Methodology of Research and Key Sources of Empirical Data

  • Maxat KassenEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL)


The chapter is aimed to explain the methodology of the case study research, conceptualizing how two empirical parts of the study are interconnected and providing an overview of all methods that the author uses in multiple case study analysis, particularly on how the methodology could help him to find answers to the main research questions of the investigation. In addition, the synopsis of the most important steps of research is provided in a consecutive manner such as an overview of the institutional and stakeholder analysis, which is aimed to shed light on key theoretical aspects of open data politics and distinguish individual political roles of its main stakeholders; the context analysis of political, economic, social, and international factors of the open data movement in each country; the policy review of networking activities between its key players; and, more importantly, the content analysis of official open data platforms and independent open data-driven projects that helps to understand the phenomena of open data politics in a dynamic and multidimensional real-life context. Finally, he also describes key sources of empirical data and official documents, which are necessary to identify related policy and content analysis.


Methodology Case study research Key sources of data Empirical analysis Context analysis Content analysis Policy analysis 


  1. Altayar, M. S. (2018). Motivations for open data adoption: An institutional theory perspective. Government Information Quarterly.Google Scholar
  2. Anthes, G. (2015). Estonia: A model for e-government. Communications of the ACM, 58(6), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appelgren, E., & Nygren, G. (2014). Data Journalism in Sweden: Introducing new methods and genres of journalism into “old” organizations. Digital Journalism, 2(3), 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baack, S. (2015). Datafication and empowerment: How the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation, and journalism. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 2053951715594634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björklund, F. (2016). E-government and moral citizenship: The case of Estonia. Citizenship Studies, 20(6–7), 914–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2017). A longitudinal cross-sector analysis of open data portal service capability: The case of Australian local governments. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Janssen, K. (2011). The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 446–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kalvet, T. (2007). The Estonian information society developments since the 1990s. PRAXIS.Google Scholar
  9. Kalvet, T. (2012). Innovation: A factor explaining e-government success in Estonia. Electronic Government, An International Journal, 9(2), 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kassen, M. (2014). Globalization of e-government: Open government as a global agenda; benefits, limitations and ways forward. Information Development, 30(1), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kassen, M. (2017a). Open data in Kazakhstan: Incentives, implementation and challenges. Information Technology & People, 30(2), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kassen, M. (2017b). Open data and e-government–related or competing ecosystems: A paradox of open government and promise of civic engagement in Estonia. Information Technology for Development, 1–27.Google Scholar
  13. Kassen, M. (2018). Adopting and managing open data: Stakeholder perspectives, challenges and policy recommendations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(5), 518–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khan, G. F., & Park, H. W. (2013). The e-government research domain: A triple helix network analysis of collaboration at the regional, country, and institutional levels. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitsing, M. (2008, May). Explaining the e-government success in Estonia. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 429–430). Digital Government Society of North America.Google Scholar
  16. Lember, V., & Kalvet, T. (2014). Estonia. In Public procurement, innovation and policy (pp. 127–149). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Lember, V., Kattel, R., & Tõnurist, P. (2018). Technological capacity in the public sector: The case of Estonia. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), 214–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lourenço, R. P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Margetts, H., & Naumann, A. (2017). Government as a platform: What can Estonia show the world. Research paper, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Pinto, H. D. S., Bernardini, F., & Viterbo, J. (2018, May). How cities categorize datasets in their open data portals: an exploratory analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age (p. 25). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Sayogo, D. S., Pardo, T. A., & Cook, M. (2014, January). A framework for benchmarking open government data efforts. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 1896–1905). IEEE.Google Scholar
  22. Wang, H. J., & Lo, J. (2016). Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eurasian Humanities InstituteAstanaKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations