may depict to different directions. Second, system theory provides the need for introducing feedback mechanisms to close the loop between the government and those governed. Although there are anecdotal examples, the wider impact is unclear. It is easier to not publish data than to introduce mechanisms to seek feedback and discourse in a climate of decreasing budgets. Creating an open government demands considerable transformations of the public sector. The paradox is that more information does not necessarily result in better, or more democratic, or more rational decisions. More information can result in less understanding, more confusion, and less trust (Strathern, 2000). Experience and tacit knowledge might be lacking among those who should be able to make sense of the open data. Our interviews indicate that transparency might result in better accountability, transparency, and trust, but sometimes has the opposite effect. For example, publicizing data can show that the quality of the data on which important decisions are made is poor. By providing the minutes of city council meetings, people might be shocked about the discussion and lose trust in the decision-making process and the resulting decisions. (†336)