On the barriers for local government releasing open data

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 31, Issue SUPPL.1, 2014, Pages

  Conradie, Peter ^a,c   Choenni, Sunil ^a,b  

^a ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^b Ministry of Security and Justice   (Netherlands)

^c GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Data release; Open data; Process barriers; PSI

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905092655     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bertot J.C., Choi H. Big data and e-government: Issues, policies, and recommendations 2013, 1-10.
2. Bertot J.C., Jaeger P.T., Grimes J.M. Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-Government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27:264-271.
3. Bertot J.C., McDermott P., Smith T. Measurement of open government: Metrics and process. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2012, 2491-2499.
4. Boulton G., Rawlins M., Vallance P., Walport M. Science as a public enterprise: The case for open data. The Lancet 2011, 377:1633-1635.
5. Choenni S., van Dijk J., Leeuw F. Preserving privacy whilst integrating data: Applied to criminal justice. Information Polity 2010, 15:125-138.
6. Creative Commons Creative Commons - CC0 1.0 Universal Retrieved April 10, 2012, from. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/.
7. Dawes S.S. Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27:377-383.
8. Dawes S.S. Information policy meta-principles: Stewardship and usefulness. 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2010, 1-10. IEEE.
9. de Vries M., Kapff I., Achiaga M.N., Wauters A., Osimo D., Foley P., et al. POPSIS: Pricing Of Public Sector Information Study 2011, October.
10. Geiger C.P., Von Lucke J. Open government and (linked) (open) (government) (data). JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government 2012, 4:265-278.
11. Graves A. A case study for integrating public safety data using semantic technologies. Information Polity 2011, 16:261-275.
12. Hughes J. Commentary: Participatory action research leads to sustainable school and community improvement. School Psychology Review 2003, 32:38-43.
13. Jaeger P.T., Bertot J.C. Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27:371-376.
14. Janssen K. The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments. Government Information Quarterly 2011, 28:446-456.
15. Kalidien S., Choenni S., Meijer R. Crime statistics online: Potentials and challenges. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 2010, 131-137.
16. Kassen M. A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project. Government Information Quarterly 2013, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.012.
17. Kemmis S., McTaggart R. Participatory action research. Handbook of qualitative research 2000, 567-607. Thousand Oaks, CA. N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.).
18. Landsbergen D. Government as part of the revolution: Using social media to achieve public goals. Electronic Journal of e-Government 2010, 8:135-147.
19. Matheus R., Vaz J.C. New perspectives for electronic government in Brazil: The adoption of open government data in national and subnational governments of Brazil. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance 2012, 22-29.
20. McLaren R., Waters R. Governing location information in the UK. The Cartographic Journal 2011, 48:7.
21. Prieto L.M., Rodríguez A.C. Implementation framework for open data in Colombia. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance 2012, 14-17.
22. Robinson D., Yu H., Zeller W., Felten E. Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal of Law & Technology 2009, 11:160. (160, 160-175).
23. van Dijk J., Kalidien S., Choenni S. Development, implementation and use of a judicial data space system. ICEGOV 2013, Int. Conference on e-Government 2013, ACM, Seoul.
24. Whyte W.F. Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum 1989, 4:367-385.
25. Wilson S.C., Linders D. The open government directive: A preliminary assessment. Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times 2011, 262-271.
26. Yang Z., Kankanhalli A. Innovation in government services: The case of open data. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013 2013, 644-651.
27. Zhang J., Dawes S.S., Sarkis J. Exploring stakeholders' expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 2005, 18:548-567.
28. Zuiderwijk A., Janssen M., Choenni S. Open data policies: Impediments and challenges. 12th European Conf. on e-Government, June 14-15 2012, 794-801. Academic Publishing Limited, UK, Barcelona, Spain, (2011).
29. Zuiderwijk A., Janssen M., Choenni S., Meijer R., Sheikh Alibaks R. Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electronic Journal of e-Government 2013, 10:156-172.
30. Zuiderwijk A., Janssen M., Meijer R., Choenni R., Charalabidis Y., Jeffery K. Issues and guiding principles for opening governmental judicial research data. Proc. EGOV 2012, 11th European Conf. on Electronic Government, September 3-6, LNCS 2012, Springer-Verlag, German, Kristiansand, Norway.
31. Zuiderwijk A., Jeffery K., Janssen M. The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government 2012, 4:222-244.