research paper / thesis / dissertation

Democratising the Data Revolution

Curated on July 11, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Jonathan Gray at Open Knowledge: “What will the “data revolution” do? What will it be about? What will it count? What kinds of risks and harms might it bring? Whom and what will it serve? And who will get to decide?

Today we are launching a new discussion paper on “Democratising the Data Revolution”, which is intended to advance thinking and action around civil society engagement with the data revolution. It looks beyond the disclosure of existing information, towards more ambitious and substantive forms of democratic engagement with data infrastructures.¹

It concludes with a series of questions about what practical steps institutions and civil society organisations might take to change what is measured and how, and how these measurements are put to work.

You can download the full PDF report here, or continue to read on in this blog post.

What Counts?

How might civil society actors shape the data revolution? In particular, how might they go beyond the question of what data is disclosed towards looking at what is measured in the first place? To kickstart discussion around this topic, we will look at three kinds of intervention: changing existing forms of measurement, advocating new forms of measurement and undertaking new forms of measurement.

Changing Existing Forms of Measurement

Rather than just focusing on the transparency, disclosure and openness of public information, civil society groups can argue for changing what is measured with existing data infrastructures. One example of this is recent campaigning around company ownership in the UK. Advocacy groups wanted to unpick networks of corporate ownership and control in order to support their campaigning and investigations around tax avoidance, tax evasion and illicit financial flows.

While the UK company register recorded information about “nominal ownership”, it did not include information about so-called “beneficial ownership”, or who ultimately benefits from the ownership and control of companies. Campaigners undertook an extensive programme of activities to advocate for changes and extensions to existing data infrastructures – including via legislation, software systems, and administrative protocols.²

Advocating New Forms of Measurement

As well as changing or recalibrating existing forms of measurement, campaigners and civil society organisations can make the case for the measurement of things which were not previously measured. For example, over the past several decades social and political campaigning has resulted in new indicators about many different issues – such as gender inequality, health, work, disability, pollution or education.³ In such cases activists aimed to establish a given indicator as important and relevant for public institutions, decision makers, and broader publics – in order to, for example, inform policy development or resource allocation.

Undertaking New Forms of Measurement

Historically, many civil society organisations and advocacy groups have collected their own data to make the case for action on issues that they work on – from human rights abuses to endangered species….(More)”

Mining citizen emotions to estimate the urgency of urban issues

Curated on July 9, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Christian Masdeval and Adriano Veloso in Information Systems: “Crowdsourcing technology offers exciting possibilities for local governments. Specifically, citizens are increasingly taking part in reporting and discussing issues related to their neighborhood and problems they encounter on a daily basis, such as overflowing trash-bins, broken footpaths and lifts, illegal graffiti, and potholes. Pervasive citizen participation enables local governments to respond more efficiently to these urban issues. This interaction between citizens and municipalities is largely promoted by civic engagement platforms, such as See-Click-Fix, FixMyStreet, CitySourced, and OpenIDEO, which allow citizens to report urban issues by entering free text describing what needs to be done, fixed or changed. In order to develop appropriate action plans and priorities, government officials need to figure out how urgent are the reported issues. In this paper we propose to estimate the urgency of urban issues by mining different emotions that are implicit in the text describing the issue. More specifically, a reported issue is first categorized according to the emotions expressed in it, and then the corresponding emotion scores are combined in order to produce a final urgency level for the reported issue. Our experiments use the SeeClickFix hackathon data and diverse emotion classification algorithms. They indicate that (i) emotions can be categorized efficiently with supervised learning algorithms, and (ii) the use of citizen emotions leads to accurate urgency estimates. Further, using additional features such as the type of issue or its author leads to no further accuracy gains….(More)”

Defining Public Engagement: A four-level approach.

Curated on July 9, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Della Rucker’s Chapter 2 for an Online Public Engagement Book: “….public engagement typically means presenting information on an project or draft plan and addressing questions or comments. For planners working on long-range issues, such as a comprehensive plan, typical public engagement actions may include feedback questions, such as “what should this area look like?” or “what is your vision for the future of the neighborhood?” Such questions, while inviting participants to take a more active role in the community decision-making than the largely passive viewer/commenter in the first example, still places the resident in a peripheral role: that of an information source, functionally similar to the demographic data and GIS map layers that the professionals use to develop plans.

In a relatively small number of cases, planners and community advocates have found more robust and more direct means of engaging residents in decision -making around the future of their communities. Public engagement specialists, often originating from a community development or academic background, have developed a variety of methods, such as World Cafe and the Fishbowl, that are designed to facilitate more meaningful sharing of information among community residents, often as much with the intent of building connectivity and mutual understanding among residents of different backgrounds as for the purpose of making policy decisions.

Finally, a small but growing number of strategies have begun to emerge that place the work of making community decisions directly in the hands of private residents. Participatory -based budgeting allocates the decision about how to use a portion of a community’s budget to a citizen — based process, and participants work collaboratively through a process that determines what projects or initiatives will be funded in then coming budget cycle. And in the collection of tactics generally known as tactical urbanism or [other names], residents directly intervene in the physical appearance or function of the community by building and placing street furniture, changing parking spaces or driving lanes to pedestrian use, creating and installing new signs, or making other kinds of physical, typically temporary, changes — sometimes with, and sometimes without, the approval of the local government. The purposes of tactical urbanist interventions are twofold: they physically demonstrate the potential impact that more permanent features would have on the community’s transportation and quality of life, and they give residents a concrete and immediate opportunity to impact their environs.

The direct impacts of either participatory budgeting or tactical urbanism intiatives tend to be limited — the amount of budget available for a participatory-based budgeting initiative is usually a fraction of the total budget, and the physical area impacted by a tactical urbanism event is generally limited to a few blocks. Anecdotal evidence from both types of activity, however, seems to indicate an increased understanding of community needs and an increased sense of agency -of having the power to influence one’s community’s future — among participants.

Online public engagement methods have the potential to facilitate a wide variety of public engagement, from making detailed project information more readily available to enabling crowdsourced decision-making around budget and policy choices. However, any discussion of online public engagement methods will soon run up against the same basic challenge: when we use that term, what kind of engagement — what kind of participant experience — are we talking about?

We could divide public participation tasks according to one of several existing organization systems, or taxonomies. The two most commonly used in public engagement theory and practice derive from Sherry R. Arnestein’s 1969 academic paper, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” and the International Association of Public Participation’s Public Participation Spectrum.

Although these two taxonomies reflect the same basic idea — that one’s options in selecting public engagement activities range along a spectrum from generally less to more active engagement on the part of the public — they divide and label the classifications differently. …From my perspective, both of these frameworks capture the central issue of recognizing more to less intensive public engagement options, but the number of divisions and the sometimes abstract wording appears to have made it difficult for these insights to find widespread use outside of an academic context. Practitioners who need to think though these options seem to have some tendency to become tangled in the fine-grained differentiations, and the terminology can both make these distinctions harder to think about and lead to mistaken assumption that one is doing higher-level engagement that is actually the case. Among commercial online public engagement platform providers, blog posts claiming that their tool addresses the whole Spectrum appear on a relatively regular basis, even when the tool in questions is designed for feedback, not decision -making.

For these reasons, this book will use the following framework of engagement types, which is detailed enough to demarcate what I think are the most crucial differentiations while at the same time keeping the framework simple enough to use in routine process planning.

The four engagement types we will talk about are: Telling; Asking; Discussing; Deciding…(More)”

From Mechanism to Virtue: Evaluating Nudge-Theory

Curated on July 6, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by van der Heijden, Jeroen and Kosters, Mark: “Ever since Thaler and Sunstein published their influential Nudge, the book and the theory it presents have received great praise and opposition. Nudge-theory, and more particularly, nudging may be considered an additional strategy providing some novel instruments to the already rich governance toolbox. But what is its value? The current debates on Nudge-theory are often highly normative or ideologically driven and pay limited attention to more practical aspects of the theory: Whether and how is nudging evaluable as a theory and a practice? Whether there is solid evidence available of nudge success over other governance interventions? What is to be considered a nudge success at all? What data and evaluative techniques may assist in evaluating nudging beyond individual cases? The current article seeks to explore these questions… (More)”

Understanding the smart city Domain: A Literature Review

Curated on July 5, 2015August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Leonidas G. Anthopoulos: “Smart Cities appeared in literature in late ‘90s and various approaches have been developed so far. Until today, smart city does not describe a city with particular attributes but it is used to describe different cases in urban spaces: web portals that virtualize cities or city guides; knowledge bases that address local needs; agglomerations with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure that attract business relocation; metropolitan-wide ICT infrastructures that deliver e-services to the citizens; ubiquitous environments; and recently ICT infrastructure for ecological use. Researchers, practicians, businessmen and policy makers consider smart city from different perspectives and most of them agree on a model that measures urban economy, mobility, environment, living, people and governance. On the other hand, ICT and construction industries stress to capitalize smart city and a new market seems to be generated in this domain. This chapter aims to perform a literature review, discover and classify the particular schools of thought, universities and research centres as well as companies that deal with smart city domain and discover alternative approaches, models, architecture and frameworks with this regard….(More)

How does collaborative governance scale?

Curated on July 5, 2015December 11, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ansell, Chris; and Torfing, Jacob in Policy & Politics: “Scale is an overlooked issue in the literature on interactive governance. This special issue investigates the challenges posed by the scale and scaling of network and collaborative forms of governance. Our original motivation arose from a concern about whether collaborative governance can scale up. As we learned more, our inquiry expanded to include the tensions inherent in collaboration across scales or at multiple scales and the issue of dynamically scaling collaboration to adapt to changing problems and demands. The diverse cases in this special issue explore these challenges in a range of concrete empirical domains than span the globe…(More)”

The Data Revolution

Curated on July 5, 2015December 11, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Review of Rob Kitchin’s The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & their Consequences by David Moats in Theory, Culture and Society: “…As an industry, academia is not immune to cycles of hype and fashion. Terms like ‘postmodernism’, ‘globalisation’, and ‘new media’ have each had their turn filling the top line of funding proposals. Although they are each grounded in tangible shifts, these terms become stretched and fudged to the point of becoming almost meaningless. Yet, they elicit strong, polarised reactions. For at least the past few years, ‘big data’ seems to be the buzzword, which elicits funding, as well as the ire of many in the social sciences and humanities.

Rob Kitchin’s book The Data Revolution is one of the first systematic attempts to strip back the hype surrounding our current data deluge and take stock of what is really going on. This is crucial because this hype is underpinned by very real societal change, threats to personal privacy and shifts in store for research methods. The book acts as a helpful wayfinding device in an unfamiliar terrain, which is still being reshaped, and is admirably written in a language relevant to social scientists, comprehensible to policy makers and accessible even to the less tech savvy among us.

The Data Revolution seems to present itself as the definitive account of this phenomena but in filling this role ends up adopting a somewhat diplomatic posture. Kitchin takes all the correct and reasonable stances on the matter and advocates all the right courses of action but he is not able to, in the context of this book, pursue these propositions fully. This review will attempt to tease out some of these latent potentials and how they might be pushed in future work, in particular the implications of the ‘performative’ character of both big data narratives and data infrastructures for social science research.

Kitchin’s book starts with the observation that ‘data’ is a misnomer – etymologically data should refer to phenomena in the world which can be abstracted, measured etc. as opposed to the representations and measurements themselves, which should by all rights be called ‘capta’. This is ironic because the worst offenders in what Kitchin calls “data boosterism” seem to conflate data with ‘reality’, unmooring data from its conditions of production and making relationship between the two given or natural.

As Kitchin notes, following Bowker (2005), ‘raw data’ is an oxymoron: data are not so much mined as produced and are necessarily framed technically, ethically, temporally, spatially and philosophically. This is the central thesis of the book, that data and data infrastructures are not neutral and technical but also social and political phenomena. For those at the critical end of research with data, this is a starting assumption, but one which not enough practitioners heed. Most of the book is thus an attempt to flesh out these rapidly expanding data infrastructures and their politics….

Kitchin is at his best when revealing the gap between the narratives and the reality of data analysis such as the fallacy of empiricism – the assertion that, given the granularity and completeness of big data sets and the availability of machine learning algorithms which identify patterns within data (with or without the supervision of human coders), data can “speak for themselves”. Kitchin reminds us that no data set is complete and even these out-of-the-box algorithms are underpinned by theories and assumptions in their creation, and require context specific knowledge to unpack their findings. Kitchin also rightly raises concerns about the limits of big data, that access and interoperability of data is not given and that these gaps and silences are also patterned (Twitter is biased as a sample towards middle class, white, tech savy people). Yet, this language of veracity and reliability seems to suggest that big data is being conceptualised in relation to traditional surveys, or that our population is still the nation state, when big data could helpfully force us to reimagine our analytic objects and truth conditions and more pressingly, our ethics (Rieder, 2013).

However, performativity may again complicate things. As Kitchin observes, supermarket loyalty cards do not just create data about shopping, they encourage particular sorts of shopping; when research subjects change their behaviour to cater to the metrics and surveillance apparatuses built into platforms like Facebook (Bucher, 2012), then these are no longer just data points representing the social, but partially constitutive of new forms of sociality (this is also true of other types of data as discussed by Savage (2010), but in perhaps less obvious ways). This might have implications for how we interpret data, the distribution between quantitative and qualitative approaches (Latour et al., 2012) or even more radical experiments (Wilkie et al., 2014). Kitchin is relatively cautious about proposing these sorts of possibilities, which is not the remit of the book, though it clearly leaves the door open…(More)”

Who knew contracts could be so interesting?

Curated on July 5, 2015October 10, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Steve Goodrich at Transparency International UK: “…Despite the UK Government’s lack of progress, it wouldn’t be completely unreasonable to ask “who actually publishes these things, anyway?” Well, back in 2011, when the UK Government committed to publish all new contracts and tenders over £10,000 in value, the Slovakian Government decided to publish more or less everything. Faced by mass protests over corruption in the public sector, their government committed to publishing almost all public sector contracts online (there are some exemptions). You can now browse through the details of a significant amount of government business via the country’s online portal (so long as you can read Slovak, of course).

Who actually reads these things?

According to research by Transparency International Slovakia, at least 11% of the Slovakian adult population have looked at a government contract since they were first published back in 2011. That’s around 480,000 people. Although some of these spent more time than others browsing through the documents in-depth, this is undeniably an astounding amount of people taking a vague interest in government procurement.

Why does this matter?

Before Slovakia opened-up its contracts there was widespread mistrust in public institutions and officials. According to Transparency International’s global Corruption Perceptions Index, which measures impressions of public sector corruption, Slovakia was ranked 66^th out of 183 countries in 2011. By 2014 it had jumped 12 places – a record achievement – to 54^th, which must in some part be due to the Government’s commitment to opening-up public contracts to greater scrutiny.

Since the contracts were published, there also seems to have been a spike in media reports on government tenders. This suggests there is greater scrutiny of public spending, which should hopefully translate into less wasted expenditure.

Elsewhere, proponents of open contracting have espoused other benefits, such as greater commitment by both parties to following the agreement and protecting against malign private interests. Similar projects inGeorgia have also turned clunky bureaucracies into efficient, data-savvy administrations. In short, there are quite a few reasons why more openness in public sector procurement is a good thing.

Despite these benefits, opponents cite a number of downsides, including the administrative costs of publishing contracts online and issues surrounding commercially sensitive information. However, TI Slovakia’s research suggests the former is minimal – and presumably preferable to rooting around through paper mountains every time a Freedom of Information (FOI) request is received about a contract – whilst the latter already has to be disclosed under the FOI Act except in particular circumstances…(More)”