Research Handbook on Open Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Handbook edited by Edited by Mila Gascó-Hernandez, Aryamala Prasad , J. Ramon Gil-Garcia , and Theresa A. Pardo: “In the past decade, open government has received renewed attention. It has increasingly been acknowledged globally as necessary to enhance democratic governance by building on the pillars of transparency, participation, and collaboration (Gil-Garcia et al., 2020). Transnational multistakeholder initiatives, such as the Open Government Partnership, have fostered the development of open government by raising awareness about the concept and encouraging reforms in member countries. In this respect, many countries at the local, state, and federal levels have implemented open government initiatives in different policy domains and government functions, such as procurement, policing, education, and public budgeting. More recently, the emergence of digital technologies to facilitate innovative and collaborative approaches to open government is setting these new efforts apart from previous ones, designed to strengthen information access and transparency. Building a new shared understanding of open government, how various contexts shape the perceptions of open government by different stakeholders, and the ways in which digital technologies can advance open government is important for both research and practice…

the Handbook is structured into five sections, each dedicated to highlighting important facets of open government. Part I delves into the historical evolution of open government, setting the stage for the rest of the Handbook. In Part II, the Handbook presents research on the core components of open government, offering invaluable insights on transparency, participation, and collaboration. Part III focuses on the application of open government across diverse policy domains. Shifting focus, Part IV discusses open government implementation within different geographical and national contexts. Finally, Part V introduces emerging trends in open government research. As a whole, the Handbook offers a comprehensive view of open government, from its origins to its contemporary progress and future trends…(More)”.

Announcing the Youth Engagement Toolkit for Responsible Data Reuse: An Innovative Methodology for the Future of Data-Driven Services

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Elena Murray, Moiz Shaikh, and Stefaan G. Verhulst: “Young people seeking essential services — whether mental health support, education, or government benefits — often face a critical challenge: they are asked to share their data without having a say in how it is used or for what purpose. While the responsible use of data can help tailor services to better meet their needs and ensure that vulnerable populations are not overlooked, a lack of trust in data collection and usage can have the opposite effect.

When young people feel uncertain or uneasy about how their data is being handled, they may adopt privacy-protective behaviors — choosing not to seek services at all or withholding critical information out of fear of misuse. This risks deepening existing inequalities rather than addressing them.

To build trust, those designing and delivering services must engage young people meaningfully in shaping data practices. Understanding their concerns, expectations, and values is key to aligning data use with their preferences. But how can this be done effectively?

This question was at the heart of a year-long global collaboration through the NextGenData project, which brought together partners worldwide to explore solutions. Today, we are releasing a key deliverable of that project: The Youth Engagement Toolkit for Responsible Data Reuse:

Based on a methodology developed and piloted during the NextGenData project, the Toolkit describes an innovative methodology for engaging young people on responsible data reuse practices, to improve services that matter to them…(More)”.

Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Margaret Talbot: “If you have spent time on Wikipedia—and especially if you’ve delved at all into the online encyclopedia’s inner workings—you will know that it is, in almost every aspect, the inverse of Trumpism. That’s not a statement about its politics. The thousands of volunteer editors who write, edit, and fact-check the site manage to adhere remarkably well, over all, to one of its core values: the neutral point of view. Like many of Wikipedia’s s principles and procedures, the neutral point of view is the subject of a practical but sophisticated epistemological essay posted on Wikipedia. Among other things, the essay explains, N.P.O.V. means not stating opinions as facts, and also, just as important, not stating facts as opinions. (So, for example, the third sentence of the entry titled “Climate change” states, with no equivocation, that “the current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution.”)…So maybe it should come as no surprise that Elon Musk has lately taken time from his busy schedule of dismantling the federal government, along with many of its sources of reliable information, to attack Wikipedia. On January 21st, after the site updated its page on Musk to include a reference to the much-debated stiff-armed salute he made at a Trump inaugural event, he posted on X that “since legacy media propaganda is considered a ‘valid’ source by Wikipedia, it naturally simply becomes an extension of legacy media propaganda!” He urged people not to donate to the site: “Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored!” It’s worth taking a look at how the incident is described on Musk’s page, quite far down, and judging for yourself. What I see is a paragraph that first describes the physical gesture (“Musk thumped his right hand over his heart, fingers spread wide, and then extended his right arm out, emphatically, at an upward angle, palm down and fingers together”), goes on to say that “some” viewed it as a Nazi or a Roman salute, then quotes Musk disparaging those claims as “politicized,” while noting that he did not explicitly deny them. (There is also now a separate Wikipedia article, “Elon Musk salute controversy,” that goes into detail about the full range of reactions.)

This is not the first time Musk has gone after the site. In December, he posted on X, “Stop donating to Wokepedia.” And that wasn’t even his first bad Wikipedia pun. “I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to Dickipedia,” he wrote, in an October, 2023, post. It seemed to be an ego thing at first. Musk objected to being described on his page as an “early investor” in Tesla, rather than as a founder, which is how he prefers to be identified, and seemed frustrated that he couldn’t just buy the site. But lately Musk’s beef has merged with a general conviction on the right that Wikipedia—which, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source that relies on original reporting and research done by other media and scholars—is biased against conservatives.

The Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind the Project 2025 policy blueprint, has plans to unmask Wikipedia editors who maintain their privacy using pseudonyms (these usernames are displayed in the article history but don’t necessarily make it easy to identify the people behind them) and whose contributions on Israel it deems antisemitic…(More)”.

Citizen participation and technology: lessons from the fields of deliberative democracy and science and technology studies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Julian “Iñaki” Goñi: “Calls for democratising technology are pervasive in current technological discourse. Indeed, participating publics have been mobilised as a core normative aspiration in Science and Technology Studies (STS), driven by a critical examination of “expertise”. In a sense, democratic deliberation became the answer to the question of responsible technological governance, and science and technology communication. On the other hand, calls for technifying democracy are ever more pervasive in deliberative democracy’s discourse. Many new digital tools (“civic technologies”) are shaping democratic practice while navigating a complex political economy. Moreover, Natural Language Processing and AI are providing novel alternatives for systematising large-scale participation, automated moderation and setting up participation. In a sense, emerging digital technologies became the answer to the question of how to augment collective intelligence and reconnect deliberation to mass politics. In this paper, I explore the mutual shaping of (deliberative) democracy and technology (studies), highlighting that without careful consideration, both disciplines risk being reduced to superficial symbols in discourses inclined towards quick solutionism. This analysis highlights the current disconnect between Deliberative Democracy and STS, exploring the potential benefits of fostering closer links between the two fields. Drawing on STS insights, the paper argues that deliberative democracy could be enriched by a deeper engagement with the material aspects of democratic processes, the evolving nature of civic technologies through use, and a more critical approach to expertise. It also suggests that STS scholars would benefit from engaging more closely with democratic theory, which could enhance their analysis of public participation, bridge the gap between descriptive richness and normative relevance, and offer a more nuanced understanding of the inner functioning of political systems and politics in contemporary democracies…(More)”.

Legitimacy: Working hypotheses

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by TIAL: “Today more than ever, legitimacy is a vital resource for institutions seeking to lead and sustain impactful change. Yet, it can be elusive.

What does it truly mean for an institution to be legitimate? This publication delves into legitimacy as both a practical asset and a dynamic process, offering institutional entrepreneurs the tools to understand, build, and sustain it over time.

Legitimacy is not a static quality, nor is it purely theoretical. Instead, it’s grounded in the beliefs of those who interact with or are governed by an institution. These beliefs shape whether people view an institution’s authority as rightful and worth supporting. Drawing from social science research and real-world insights, this publication provides a framework to help institutional entrepreneurs address one of the most important challenges of institutional design: ensuring their legitimacy is sufficient to achieve their goals.

The paper emphasizes that legitimacy is relational and contextual. Institutions gain it through three primary sources: outcomes (delivering results), fairness (ensuring just processes), and correct procedures (following accepted norms). However, the need for legitimacy varies depending on the institution’s size, scope, and mission. For example, a body requiring elite approval may need less legitimacy than one relying on mass public trust.

Legitimacy is also dynamic—it ebbs and flows in response to external factors like competition, crises, and shifting societal narratives. Institutional entrepreneurs must anticipate these changes and actively manage their strategies for maintaining legitimacy. This publication highlights actionable steps for doing so, from framing mandates strategically to fostering public trust through transparency and communication.

By treating legitimacy as a resource that evolves over time, institutional entrepreneurs can ensure their institutions remain relevant, trusted, and effective in addressing pressing societal challenges.

Key takeaways

  • Legitimacy is the belief by an audience that an institution’s authority is rightful.
  • Institutions build legitimacy through outcomes, fairness, and correct procedures.
  • The need for legitimacy depends on an institution’s scope and mission.
  • Legitimacy is dynamic and shaped by external factors like crises and competition.
  • A portfolio approach to legitimacy—balancing outcomes, fairness, and procedure—is more resilient.
  • Institutional entrepreneurs must actively manage perceptions and adapt to changing contexts.
  • This publication offers practical frameworks to help institutional entrepreneurs build and sustain legitimacy…(More)”.

China wants tech companies to monetize data, but few are buying in

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Lizzi C. Lee: “Chinese firms generate staggering amounts of data daily, from ride-hailing trips to online shopping transactions. A recent policy allowed Chinese companies to record data as assets on their balance sheets, the first such regulation in the world, paving the way for data to be traded in a marketplace and boost company valuations. 

But uptake has been slow. When China Unicom, one of the world’s largest mobile operators, reported its earnings recently, eagle-eyed accountants spotted that the company had listed 204 million yuan ($28 million) in data assets on its balance sheet. The state-owned operator was the first Chinese tech giant to take advantage of the Ministry of Finance’s new corporate data policy, which permits companies to classify data as inventory or intangible assets. 

“No other country is trying to do this on a national level. It could drive global standards of data management and accounting,” Ran Guo, an affiliated researcher at the Asia Society Policy Institute specializing in data governance in China, told Rest of World. 

In 2023 alone, China generated 32.85 zettabytes — more than 27% of the global total, according to a government survey. To put that in perspective, storing this volume on standard 1-terabyte hard drives would require more than 32 billion units….Tech companies that are data-rich are well-positioned tobenefit from logging data as assets to turn the formalized assets into tradable commodities, said Guo. But companies must first invest in secure storage and show that the data is legally obtained in order to meet strict government rules on data security. 

“This can be costly and complex,” he said. “Not all data qualifies as an asset, and companies must meet stringent requirements.” 

Even China Unicom, a state-owned enterprise, is likely complying with the new policy due to political pressure rather than economic incentive, said Guo, who conducted field research in China last year on the government push for data resource development. The telecom operator did not respond to a request for comment. 

Private technology companies in China, meanwhile, tend to be protective of their data. A Chinese government statement in 2022 pushed private enterprises to “open up their data.” But smaller firms could lack the resources to meet the stringent data storage and consumer protection standards, experts and Chinese tech company employees told Rest of World...(More)”.

Redesigning Public Organizations: From “what” to “how

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by the Transition Collective: “Government organizations and their leaders are in a pinch. They are caught between pressures from politicians, citizens and increasingly complex external environments on the one hand — and from civil servants calling for new ways of working, thriving and belonging on the other hand. They have to enable meaningful, joined-up and efficient services for people, leveraging digital and physical resources, while building an attractive organizational culture. Indeed, the challenge is to build systems as human as the people they are intended to serve.

While this creates massive challenges for public sector organizations, this is also an opportunity to reimagine our institutions to meet the challenges of today and the future. To succeed, we must not only think about other models of organization — we also have to think of other ways of changing them.

Traditionally, we think of the organization as something static, a goal we arrive at or a fixed model we decide upon. If asked to describe their organization, most civil servants will point to an organigram — and more often than not it will consist of a number of boxes and lines, ordered in a hierarchy.

But in today’s world of complex challenges, accelerated frequency of change and dynamic interplay between the public sector and its surroundings, such a fixed model is less and less fit for the purposes it must fulfill. Not only does it not allow the collective intelligence and creativity of the organization’s members to be fully unleashed, it also does not allow for the speed and adaptability required by today’s turbulent environment. It does not allow for truly joined up, meaningful human services.

Unfreezing the organization

Rather than thinking mainly about models and forms, we should think of organizational design as an act or a series of actions. In other words, we should think about the organization not just as a what but also as a how: Less as a set of boxes describing a power hierarchy, and more as a set of living, organic roles and relationships. We need to thaw up our organizations from their frozen state — and keep them warmer and more fluid.

In this piece, we suggest that many efforts to reimagine public sector organizations have failed because the challenge of transforming an organization has been underestimated. We draw on concrete experiences from working with international and Danish public sector institutions, in particular in health and welfare services.

We propose a set of four approaches which, taken together, can support the work of redesigning organizations to be more ambitious, free, human, creative and self-managing — and thus better suited to meet the ever more complex challenges they are faced with…(More)”.

Open Data Under Attack: How to Find Data and Why It Is More Important Than Ever

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jessica Hilburn: “This land was made for you and me, and so was the data collected with our taxpayer dollars. Open data is data that is accessible, shareable, and able to be used by anyone. While any person, company, or organization can create and publish open data, the federal and state governments are by far the largest providers of open data.

President Barack Obama codified the importance of government-created open data in his May 9, 2013, executive order as a part of the Open Government Initiative. This initiative was meant to “ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration” in furtherance of strengthening democracy and increasing efficiency. The initiative also launched Project Open Data (since replaced by the Resources.data.gov platform), which documented best practices and offered tools so government agencies in every sector could open their data and contribute to the collective public good. As has been made readily apparent, the era of public good through open data is now under attack.

Immediately after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders, many of which targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for removal in federal government operations. Unsurprisingly, a large number of federal datasets include information dealing with diverse populations, equitable services, and inclusion of marginalized groups. Other datasets deal with information on topics targeted by those with nefarious agendas—vaccination rates, HIV/AIDS, and global warming, just to name a few. In the wake of these executive orders, datasets and website pages with blacklisted topics, tags, or keywords suddenly disappeared—more than 8,000 of them. In addition, President Trump fired the National Archivist, and top National Archives and Records Administration officials are being ousted, putting the future of our collective history at enormous risk.

While it is common practice to archive websites and information in the transition between administrations, it is unprecedented for the incoming administration to cull data altogether. In response, unaffiliated organizations are ramping up efforts to separately archive data and information for future preservation and access. Web scrapers are being used to grab as much data as possible, but since this method is automated, data requiring a login or bot challenger (like a captcha) is left behind. The future information gap that researchers will be left to grapple with could be catastrophic for progress in crucial areas, including weather, natural disasters, and public health. Though there are efforts to put out the fire, such as the federal order to restore certain resources, the people’s library is burning. The losses will be permanently felt…Data is a weapon, whether we like it or not. Free and open access to information—about democracy, history, our communities, and even ourselves—is the foundation of library service. It is time for anyone who continues to claim that libraries are not political to wake up before it is too late. Are libraries still not political when the Pentagon barred library access for tens of thousands of American children attending Pentagon schools on military bases while they examined and removed supposed “radical indoctrination” books? Are libraries still not political when more than 1,000 unique titles are being targeted for censorship annually, and soft censorship through preemptive restriction to avoid controversy is surely occurring and impossible to track? It is time for librarians and library workers to embrace being political.

In a country where the federal government now denies that certain people even exist, claims that children are being indoctrinated because they are being taught the good and bad of our nation’s history, and rescinds support for the arts, humanities, museums, and libraries, there is no such thing as neutrality. When compassion and inclusion are labeled the enemy and the diversity created by our great American experiment is lambasted as a social ill, claiming that libraries are neutral or apolitical is not only incorrect, it’s complicit. To update the quote, information is the weapon in the war of ideas. Librarians are the stewards of information. We don’t want to be the Americans who protested in 1933 at the first Nazi book burnings and then, despite seeing the early warning signs of catastrophe, retreated into the isolation of their own concerns. The people’s library is on fire. We must react before all that is left of our profession is ash…(More)”.

Emerging Practices in Participatory AI Design in Public Sector Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Devansh Saxena, et al: “Local and federal agencies are rapidly adopting AI systems to augment or automate critical decisions, efficiently use resources, and improve public service delivery. AI systems are being used to support tasks associated with urban planning, security, surveillance, energy and critical infrastructure, and support decisions that directly affect citizens and their ability to access essential services. Local governments act as the governance tier closest to citizens and must play a critical role in upholding democratic values and building community trust especially as it relates to smart city initiatives that seek to transform public services through the adoption of AI. Community-centered and participatory approaches have been central for ensuring the appropriate adoption of technology; however, AI innovation introduces new challenges in this context because participatory AI design methods require more robust formulation and face higher standards for implementation in the public sector compared to the private sector. This requires us to reassess traditional methods used in this space as well as develop new resources and methods. This workshop will explore emerging practices in participatory algorithm design – or the use of public participation and community engagement – in the scoping, design, adoption, and implementation of public sector algorithms…(More)”.

Data equity and official statistics in the age of private sector data proliferation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Pietro Gennari: “Over the last few years, the private sector has become a primary generator of data due to widespread digitisation of the economy and society, the use of social media platforms, and advancements of technologies like the Internet of Things and AI. Unlike traditional sources, these new data streams often offer real-time information and unique insights into people’s behaviour, social dynamics, and economic trends. However, the proprietary nature of most private sector data presents challenges for public access, transparency, and governance that have led to fragmented, often conflicting, data governance arrangements worldwide. This lack of coherence can exacerbate inequalities, limit data access, and restrict data’s utility as a global asset.

Within this context, data equity has emerged as one of the key principles at the basis of any proposal of new data governance framework. The term “data equity” refers to the fair and inclusive access, use, and distribution of data so that it benefits all sections of society, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, or geographic location. It involves making sure that the collection, processing, and use of data does not disproportionately benefit or harm any particular group and seeks to address disparities in data access and quality that can perpetuate social and economic inequalities. This is important because data systems significantly influence access to resources and opportunities in society. In this sense, data equity aims to correct imbalances that have historically affected various groups and to ensure that decision-making based on data does not perpetuate these inequities…(More)”.