Paper by Josefin Lassinantti at the International Journal of Public Information Systems: “Despite the growing number of open data, re-use of this data is not reaching the expected levels and now this phenomenon seems hampered in its evolvement. Therefore, this study sets out to characterize the re-use of open data from public sector in order to increase our elaborate understanding of this practice, and does so by performing a literature review inspired by the processes for defining concepts, and contextualized within the historical evolvement of European open data policies. Apart from the identification of three main research approaches towards open data re-use and an elaborated definition of re-use, the findings led to the creation of a framework enabling us to see open data re-use as an iterative value-creating process in two different contexts, the public task context and the non-public task context. This process builds on three categories of meta-activities for reuse practice: 1) gaining access to and understanding data, 2) handling and re-purposing the data, and 3) creating broader value of data, as well as indications of value for whom. Lastly, implications of this re-use process and framework was discussed, along with implications of an identified practice-policy mismatch that risk hampering the future evolvement of open data re-use….(More)”.
Data Protection and Digital Agency for Refugees
Paper by Dragana Kaurin: “For the millions of refugees fleeing conflict and persecution every year, access to information about their rights and control over their personal data are crucial for their ability to assess risk and navigate the asylum process. While asylum seekers are required to provide significant amounts of personal information on their journey to safety, they are rarely fully informed of their data rights by UN agencies or local border control and law enforcement staff tasked with obtaining and processing their personal information. Despite recent improvements in data protection mechanisms in the European Union, refugees’ informed consent for the collection and use of their personal data is rarely sought. Using examples drawn from interviews with refugees who have arrived in Europe since 2013, and an analysis of the impacts of the 2016 EU-Turkey deal on migration, this paper analyzes how the vast amount of data collected from refugees is gathered, stored and shared today, and considers the additional risks this collection process poses to an already vulnerable population navigating a perilous information-decision gap….(More)”.
Crowdsourcing Research Questions? Leveraging the Crowd’s Experiential Knowledge for Problem Finding
Paper by Tiare-Maria Brasseur, Susanne Beck, Henry Sauermann, Marion Poetz: “Recently, both researchers and policy makers have become increasingly interested in involving the general public (i.e., the crowd) in the discovery of new science-based knowledge. There has been a boom of citizen science/crowd science projects (e.g., Foldit or Galaxy Zoo) and global policy aspirations for greater public engagement in science (e.g., Horizon Europe). At the same time, however, there are also criticisms or doubts about this approach. Science is complex and laypeople often do not have the appropriate knowledge base for scientific judgments, so they rely on specialized experts (i.e., scientists) (Scharrer, Rupieper, Stadtler & Bromme, 2017). Given these two perspectives, there is no consensus on what the crowd can do and what only researchers should do in scientific processes yet (Franzoni & Sauermann, 2014). Previous research demonstrates that crowds can be efficiently and effectively used in late stages of the scientific research process (i.e., data collection and analysis). We are interested in finding out what crowds can actually contribute to research processes that goes beyond data collection and analysis. Specifically, this paper aims at providing first empirical insights on how to leverage not only the sheer number of crowd contributors, but also their diversity in experience for early phases of the research process (i.e., problem finding). In an online and field experiment, we develop and test suitable mechanisms for facilitating the transfer of the crowd’s experience into scientific research questions. In doing so, we address the following two research questions: 1. What factors influence crowd contributors’ ability to generate research questions? 2. How do research questions generated by crowd members differ from research questions generated by scientists in terms of quality? There are strong claims about the significant potential of people with experiential knowledge, i.e., sticky problem knowledge derived from one’s own practical experience and practices (Collins & Evans, 2002), to enhance the novelty and relevance of scientific research (e.g., Pols, 2014). Previous evidence that crowds with experiential knowledge (e.g., users in Poetz & Schreier, 2012) or ?outsiders?/nonobvious individuals (Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010) can outperform experts under certain conditions by having novel perspectives, support the assumption that the participation of non-scientists (i.e., crowd members) in scientific problem-finding might complement scientists’ lack of experiential knowledge. Furthermore, by bringing in exactly these new perspectives, they might help overcome problems of fixation/inflexibility in cognitive-search processes among scientists (Acar & van den Ende, 2016). Thus, crowd members with (higher levels of) experiential knowledge are expected to be superior in identifying very novel and out-of-the-box research problems with high practical relevance, as compared to scientists. However, there are clear reasons to be skeptical: despite their advantage to possess important experiential knowledge, the crowd lacks the scientific knowledge we assume to be required to formulate meaningful research questions. To study exactly how the transfer of crowd members’ experiential knowledge into science can be facilitated, we conducted two experimental studies in context of traumatology (i.e., research on accidental injuries). First, we conducted a large-scale online experiment (N=704) in collaboration with an international crowdsourcing platform to test the effect of two facilitating treatments on crowd members’ ability to formulate real research questions (study 1). We used a 2 (structuring knowledge/no structuring knowledge) x 2 (science knowledge/no science knowledge) between-subject experimental design. Second, we tested the same treatments in the field (study 2), i.e., in a crowdsourcing project in collaboration with LBG Open Innovation in Science Center. We invited patients, care takers and medical professionals (e.g., surgeons, physical therapists or nurses) concerned with accidental injuries to submit research questions using a customized online platform (https://tell-us.online/) to investigate the causal relationship between our treatments and different types and levels of experiential knowledge (N=118). An international jury of experts (i.e., journal editors in the field of traumatology) then assesses the quality of submitted questions (from the online and field experiment) along several quality dimensions (i.e., clarity, novelty, scientific impact, practical impact, feasibility) in an online evaluation process. To assess the net effect of our treatments, we further include a random sample of research questions obtained from early-stage research papers (i.e., conference papers) into the expert evaluation (blind to the source) and compare them with the baseline groups of our experiments. We are currently finalizing the data collection…(More)”.
News in a Digital Age – Comparing the Presentation of News Information over Time and Across Media Platform
Report by Rand Corporation: “Over the past 30 years, the way that Americans consume and share information has changed dramatically. People no longer wait for the morning paper or the evening news. Instead, equipped with smartphones or other digital devices, the average person spends hours each day online, looking at news or entertainment websites, using social media, and consuming many different types of information. Although some of the changes in the way news and information are disseminated can be quantified, far less is known about how the presentation of news—that is, the linguistic style, perspective, and word choice used when reporting on current events and issues—has changed over this period and how it differs across media platforms.
We aimed to begin to fill this knowledge gap by identifying and empirically measuring how the presentation of news by U.S. news sources has changed over time and how news presentation differs across media platforms….(More)”.
Open government in authoritarian regimes
Paper by Karl O’Connor, Colin Knox and Saltanat Janenova: “Open government has long been regarded as a pareto-efficient policy – after all, who could be against such compelling policy objectives as transparency, accountability, citizen engagement and integrity. This paper addresses why an authoritarian state would adopt a policy of open government, which seems counter-intuitive, and tracks its outworking by examining several facets of the policy in practice. The research uncovers evidence of insidious bureaucratic obstruction and an implementation deficit counter-posed with an outward-facing political agenda to gain international respectability. The result is ‘half-open’ government in which the more benign elements have been adopted but the vested interests of government and business elites remain largely unaffected….(More)”.
Humans and Big Data: New Hope? Harnessing the Power of Person-Centred Data Analytics
Paper by Carmel Martin, Keith Stockman and Joachim P. Sturmberg: “Big data provide the hope of major health innovation and improvement. However, there is a risk of precision medicine based on predictive biometrics and service metrics overwhelming anticipatory human centered sense-making, in the fuzzy emergence of personalized (big data) medicine. This is a pressing issue, given the paucity of individual sense-making data approaches. A human-centric model is described to address the gap in personal particulars and experiences in individual health journeys. The Patient Journey Record System (PaJR) was developed to improve human-centric healthcare by harnessing the power of person-centred data analytics using complexity theory, iterative health services and information systems applications over a 10 year period. PaJR is a web-based service supporting usually bi-weekly telephone calls by care guides to individuals at risk of readmissions.
This chapter describes a case study of the timing and context of readmissions using human (biopsychosocial) particular data which is based on individual experiences and perceptions with differing patterns of instability. This Australian study, called MonashWatch, is a service pilot using the PaJR system in the Dandenong Hospital urban catchment area of the Monash Health network. State public hospital big data – the Victorian HealthLinks Chronic Care algorithm provides case finding for high risk of readmission based on disease and service metrics. Monash Watch was actively monitoring 272 of 376 intervention patients, with 195 controls over 22 months (ongoing) at the time of the study.
Three randomly selected intervention cases describe a dynamic interplay of self-reported change in health and health care, medication, drug and alcohol use, social support structure. While the three cases were at similar predicted risk initially, their cases represented different statistically different time series configurations and admission patterns. Fluctuations in admission were associated with (mal)alignment of bodily health with psychosocial and environmental influences. However human interpretation was required to make sense of the patterns as presented by the multiple levels of data.
A human-centric model and framework for health journey monitoring illustrates the potential for ‘small’ personal experience data to inform clinical care in the era of big data predominantly based on biometrics and medical industrial process. ….(More)”.
Government support is a key factor for civic technology
Blog Post by Rebecca Rumbul: “Civic tech is on a huge growth curve. There is much more of it about now than there was ten years ago. At the same time, it is changing the scope and reach, and becoming much more mainstream. Ten years ago civic tech was hardly spoken about by anyone. It was largely the domain of ‘outsiders’, by which I mean campaigners and data specialists working outside the mainstream. Today civic tech is an accepted, respected and widely used form of engaging citizens.
The movement over that ten years has mostly been gradual, but over the last couple of years, there has been a really significant shift in how civic tech is viewed both by those within and outside the sector. A wider range of funders are more interested in supporting projects, government seems to have woken up to how civic tech can really be a spur to public engagement, and the word is getting out there to people on the street. Quite literally. At mySociety our FixMyStreet app now garners in the region of six thousand citizen reports of things like potholes and fly-tipping every week.
This maturing of attitudes towards and use of civic tech is wonderful to see. Those pioneers who saw a problem wrote a bit of code and put it online as a way of immediately finding a way to fix the problem have seen their often locally focused efforts contribute to the growth of a global phenomenon in a really short space of time. And we are in a process here. There is no doubt that civic tech continues to grow and continues to make an impact way beyond its humble beginnings.
But the way civic tech develops is not uniform around the world, and it does need a number of circumstances to converge to make it really sing. That coming together of citizen awareness, government buy-in and funding support is crucial to its success. And there are other important factors too.
We’ve been researching the impact of civic tech around the world, and one of the most interesting things we’ve learned is that the movement is working with institutions much more today than it did five or ten years ago…(More)“.
Open data could have helped us learn from another mining dam disaster
Paulo A. de Souza Jr. at Nature: “The recent Brumadinho dam disaster in Brazil is an example of infrastructure failure with catastrophic consequences. Over 300 people were reported dead or missing, and nearly 400 more were rescued alive. The environmental impact is massive and difficult to quantify. The frequency of these disasters demonstrates that the current assets for monitoring integrity and generating alerting managers, authorities and the public to ongoing change in tailings are, in many cases, not working as they should. There is also the need for adequate prevention procedures. Monitoring can be perfect, but without timely and appropriate action, it will be useless. Good management therefore requires quality data. Undisputedly, management practices of industrial sites, including audit procedures, must improve, and data and metadata available from preceding accidents should be better used. There is a rich literature available about design, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of tailing facilities. These include guidelines, standards, case studies, technical reports, consultancy and audit practices, and scientific papers. Regulation varies from country to country and in some cases, like Australia and Canada, it is controlled by individual state agencies. There are, however, few datasets available that are shared with the technical and scientific community more globally; particularly for prior incidents. Conspicuously lacking are comprehensive data related to monitoring of large infrastructures such as mining dams.
Today, Scientific Data published a Data Descriptor presenting a dataset obtained from 54 laboratory experiments on the breaching of fluvial dikes because of flow overtopping. (Re)use of such data can help improve our understanding of fundamental processes underpinning industrial infrastructure collapse (e.g., fluvial dike breaching, mining dam failure), and assess the accuracy of numerical models for the prediction of such incidents. This is absolutely essential for better management of floods, mitigation of dam collapses, and similar accidents. The authors propose a framework that could exemplify how data involving similar infrastructure can be stored, shared, published, and reused…(More)”.
When to Use User-Centered Design for Public Policy
Stephen Moilanen at the Stanford Social Innovation Review: “Throughout Barack Obama’s presidency, technology company executives regularly sounded off on what, from their perspective, the administration might do differently. In 2010, Steve Jobs reportedly warned Obama that he likely wouldn’t win reelection, because his administration’s policies disadvantaged businesses like Apple. And in a speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Peter Thiel expressed his disapproval of the political establishment by quipping, “Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East.”
Against this backdrop, one specific way Silicon Valley has tried to nudge Washington in a new direction is with respect to policy development. Specifically, leading technologists have begun encouraging policy makers to apply user-centered design (otherwise known as design thinking or human-centered design) to the public sector. The thinking goes that if government develops policy with users more squarely in mind, it might accelerate social progress rather than—as has often been the case—stifle it.
At a moment when fewer Americans than ever believe government is meeting their needs, a new approach that elevates the voices of citizens is long overdue. Even so, it would be misguided to view user-centered design as a cure-all for what ails the public sector. The approach holds great promise, but only in a well-defined set of circumstances.
User-Centered Design in the Public Policy Arena
The term “user-centered design” refers simply to a method of building products with an eye toward what users want and need.
To date, the approach has been applied primarily to the domain of for-profit start-ups. In recent months and years, however, supporters of user-centered design have sought to introduce it to other domains. A 2013 article authored by the head of a Danish design consultancy, for example, heralded the fact that “public sector design is on this rise.” And in the recent book Lean Impact, former Google executive and USAID official Ann-Mei Chang made an incisive and compelling case for why the social sector stands to benefit from this approach.
According to this line of thinking, we should be driving toward a world where government designs policy with an eye toward the individuals that stand to benefit from—or that could be hurt by—changes to public policy.
An Imperfect Fit
The merits of user-centered design in this context may seem self-evident. Yet it stands in stark contrast to how public sector leaders typically approach policy development. As leading design thinking theorist Jeanne Liedkta notes in her book Design Thinking for the Greater Good, “Innovation and design are [currently] the domain of experts, policy makers, planners and senior leaders. Everyone else is expected to step away.”
But while user-centered design has much to offer the policy development, it does not map perfectly onto this new territory….(More)”.
Living Labs As A Collaborative Framework For Changing Perceptions And Goals
Co-Val: “In the… ‘Report on cross-country comparison on existing innovation and living labs’, Lars Fuglsang and Anne Vorre Hansen from Roskilde University describe various applications of living labs to decision-making. The basic two examples are living labs as a collaborative framework for changing perceptions and goals and living labs as an ecosystem for policy innovation.
Living labs can involve a change in mindset and goals as expressed in one paper on public sector innovation labs (Carstensen & Bason, 2012). Carstensen and Bason (2012) report the important story of the Danish Mindlab (2002-2018) – a cross-governmental innovation lab involving public sector organisations, citizens and businesses in creating new solutions for society. They argue that innovation labs are designed to foster collaboration since labs are platforms where multiple stakeholders can engage in interaction, dialogue, and development activities. Innovation needs a different approach than everyday activities and a change in mindset and culture shift of employees towards thinking more systematically about innovation. Mindlab’s methodologies are anchored in design thinking, qualitative research and policy development, with the aim of capturing the subjective reality experienced by both citizens and businesses in the development of new solutions. Carstensen and Bason (2012) list the following key principles of Mindlab: take charge of on-going renewal, maintain top management backing, create professional empathy, insist on collaboration, do – don’t just think, recruit and develop likeable people, don’t be too big, communicate.
Also, Buhr et al. (2016) show how living labs can be important for developing and implementing collective goals and creating new opportunities for citizens to influence public affairs. They describe two cases in two suburban areas (located in Sweden and Finland), where the living lab approach was used to improve the feeling of belonging in a community. In one of the two suburbs studied, a living lab approach was used to change the lightning on a pathway that seemed unsafe; and in the other case, a living lab approach was used to strengthen the social community by renovating a kiosk and organizing varied activities for the citizens. Both living labs motivated the residents to work on societal goals for sustainability and choose solutions. The study indicates that a living lab approach can be used for gaining support for change and thereby increasing the citizens’ appreciation of a local area. Further, living labs may give citizens a feeling that they are being listened to. Living labs can thus create opportunities for citizens to develop the city together with municipal policy-makers and other stakeholders and enable policy-makers to respond to the expressed needs of the citizens….(More)”