The Social Shaping of Open Data through Administrative Processes
Many models have been provided in the last years that aim at describing an optimal open data publication process. However, they fail to explain the different outcomes of open data initiatives. Based on qualitative research this paper conceptualises the open data phenomenon as a set of techno-political arenas in which different interests of a variety of actors potentially and actually collide. The micro-political arena model constitutes an instrument to delineate the social and institutional context of open data that can be employed to explain the successes, as well as the failures of individual open data projects.

Sirko Hunnius

Sirko Hunnius is an e-government and public management scholar. He holds a diploma in economics and public management. Sirko currently works at the Institute for eGovernment (IfG.CC) on topics like e-government competencies, open data, IT governance, and public mergers.

Bernhard Krieger

Bernhard Krieger holds a Magister Artium in cultural anthropology from the Ludwig¬-Maximilians University Munich and a PhD in Social Anthropology from the University of Cambridge. At the IfG.CC Bernhard Krieger is head of international research and project manager for the OpenDataMonitor project.

[1] Auer, S. et al. 2012. Managing the life-cycle of linked data with the LOD2 stack. International Semantic Web Conference 2 (2012), 1–16.
[2] Brady, H.E. et al. 2010. Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology. Rethinking Social Inquiry. H.E. Brady and D. Collier, eds. 15–31.
[3] Van den Broek, T. et al. 2011. Walking the extra byte: A lifecycle model for linked open data. Linked Open Data – Pilot Linked Open Data Nederland. E. Folmer et al., eds. Remwerk. 95–111.
[4] Courmont, A. 2012. How to Govern Open Data? The politics of open data portals. Paper presented at the IPSA Conference, Madrid, July 8-12, 2012 (2012).
[5] Davies, T. 2010. Open data, democracy and public sector reform: A look at open government data use from data.gov.uk. University of Oxford.
[6] Dovifat, A. et al. 2004. Explaining Successes and Failures of e-Government Implementation with Micropolitics. Electronic Government, LNCS 3183 (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004), 308–312.
[7] Dovifat, A. et al. 2007. The “model of micropolitical arenas” – A framework to understand the innovation process of e-government-projects. Information Polity. 12, 3 (2007) 127–138. ,
[8] Geiger, C.P. and von Lucke, J. 2012. Open Government and (Linked) (Open) (Government) (Data). eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government. 4, 2 (2012) 265–278. ,
[9] George, A.L. and Bennett, A. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences.
[10] Gerring, J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge Univ Pr.
[11] Hausenblas, M. and Karnstedt, M. 2010. Understanding Linked Open Data as a Web-Scale Database. 2010 Second International Conference on Advances in Databases, Knowledge, and Data Applications. (2010), 56–61.
[12] Huijboom, N. and Broek, T. Van Den 2011. Open data: an international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice. 12, March/April (2011), 1–13.
[13] Hyland, B. and Wood, D. 2011. The Joy of Data – A Cookbook for Publishing Linked Government Data on the Web. Linking Government Data. D. Wood, ed. Springer. 3–26.
[14] Janssen, K. 2011. The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 4 (Oct. 2011) , 446–456.
[15] Julien, N. 2012. Business Opportunities Arising from Open Data Policies. Imperial College London.
[16] Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.
[17] Mahoney, J. and Goertz, G. 2006. A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis. 14, 3 (Jun. 2006), 227–249.
[18] Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Zappia, Z. 2011. Participation and Power: Intermediaries of Open Data. 1st Berlin Symposium on Internet and Society October 26th – 28th 2011 (2011).
[19] McClean, T. 2011. Not with a Bang but a Whimper. The Politics of Accountability and Open Data in the UK. Draft prepared for the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington, 1-4 September 2011 (2011).
[20] McKinsey Global Institute 2013. Open data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information.
[21] Miller, D. 1995. Consumption studies as the transformation of Anthropology. Acknowledging Consumption. A review of new studies. D. Miller, ed. Routledge. 264–295.
[22] Miller, D. and Slater, D. 2000. The Internet: an ethnographic approach. Berg.
[23] Moynihan, D.P. 1998. Secrecy. The American Experience. Yale University Press.
[24] Rourke, F.E. 1957. Secrecy in American Bureaucracy. Political Science Quarterly. 72, 4 (1957), 540–564.
[25] Scholl, H.J. et al. 2012. Process integration, information sharing, and system interoperation in government: A comparative case analysis. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 3 (Jul. 2012), 313–323.
[26] Shadbolt, N. and O’Hara, K. 2013. Linked data in government. IEEE Internet Computing. July/August 2013 (2013).
[27] Ubaldi, B. 2013. Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives. Technical Report #No. 22.
[28] Villazón-Terrazas, B. et al. 2011. Methodological guidelines for publishing government linked data. Linking Government Data. Springer. 27–49.
[29] Weber, M. 1946. Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press.
[30] Zuiderwijk, A. et al. 2012. Socio-technical Impediments of Open Data. Electronic Journal of e-Government. 10, 2 (2012), 156–172.
No table of content provided. Check the document below for more information.