Paper Ben Goldacre and Jonathan Gray at BioMed Central: “OpenTrials is a collaborative and open database for all available structured data and documents on all clinical trials, threaded together by individual trial. With a versatile and expandable data schema, it is initially designed to host and match the following documents and data for each trial: registry entries; links, abstracts, or texts of academic journal papers; portions of regulatory documents describing individual trials; structured data on methods and results extracted by systematic reviewers or other researchers; clinical study reports; and additional documents such as blank consent forms, blank case report forms, and protocols. The intention is to create an open, freely re-usable index of all such information and to increase discoverability, facilitate research, identify inconsistent data, enable audits on the availability and completeness of this information, support advocacy for better data and drive up standards around open data in evidence-based medicine. The project has phase I funding. This will allow us to create a practical data schema and populate the database initially through web-scraping, basic record linkage techniques, crowd-sourced curation around selected drug areas, and import of existing sources of structured and documents. It will also allow us to create user-friendly web interfaces onto the data and conduct user engagement workshops to optimise the database and interface designs. Where other projects have set out to manually and perfectly curate a narrow range of information on a smaller number of trials, we aim to use a broader range of techniques and attempt to match a very large quantity of information on all trials. We are currently seeking feedback and additional sources of structured data….(More)”
New Orleans Gamifies the City Budget
Kelsey E. Thomas at Next City: “New Orleanians can try their hand at being “mayor for a day” with a new interactive website released by the Committee for a Better New Orleans Wednesday.
The Big Easy Budget Game uses open data from the city to allow players to create their own version of an operating budget. Players are given a digital $602 million, and have to balance the budget — keeping in mind the government’s responsibilities, previous year’s spending and their personal priorities.
Each department in the game has a minimum funding level (players can’t just quit funding public schools if they feel like it), and restricted funding, such as state or federal dollars, is off limits.
CBNO hopes to attract 600 players this year, and plans to compile the data from each player into a crowdsourced meta-budget called “The People’s Budget.” Next fall, the People’s Budget will be released along with the city’s proposed 2017 budget.
Along with the budgeting game, CBNO released a more detailed website, also using the city’s open data, that breaks down the city’s budgeted versus actual spending from 2007 to now and is filterable. The goal is to allow users without big data experience to easily research funding relevant to their neighborhoods.
Many cities have been releasing interactive websites to make their data more accessible to residents. Checkbook NYC updates more than $70 billion in city expenses daily and breaks them down by transaction. Fiscal Focus Pittsburgh is an online visualization tool that outlines revenues and expenses in the city’s budget….(More)”
Open data and the API economy: when it makes sense to give away data
Joe McKendrick at ZDNet: “Open data is one of those refreshing trends that flows in the opposite direction of the culture of fear that has developed around data security. Instead of putting data under lock and key, surrounded by firewalls and sandboxes, some organizations see value in making data available to all comers — especially developers.
The GovLab.org, a nonprofit advocacy group, published an overview of the benefits governments and organizations are realizing from open data, as well as some of the challenges. The group defines open data as “publicly available data that can be universally and readily accessed, used and redistributed free of charge. It is structured for usability and computability.”…
For enterprises, an open-data stance may be the fuel to build a vibrant ecosystem of developers and business partners. Scott Feinberg, API architect for The New York Times, is one of the people helping to lead the charge to open-data ecosystems. In a recent CXOTalk interview with ZDNet colleague Michael Krigsman, he explains how through the NYT APIs program, developers can sign up for access to 165 years worth of content.
But it requires a lot more than simply throwing some APIs out into the market. Establishing such a comprehensive effort across APIs requires a change in mindset that many organizations may not be ready for, Feinberg cautions. “You can’t be stingy,” he says. “You have to just give it out. When we launched our developer portal there’s a lot of questions like, are people going to be stealing our data, questions like that. Just give it away. You don’t have to give it all but don’t be stingy, and you will find that first off not that many people are going to use it at first. you’re going to find that out, but the people who do, you’re going to find those passionate people who are really interested in using your data in new ways.”
Feinberg clarifies that the NYT’s APIs are not giving out articles for free. Rather, he explains, “we give is everything but article content. You can search for articles. You can find out what’s trending. You can almost do anything you want with our data through our APIs with the exception of actually reading all of the content. It’s really about giving people the opportunity to really interact with your content in ways that you’ve never thought of, and empowering your community to figure out what they want. You know while we don’t give our actual article text away, we give pretty much everything else and people build a lot of really cool stuff on top of that.”
Open data sets, of course, have to worthy of the APIs that offer them. In his post, Borne outlines the seven qualities open data needs to have to be of value to developers and consumers. (Yes, they’re also “Vs” like big data.)
- Validity: It’s “critical to pay attention to these data validity concerns when your organization’s data are exposed to scrutiny and inspection by others,” Borne states.
- Value: The data needs to be the font of new ideas, new businesses, and innovations.
- Variety: Exposing the wide variety of data available can be “a scary proposition for any data scientist,” Borne observes, but nonetheless is essential.
- Voice: Remember that “your open data becomes the voice of your organization to your stakeholders.”
- Vocabulary: “The semantics and schema (data models) that describe your data are more critical than ever when you provide the data for others to use,” says Borne. “Search, discovery, and proper reuse of data all require good metadata, descriptions, and data modeling.”
- Vulnerability: Accept that open data, because it is so open, will be subjected to “misuse, abuse, manipulation, or alteration.”
- proVenance: This is the governance requirement behind open data offerings. “Provenance includes ownership, origin, chain of custody, transformations that been made to it, processing that has been applied to it (including which versions of processing software were used), the data’s uses and their context, and more,” says Borne….(More)”
When open data is a Trojan Horse: The weaponization of transparency in science and governance
Openness and transparency are becoming hallmarks of responsible data practice in science and governance. Concerns about data falsification, erroneous analysis, and misleading presentation of research results have recently strengthened the call for new procedures that ensure public accountability for data-driven decisions. Though we generally count ourselves in favor of increased transparency in data practice, this Commentary highlights a caveat. We suggest that legislative efforts that invoke the language of data transparency can sometimes function as “Trojan Horses” through which other political goals are pursued. Framing these maneuvers in the language of transparency can be strategic, because approaches that emphasize open access to data carry tremendous appeal, particularly in current political and technological contexts. We illustrate our argument through two examples of pro-transparency policy efforts, one historical and one current: industry-backed “sound science” initiatives in the 1990s, and contemporary legislative efforts to open environmental data to public inspection. Rules that exist mainly to impede science-based policy processes weaponize the concept of data transparency. The discussion illustrates that, much as Big Data itself requires critical assessment, the processes and principles that attend it—like transparency—also carry political valence, and, as such, warrant careful analysis….(More)”
Liberating data for public value: The case of Data.gov
Paper by Rashmi Krishnamurthy and Yukika Awazu in the International Journal of Information Management: “Public agencies around the globe are liberating their data. Drawing on a case of Data.gov, we outline the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the liberation of public data. Data.gov is an online portal that provides open access to datasets generated by US public agencies and countries around the world in a machine-readable format. By discussing the challenges and opportunities faced by Data.gov, we provide several lessons that can inform research and practice. We suggest that providing access to open data in itself does not spur innovation. Specifically, we claim that public agencies need to spend resources to improve the capacities of their organizations to move toward ‘open data by default’; develop capacities of community to use data to solve problems; and think critically about the unintended consequences of providing access to public data. We also suggest that public agencies need better metrics to evaluate the success of open-data efforts in achieving its goals….(More)”
Open Data Impact: When Demand and Supply Meet
Stefaan Verhulst and Andrew Young at the GovLab: “Today, in “Open Data Impact: When Demand and Supply Meet,” the GovLab and Omidyar Network release key findings about the social, economic, cultural and political impact of open data. The findings are based on 19 detailed case studies of open data projects from around the world. These case studies were prepared in order to address an important shortcoming in our understanding of when, and how, open data works. While there is no shortage of enthusiasm for open data’s potential, nor of conjectural estimates of its hypothetical impact, few rigorous, systematic analyses exist of its concrete, real-world impact…. The 19 case studies that inform this report, all of which can be found at Open Data’s Impact (odimpact.org), a website specially set up for this project, were chosen for their geographic and sectoral representativeness. They seek to go beyond the descriptive (what happened) to the explanatory (why it happened, and what is the wider relevance or impact)….
In order to achieve the potential of open data and scale the impact of the individual projects discussed in our report, we need a better – and more granular – understanding of the enabling conditions that lead to success. We found 4 central conditions (“4Ps”) that play an important role in ensuring success:
- Partnerships: Intermediaries and data collaboratives play an important role in ensuring success, allowing for enhanced matching of supply and demand of data.
- Public infrastructure: Developing open data as a public infrastructure, open to all, enables wider participation, and a broader impact across issues and sectors.
- Policies: Clear policies regarding open data, including those promoting regular assessments of open data projects, are also critical for success.
- Problem definition: Open data initiatives that have a clear target or problem definition have more impact and are more likely to succeed than those with vaguely worded statements of intent or unclear reasons for existence.
Core Challenges
Finally, the success of a project is also determined by the obstacles and challenges it confronts. Our research uncovered 4 major challenges (“4Rs”) confronting open data initiatives across the globe:
- Readiness: A lack of readiness or capacity (evident, for example, in low Internet penetration or technical literacy rates) can severely limit the impact of open data.
- Responsiveness: Open data projects are significantly more likely to be successful when they remain agile and responsive—adapting, for instance, to user feedback or early indications of success and failure.
- Risks: For all its potential, open data does pose certain risks, notably to privacy and security; a greater, more nuanced understanding of these risks will be necessary to address and mitigate them.
- Resource Allocation: While open data projects can often be launched cheaply, those projects that receive generous, sustained and committed funding have a better chance of success over the medium and long term.
Toward a Next Generation Open Data Roadmap
The report we release today concludes with ten recommendations for policymakers, advocates, users, funders and other stakeholders in the open data community. For each step, we include a few concrete methods of implementation – ways to translate the broader recommendation into meaningful impact.
Together, these 10 recommendations and their means of implementation amount to what we call a “Next Generation Open Data Roadmap.” This roadmap is just a start, and we plan to continue fleshing it out in the near future. For now, it offers a way forward. It is our hope that this roadmap will help guide future research and experimentation so that we can continue to better understand how the potential of open data can be fulfilled across geographies, sectors and demographics.
Additional Resources
In conjunction with the release of our key findings paper, we also launch today an “Additional Resources” section on the Open Data’s Impact website. The goal of that section is to provide context on our case studies, and to point in the direction of other, complementary research. It includes the following elements:
- A “repository of repositories,” including other compendiums of open data case studies and sources;
- A compilation of some popular open data glossaries;
- A number of open data research publications and reports, with a particular focus on impact;
- A collection of open data definitions and a matrix of analysis to help assess those definitions….(More)
A new data viz tool shows what stories are being undercovered in countries around the world
“It’s a common lament: Though the Internet provides us access to a nearly unlimited number of sources for news, most of us rarely venture beyond the same few sources or topics. And as news consumption shifts to our phones, people are using even fewer sources: On average, consumers access 1.52 trusted news sources on their phones, according to the 2015 Reuters Digital News Report, which studied news consumption across several countries.
To try and diversify people’s perspectives on the news, Jigsaw — the techincubator, formerly known as Google Ideas, that’s run by Google’s parentcompany Alphabet — this week launched Unfiltered.News, an experimentalsite that uses Google News data to show users what topics are beingunderreported or are popular in regions around the world.
Unfiltered.News’ main data visualization shows which topics are most reported in countries around the world. A column on the right side of the page highlights stories that are being reported widely elsewhere in the world, but aren’t in the top 100 stories on Google News in the selected country. In the United States yesterday, five of the top 10 underreported topics, unsurprisingly, dealt with soccer. In China, Barack Obama was the most undercovered topic….(More)”
Crowdlaw and open data policy: A perfect match?
Stephen Larrick at Sunlight: “The open government community has long envisioned a future where all public policy is collaboratively drafted online and in the open — a future in which we (the people) don’t just have a say in who writes and votes on the rules that govern our society, but are empowered in a substantive way to participate, annotating or even crafting those rules ourselves. If that future seems far away, it’s because we’ve seen few successful instances of this approach in the United States. But an increasing amount of open and collaborative online approaches to drafting legislation — a set of practices the NYU GovLab and others have called “crowdlaw” — seem to have found their niche in open data policy.
This trend has taken hold at the local level, where multiple cities have employed crowdlaw techniques to draft or revise the regulations which establish and govern open data initiatives. But what explains this trend and the apparent connection between crowdlaw and the proactive release of government information online? Is it simply that both are “open government” practices? Or is there something more fundamental at play here?…
Since 2012, several high-profile U.S. cities have utilized collaborative tools such as Google Docs,GitHub, and Madison to open up the process of open data policymaking. The below chronology of notable instances of open data policy drafted using crowdlaw techniques gives the distinct impression of a good idea spreading in American cities:….
While many cities may not be ready to take their hands off of the wheel and trust the public to help engage in meaningful decisions about public policy, it’s encouraging to see some giving it a try when it comes to open data policy. Even for cities still feeling skeptical, this approach can be applied internally; it allows other departments impacted by changes that come about through an open data policy to weigh in, too. Cities can open up varying degrees of the process, retaining as much autonomy as they feel comfortable with. In the end, utilizing the crowdlaw process with open data legislation can increase its effectiveness and accountability by engaging the public directly — a win-win for governments and their citizens alike….(More)”
Cities, Data, and Digital Innovation
Paper by Mark Kleinman: “Developments in digital innovation and the availability of large-scale data sets create opportunities for new economic activities and new ways of delivering city services while raising concerns about privacy. This paper defines the terms Big Data, Open Data, Open Government, and Smart Cities and uses two case studies – London (U.K.) and Toronto – to examine questions about using data to drive economic growth, improve the accountability of government to citizens, and offer more digitally enabled services. The paper notes that London has been one of a handful of cities at the forefront of the Open Data movement and has been successful in developing its high-tech sector, although it has so far been less innovative in the use of “smart city” technology to improve services and lower costs. Toronto has also made efforts to harness data, although it is behind London in promoting Open Data. Moreover, although Toronto has many assets that could contribute to innovation and economic growth, including a growing high-technology sector, world-class universities and research base, and its role as a leading financial centre, it lacks a clear narrative about how these assets could be used to promote the city. The paper draws some general conclusions about the links between data innovation and economic growth, and between open data and open government, as well as ways to use big data and technological innovation to ensure greater efficiency in the provision of city services…(More)“
Research and Evaluation of Participatory Budgeting in the U.S. and Canada
Public Agenda: “Communities across the country are experimenting with participatory budgeting (PB), a democratic process in which residents decide together how to spend part of a public budget. Learning more about how these community efforts are implemented and with what results will help improve and expand successful forms of participatory budgeting across the U.S. and Canada.
Public Agenda is supporting local evaluation efforts and sharing research on participatory budgeting. Specifically, we are:
- Building a community of practice among PB evaluators and researchers.
- Working with evaluators and researchers to make data and research findings comparable across communities that use participatory budgeting.
- Developing key metrics and research tools to help evaluate participatory budgeting (download these documents here).
- Publishing a “Year in Participatory Budgeting Research” review based on data, findings, experiences and challenges from sites in the U.S. and Canada.
- Conducting original, independent research on elected officials’ views of and experiences with participatory budgeting.
- Convening the North American Participatory Budgeting Research Board.
…Below, you will find evaluation tools and resources we developed in close collaboration with PB evaluators and researchers in the U.S. and Canada. We also included the local evaluation reports from communities around the U.S. and Canada using PB in budget decisions.
To be the first to hear about new PB resources and news, join our email list. We also invite you to email us to join our listserv and participate in discussion about evaluation and research of participatory budgeting in the U.S. and Canada.
New to PB and looking to introduce it to your community? You should start here instead! Once your PB effort is under way, come back to this page for tools to evaluate how you’re doing.
15 Key Metrics for Evaluating Participatory Budgeting: A Toolkit for Evaluators and Implementers
Evaluation is a critical component of any PB effort. Systematic and formal evaluation can help people who introduce, implement, participate in or otherwise have a stake in PB understand how participatory budgeting is growing, what its reach is, and how it’s impacting the community and beyond.
We developed the 15 Key Metrics for Evaluating Participatory Budgeting toolkit for people interested in evaluating PB efforts in their communities. It is meant to encourage and support some common research goals across PB sites and meaningfully inform local and national discussions about PB in the U.S. and Canada. It is the first iteration of such a toolkit and especially focused on providing practical and realistic guidance for the evaluation of new and relatively new PB processes.
Anyone involved in public engagement or participation efforts other than participatory budgeting may also be interested in reviewing the toolkit for research and evaluation ideas.
The toolkit requires registration before you can download.
The toolkit includes the following sections:
15 Key Metrics for Evaluating Participatory Budgeting: 15 indicators (“metrics”) that capture important elements of each community-based PB process and the PB movement in North America overall. Click here for a brief description of these metrics….(More)”