2016 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/cedem.2016.31
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring the Promise of Open Data: Development of the Impact Monitoring Framework

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This was shown in 46 out of the 226 applied studies included in the data set. Almost half (22 papers) were focused on Anglo Saxon countries and 13 on European countries (Hirunsalee et al , 2013; Meza-Bolaños et al , 2019; Stuermer and Dapp, 2016; Tulla et al , 2020). It has been demonstrated in a variety of sectors, particularly in the health and finance sectors (Murzaliyeva et al , 2018; Moral Torres et al , 2020).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was shown in 46 out of the 226 applied studies included in the data set. Almost half (22 papers) were focused on Anglo Saxon countries and 13 on European countries (Hirunsalee et al , 2013; Meza-Bolaños et al , 2019; Stuermer and Dapp, 2016; Tulla et al , 2020). It has been demonstrated in a variety of sectors, particularly in the health and finance sectors (Murzaliyeva et al , 2018; Moral Torres et al , 2020).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, heralded as an international phenomenon, Kassen's (2013) interpretation of the term 'open data' suggests that government data should be available to anyone with a possibility of redistribution in any form without any copyright restrictions (Kassen, 2013). To this extent, there are naturally contrasting perspectives toward the perceived benefits of OGD-despite the efforts of Stuermer and Dapp (2016) to create an Impact Monitoring Framework-with several voices questioning these said benefits and positive impacts (Gurstein, 2011); (McClean, 2011); (Zuiderwijk et al, 2012); (Janssen, 2012); (Zeleti and Ojo, 2017); (Zuiderwijk et al, 2018). Yet, it is the perspective of Davies and Bawa (2012) who somewhat prophetically suggested that it was unclear how, despite the attention it had received, OGD was to play out in the national, subnational, and local community contexts.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Importantly, the impact of OGD in the four pivotal areas named above is not an immediate result of making government data public, because OGD does not have any value in itself (Janssen et al , 2012). Instead, making an impact requires external actors to invest time and resources into working with OGD, for instance by data interlinking, visualization, analysis or interpretation (Attard et al , 2016) and by eventually producing innovation (Lakomaa and Kallberg, 2013) and other forms of impact (Stuermer and Dapp, 2016). Jetzek (2016) mentions sharing and market mechanisms as the two principal ways of generating value by means of open data.…”
Section: Open Data and Public Valuementioning
confidence: 99%