Sora Park
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
ABSTRACT
Many researchers of open government data raised the question as to whether transparency also promotes accountability. Concerning the unclear relationship between transparency and accountability, this case study first develops the conception of accountability in the context of open government and finds that accountability relates to the organizational need for an assessment of policy goals. This paper then examines the process in which a state health agency implements data visualization tools in an attempt to enhance the outcome of its open data policy goals. Drawing on the results from semi-structured interviews with a diverse set of internal users at the state agency, this case study provides some evidence as to how the gap between transparency and accountability can be closed at the organizational level. It also finds that data intermediaries can help government agencies overcome their resource constraints by critically assessing data usability while providing the technological expertise to align their open data policy goals with user expectations. Future research is necessary to examine the role of data intermediaries in wider open data ecosystems including multiple external stakeholders.
- Bertot, J.C., Mcdermott, P., and Smith, T. 2012. Measurement of Open Government: Metrics and Process. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Maui, Hawaii, January 4-7, 2012). HICCS '12. IEEE. 2491-2499. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Chui, M., Farrell, D. and Jackson, K. 2014. How government can promote open data. (2014). Available at http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/how-government-can-promote-open-dataGoogle Scholar
- Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Crotty, M. 1998. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage London, U.K.Google Scholar
- Dawes, S. S., and Helbig, N. 2010. Information Strategies for Open Government: Challenges and Prospects for Deriving Public Value from Government Transparency. In Electronic Government: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Available at https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/ifip_2010_opengov Google ScholarDigital Library
- Doll W. J., and Torkzadeh, G. 1991. The Measurement of end-user computing satisfaction: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. MIS Quarterly. 15, 1 (Mar. 1991), 5--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fisher, J., Burstein, F., Lynch, K., and Lazarenko, K. 2008. "Usability usefulness = trust": an exploratory study of Australian health web sites. Internet Research. 18, 5 (2008), 477--498.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fountain, J. E. 2001. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frissen, P. 2000. Politics, governance and technology: a postmodern narrative on the virtual state. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
- Gil-Garcia, J. R., and Pardo, T. A. 2005. E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly. 22, 2 (2005), 187--216.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grimmelikhuijsen, S G., and Meijer, A. J. 2012. Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 24, 1 (May 2012), 137--157.Google Scholar
- Hargadon, A. B. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review. 40, 3 (1998), 209--227.Google ScholarCross Ref
- HEDIS & Quality Measurement. Available at http://www.ncqa.org/hedis-quality-measurement/what-is-hedisGoogle Scholar
- Heintze, T., and Bretschneider, S. 2000. Information technology and restructuring in public organizations: Does adoption of information technology affect organizational structures, communications, and decision making? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 10, 4 (Jan. 2000), 801--830.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Helbig, N., Gil-Garcia, J. R., and Ferro. E. 2009. Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly. 26, 1 (Jan. 2009), 89--97.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Howells, J. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy. 35, 5 (Jun. 2006), 715--728.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iivari, J., and Ervasti, I. 1994. User information satisfaction: IS implementability and effectiveness. Information & Management. 27, 4 (Oct. 1994), 205--220. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., and Zuiderwijk, A. 2012. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management. 29, 4 (Oct. 2012), 258--268.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kettinger, W. J., Park, S., and Smith, J. 2009. Understanding the consequences of information systems service quality on IS service reuse. Information & Management. 46, 6 (Aug. 2009), 335--341. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Koppell, J. 2005. Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the challenge of "multiple accountabilities disorder". Public Administration Review. 65, 1 (Jan. 2005), 94--108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kornberger, M., Meyer, R. E., Brandtner, C., and Höllerer, M.A. 2017. When bureaucracy meets the crowd: Studying "open government" in the Vienna city administration. Organization Studies. 38, 2 (Jan. 2017), 179--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mcdermott, P. 2010. Building open government. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 4 (Oct. 2010), 401--413.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meijer, A. 2009. Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 75, 2 (Jun. 2009), 255--269.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meijer, A. 2013. Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review. 73, 3 (May 2013), 429--439.Google ScholarCross Ref
- New York State Department of Health. Available at https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/managed_care/reports/eqarr/2016/about.htmGoogle Scholar
- Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science. 11, 4 (Aug. 2000), 404--428. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pasquier, M., and Villeneuve, J. 2007. Organizational barriers to transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 73, 1 (Mar. 2007), 147--162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., and Chowa, C. 2006. Information system success: Individual and organizational determinants. Management Science. 52, 12 (Dec. 2006), 1849--1864.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sandoval-Almazan, R., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Luna-Reyes, L. F., Luna, D. E., and Rojas-Romero, Y. 2012. Open Government 2.0: Citizen Empowerment through Open Data, Web and Mobile Apps. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (Albany, NY, October 22-25, 2012). ICEGOV '12. ACM. New York, NY, 30--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shkabatur, J. 2012. Transparency With(out) Accountability: Open government in the United States. Yale Law & Policy Review. 31, 1 (Mar. 2012), 79--140.Google Scholar
- Strauss A. L., and Corbin J. M. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
- Thompson, N., Ravindran, N., and Nicosia, S. 2015. Government data does not mean data governance: Lessons learned from a public sector application audit. Government Information Quarterly. 32, 3 (Jul. 2015), 316--322.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wang, R. Y., and Strong, D. M. 1996. Beyond Accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems. 12, 4 (1996), 5--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wong, W., and Welch, E. 2004. Does E-Government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance. 17, 2 (Mar. 2004), 275--297.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yu, H., and Robinson, D. G. The new ambiguity of "open government." 59 UCLA Law Review Discourse. 178, (Feb. 2012), 178--208.Google Scholar
- Zuiderwijk, A., and Janssen, M. 2014. Barriers and Development Directions for the Publication and Usage of Open Data: A Socio-Technical View. In Open Government, Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance, M. Gascó-Hernández, (Ed.). Springer, New York, 115--135.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Understanding Transparency and Accountability in Open Government Ecosystems: The Case of Health Data Visualizations in a State Government
Recommendations
Open Government Data Policy and Indian Ecosystems
ICEGOV '17: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceIn a developing country like India, with complex issues at hand evidence-based Planning of socio-economic development processes must rely on quality data. As quality data is not easily accessible, there is a general need to facilitate sharing and ...
Open government and data intermediaries: the case of AidData
dg.o '14: Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government ResearchOpen Government initiatives can improve transparency, participation, and collaboration between citizens and government agencies. Increasingly a data intermediary is an important actor in this relationship. Helping state agencies as open data producers, ...
Transparency and Accountability After 2015: e-Parliament for Citizens' Engagement in the Ghanaian Environment
ICEGOV '15-16: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceBeyond providing information, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) really contributes to citizens' participation to public debate. With the use of ICT, Civil societies have played a big role especially in the areas of training, research, ...
Comments