skip to main content
10.1145/3297662.3365813acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmedesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Citizen Engagement for Transparent and Accountable Policy Modelling

Published: 10 January 2020 Publication History

Abstract

This work presents a platform for linked legislative data to engage citizens in transparent and effective democracies. With a focus on scaling up participatory approaches from local to national level, the approach extends well established and open source tools and technologies, to build mobile monitoring and analysis tools that increase transparency of law-making and implementation to citizens. This is achieved by combining open data and open services with user and citizen generated content, in order to address citizen's needs in the context of open government. Data and feeds from trusted sources are interconnected with new and re-purposed data feeds generated by users via the social web to form a meaningful, searchable, customizable, reusable and open data-focused personalised mobile public service approach. The framework exploits the social aspects of open data, as well as the training of users, citizens and public servants to be able to understand and demand useful public open data, as well as facilitate the opening of more data.

References

[1]
S. Pradhan (2019). Open Government Partnership, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/.
[2]
P. Jaeger and J. Bertot (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371--376.
[3]
E. Bonsón, L. Torres, S. Royo and F. Bertot (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123--132.
[4]
D. Antonakaki, D. Spiliotopoulos, C. Samaras, P. Pratikakis, S. Ioannidis and P. Fragopoulou (2017). Social media analysis during political turbulence. PLoS ONE, 12(10), e0186836.
[5]
S. Sharma, K. Sushil and N. Gupta (2003). Building blocks of an e-government: A framework. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 1(4), 34--48.
[6]
EU (2019). EU Open Data Portal, https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/home.
[7]
UK GOV (2019). DATA.GOV.UK, http://data.gov.uk/data/search.
[8]
Open Data Institute (2019). Open Data Institute, about us, http://theodi.org/about-us.
[9]
Open Spending (2019). Open Spending, https://openspending.org/.
[10]
Governance Global Practice (2019). Governance Global Practice (GGP), http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance.
[11]
F. Fitsilis, D. Koryzis, V. Svolopoulos and D. Spiliotopoulos (2017). Building blocks of an e-government: A framework. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference in Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, Vancouver, Canada, 154--170.
[12]
T. Jetzek, M. Avital and N. Bjorn-Andersen (2014). Data-Driven Innovation through Open Government Data. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research archive, 9(2), 100--120.
[13]
J. Molloy (2011). The Open Knowledge Foundation: open data means better science. PLoS biology, 9(12), e1001195.
[14]
D. Corrales-Garay, E. Mora-Valentín and M. Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado (2019). Open Data for Open Innovation: An Analysis of Literature Characteristics. Future Internet, 11(3), 77.
[15]
M. Janssen and R. Wagenaar (2004). Developing generic shared services for e-Government. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(1), 31--38.
[16]
A. Almaslukh, A. Magdy and S. Rey (2018). Spatio-temporal analysis of metadata semantics of market shares over large public geosocial media data. Journal of Location Based Services, 12(3-4), 215--230.
[17]
S. Junginger (2018). Inquiring, Inventing and Integrating: Applying Human-Centered Design to the Challenges of Future Government. JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 10(2), 23--32.
[18]
U. Atz (2014). The Tau of Data: A New Metric to Assess the Timeliness of Data in Catalogues. In Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government. IEEE, Krems, Austria, 257--267.
[19]
S. Koussouris, D. Kokkinakos, D. Panopoulos, D. Askounis, A. Jain, A. Hartman, C. Zirpins, and C. Georgousopoulos (2011). A selection and prioritization framework for collaborative public service design. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Methodologies, Technologies and Tools enabling e-Government. OCOPOMO, Camerino, Italy, 1--8.
[20]
A. Hartman (2010). Participatory Design of Public Sector Services. Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6267, 219--233.
[21]
DATA GOV (2019). DATA.GOV., http://www.data.gov/.
[22]
D. Zissis and D. Lekkas (2011). Securing e-Government and e-Voting with an open cloud computing architecture. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 239--251.
[23]
M. Mecella and C. Batini (2011). Enabling Italian e-government through a cooperative architecture. Computer, 34(2), 40--45.
[24]
M. Magro (2012). A Review of Social Media Use in E-Government. Administrative Sciences, 2, 148--161.
[25]
M. Heimstädt, F. Saunderson and T. Heath (2014). Conceptualizing Open Data ecosystems: A timeline analysis of Open Data development in the UK. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government. IEEE, Krems, Austria, 245--255.
[26]
H. Kim, G. Pan and S. Pan (2007). Managing IT-enabled transformation in the public sector: A case study on e-government in South Korea. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 338--352.
[27]
D. Danish (2017). The failure of e-government in developing countries: A literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 26(7), 1--10.
[28]
D. Gouscos, G. Mentzas and P. Georgiadis (2001). PASSPORT: A novel architectural model for the provision of seamless cross-border e-government services. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. ACM, Munich, Germany, 318--322.
[29]
M. Akesson, P. Skalen and B. Edvardsson (2008). E-government and service orientation: gaps between theory and practice. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(1), 74--92.
[30]
T. Ryad and H. Barki (2006). E-government adoption and acceptance: A literature review. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2(3), 23--57.
[31]
S. Angelopoulos, F. kitsios and T. Papadopoulos (2010). New service development in e-government identifying critical success factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(1), 95--118.
[32]
R. Traunmuller and M. Wimmer (2004). E-Government: The challenges ahead, Electronic Government (1st. ed.). Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
[33]
M. Janssen, Y. Charalabidis and A. Zuiderwijk (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258--268.
[34]
B. Heaton (2014). Crowdsourcing the Law, https://www.govtech.com/local/Crowdsourcing-the-Law.html.
[35]
T. Aitamurto and H. Landemore (2015). Five Design Principles for Crowdsourced Policymaking: Assessing the Case of Crowdsourced Off-Road Traffic Law in Finland. Journal of Social Media for Organizations, 2(1), 1--19.
[36]
T. Aitamurto and K. Chen (2017). The value of crowdsourcing in public policymaking: epistemic, democratic and economic value. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 5(1), 55--72.
[37]
D. Brabham (2013). Crowdsourcing (1st. ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
[38]
M. Pecaric (2017). Can a group of people be smarter than experts?. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 5(1), 5--29.
[39]
F. Szeredi, G. Lukácsy and T. Benkő (2014). The Semantic Web Explained: The Technology and Mathematics Behind Web 3.0 (1st. ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[40]
W. Cho and J. Fowler (2009). Legislative success in a small world: Social network analysis and the dynamics of Congressional legislation. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 124--135.
[41]
D. Margaris, C. Vassilakis and P. Georgiadis (2013). Adapting WS-BPEL scenario execution using collaborative filtering techniques. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science. IEEE, Paris, France, 174--184.
[42]
D. Spiliotopoulos, E. Tzoannos, P. Stavropoulou, G. Kouroupetroglou and A. Pino (2012). Designing user interfaces for social media driven digital preservation and information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs. Springer, Linz, Austria, 581--584.
[43]
D. Antonakaki, D. Spiliotopoulos, C.V. Samaras, S. Ioannidis and P. Fragopoulou (2016). Investigating the Complete Corpus of Referendum and Elections Tweets. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. ACM, San Francisco, USA, 100--105.
[44]
A. Michels and L. DeGraaf (2010). Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy Making and Democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477--491.
[45]
J. Gaventa and G. Barrett (2014). Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399--2410.
[46]
T. Nam (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12--20.
[47]
A. Gelman (2012). Suggesting Exploratory Data Analysis for Complex Models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 13(4), 755--779.
[48]
L. Qi, R. Li and J. Wong (2017). Social Media in State Politics: Mining Policy Agendas Topics. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. ACM, San Francisco, USA, 274--277.
[49]
J. Höchtl, P. Parycek and R. Schöllhammer (2016). Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 147--169.
[50]
P. Cairney and K. Oliver (2017). Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?. Health research policy and systems, 15(1), 1--11.
[51]
L.M. Padilla and S.H. Creem-Regehr (2018). Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 3(29), 1--25.
[52]
D.J. Willison, and J. Trowbridge (2019). Participatory governance over research in an academic research network: the case of Diabetes Action Canada. BMJ open, 9(4), e026828.
[53]
T. Risse, E. Demidova, S. Dietze, W. Peters, N. Papailiou, K. Doka, Y. Stavrakas, V. Plachouras, P. Senellart, F. Carpentier, A. Mantrach, B. Cautis, P. Siehndel and D. Spiliotopoulos (2014). The ARCOMEM architecture for social-and semantic-driven web archiving. Future Internet, 6(4), 688--716.
[54]
E. Demidova, N. Barbieri, S. Dietze, A. Funk, H. Holzmann, D. Maynard, N. Papailiou, W. Peters, T. Risse and D. Spiliotopoulos (2014). Analysing and Enriching Focused Semantic Web Archives for Parliament Applications. Future Internet, 6(3), 433--456.
[55]
D.H. Shin, K. Lee and F. Ishikawa (2014). A graph-based approach enhancing correctness and speed of web services composition through explicit specification of functional semantics. International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 10(4), 297--318.
[56]
I. Androutsopoulos, D. Spiliotopoulos, D. Stamatakis, A. Dimitromanolaki, V. Karkaletsis and CD. Spyropoulos (2002). Symbolic Authoring for Multilingual Natural Language Generation. In Proceedings of the Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence. ACM, Thessaloniki, Greece, 131--142.
[57]
G. Schefbeck, D. Spiliotopoulos and T. Risse (2012). The Recent Challenge in Web Archiving: Archiving the Social Web. In Proceedings of the International Council on Archives Congress. ACM, Brisbane, Australia, 1--5.
[58]
A.H. Bond and L. Gasser (2014). Readings in distributed artificial intelligence (1st. ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA.
[59]
T. Heath and J. Goodwin (2011). Linking Geographical Data for Government and Consumer Applications. Linking Government Data, 73--92.
[60]
A. Pino, G. kouroupetroglou, H. Kacorri, A. Sarantidou and D. Spiliotopoulos (2010). An open source / freeware assistive technology software inventory. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs. IEEE, Vienna, Austria, 178--185.
[61]
V. Tresp, Y. Huang and M. Nickel (2014). Querying the web with statistical machine learning. Internet of Services: The THESEUS Research Program, 225--234.
[62]
E. Portmann and W. Pedrycz (2015). Fuzzy web knowledge aggregation, representation, and reasoning for on-line privacy and reputation management. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Applied Sciences and Engineering, 72, 89--105.
[63]
G. Petasis, D. Spiliotopoulos, D. Tsirakis and P. Tsantilas (2014). Sentiment Analysis for Reputation Management: Mining the Greek Web. In Proceedings of the Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence. ACM, Ioannina, Greece, 327--340.
[64]
K.E. Chang and V. Prybutok (2008). Measuring e-government readiness. Information & management, 45(8), 540--546.
[65]
H.J. Scholl (2001). Applying stakeholder theory to e-government. Towards the E-Society, 74, 735--747.
[66]
A. Chadwick and C. May (2003). Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: "e-Government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 16(2), 271--300.
[67]
C. Manning and M. Surdeanu (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. ACL Demonstrations, 55--60.
[68]
A. González-Teruel, G. González-Alcaide, M. Barrios and M. Abad-García (2015). Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and co-citation networks. Scientometrics, 103(2), 687--705.
[69]
C.Y. Cheng and D. Lei (2014). Mapping of Electronic Government: The Trend of Research Fronts. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Computational Sciences and Optimization. IEEE, (Beijing, China, 1--8.
[70]
R. Puzis, and Y. Elovici (2014). Topology manipulations for speeding betweenness centrality computation. Journal of Complex Networks, 3(1), 84--112.
[71]
Y. Yano, and T. Hashiyama (2014). Behavior extraction from tweets using character N-gram models. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems. IEEE, Beijing, China, 1--8.
[72]
D. Spiliotopoulos, P. Stavropoulou and G. kouroupetroglou (2009). Spoken Dialogue Interfaces: Integrating Usability. In Proceedings of the Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group. Springer, Linz, Austria, 484--499.
[73]
J. Alexandersson, M. Aretoulaki, N. Campbell, M. Gardner, A. Girenko, D. Klakow, D. Koryzis, D. Petukhova, M. Specht, D. Spiliotopoulos, A. Stricker and N. Taatgen (2014). Metalogue: A Multiperspective Multimodal Dialogue System with Metacognitive Abilities for Highly Adaptive and Flexible Dialogue Management. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Environments. IEEE, Shangai, China, 365--368.
[74]
D. Spiliotopoulos, G. Xydas and G. kouroupetroglou (2005). Diction Based Prosody Modeling in Table-to-Speech Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialogue. Springer-Verlag, Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic, 294--301.
[75]
D. Spiliotopoulos, G. Xydas, G. kouroupetroglou, V. Argyropoulos and K. Ikospentaki (2010). Auditory Universal Accessibility of Data Tables using Naturally Derived Prosody Specification. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9, 169--183.
[76]
D. Spiliotopoulos, P. Stavropoulou and G. kouroupetroglou (2009). Acoustic Rendering of Data Tables using Earcons and Prosody for Document Accessibility. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Springer-Verlag, San Diego, USA, 587--596.
[77]
D. Margaris and C. Vassilakis (2017). Enhancing User Rating Database Consistency Through Pruning. Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems, XXXIV, 33--64.
[78]
D. Margaris, C. Vassilakis and P. Georgiadis (2013). An Integrated Framework for QoS-based Adaptation and Exception Resolution in WS-BPEL Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, Coimbra, Portugal, 1900--1906.
[79]
D. Margaris and C. Vassilakis (2017). Exploiting Internet of Things Information to Enhance Venues' Recommendation Accuracy. Service Oriented Computer Applications, 11(4), 393--409.
[80]
D. Margaris and C. Vassilakis (2017). Improving Collaborative Filtering's Rating Prediction Quality by Considering Shifts in Rating Practices. In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics. IEEE, Thessaloniki, Greece, 158--166.
[81]
D. Margaris and C. Vassilakis (2018). Exploiting Rating Abstention Intervals for Addressing Concept Drift in Social Network Recommender Systems. Informatics, 5(1), 21.
[82]
D. Margaris and C. Vassilakis (2017). Improving Collaborative Filtering's Rating Prediction Accuracy by Considering Users' Rating Variability. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Big Data Intelligence. IEEE, Athens, Greece, 1022--1027.
[83]
D. Margaris and C. Vassilakis (2017). Enhancing Rating Prediction Quality Through Improving the Accuracy of Detection of Shifts in Rating Practices. Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems, XXXVII, 151--191.
[84]
D. Margaris and C. Vassilakis (2017). Improving Collaborative Filtering's Rating Prediction Quality in Dense Datasets, by Pruning Old Ratings. In Proceedings of 22nd IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications. IEEE, Heraklion, Greece, 1168--1174.
[85]
D. Margaris, C. Vassilakis and P. Georgiadis (2018). Query personalization using social networks information and collaborative filtering techniques. Future Generation Computer Systems, 78(1), 440--450.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
MEDES '19: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Management of Digital EcoSystems
November 2019
350 pages
ISBN:9781450362382
DOI:10.1145/3297662
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 January 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Accountability
  2. Citizen Engagement
  3. Legislation
  4. Mobile Public Services
  5. Natural Language Processing
  6. Policy Modelling
  7. Transparency
  8. e-Government

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

MEDES '19

Acceptance Rates

MEDES '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 41 of 102 submissions, 40%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 267 of 682 submissions, 39%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 125
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media