Fostering Citizens’ Participation and Transparency with Social Tools and Personalization

  • Vittorio Scarano
  • Delfina Malandrino
  • Michael Baker
  • Françoise Détienne
  • Jerry Andriessen
  • Mirjam Pardijs
  • Adegboyega Ojo
  • Michael Hogan
  • Albert Meijer
  • Erna Ruijer
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 32)

Abstract

In this paper we present innovative solutions to the problem of transparency in Public Administrations (PAs) by opening up public data and services so that citizens participation is facilitated and encouraged with a Social Platform and a personalized user-friendly Transparency-Enhancing Toolset.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 645860.

References

  1. Bertot J, Jaeger P, Grimes JM (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly 27:264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonsón E, Torres L, Royo S, Flores F (2012) Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly 29(2):123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappelli C, Engiel P, Araujo RMD, Cesar J, Leite P (2013) Managing transparency guided by a maturity model. In: 3rd global conference on transparency research, HEC, Paris, 24–26 October 2013, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  4. Cohn M (2004) User stories applied for agile software development. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Colpaert P, Sarah J, Peter M, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2013). The 5 stars of open data portals. In: 7th international conference on methodologies, technologies and tools enabling e-Government (MeTTeG), University of Vigo, Spain, pp 61–67Google Scholar
  6. Davies T (2012) Supporting open data use through active engagement. In: Proceedings of W3C workshop “using open data: policy modeling, citizen empowerment, data journalism”, 19–20 June 2012. http://www.w3.org/2012/06/pmod/pmod2012_submission_5.pdf
  7. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13:313–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreier O (1999) Personal trajectories of participation across contexts of social practice. Outlines: Critical Social Studies 1:5–32Google Scholar
  9. Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity theoretic approach to developmental research. Orienta Konsu, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström Y (2005) Developmental work research: expanding activity theory in practice. Lehmanns Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. EU DG-CONNECT (2013). A vision for public services. European Commission, “Public Services” unit of Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG-CONNECT). 13 June 2013Google Scholar
  12. Fung A (2013) Infotopia: unleashing the democratic power of transparency. Polit Soc 41:183–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuutti, K. (1999) Activity theory, transformation of work, and information systems design. In: Engestrom, Y.; Miettinen, R. & Punamaki, R.-L. (eds) Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 360-376Google Scholar
  14. Ludvigsen S, Rasmussen I, Ingeborg K, Moen A, Middleton D (2011) Learning across sites: new tools, infrastructures and practices, Intersecting trajectories of participation: temporality and learning. Routledge, London, pp 105–121Google Scholar
  15. Meijer AJ (2012) The do it yourself state. Inf Polity., IOS Press 17:303–314Google Scholar
  16. Michener G, Bersch K (2011) Conceptualizing the quality of transparency. In 1st global conference on transparency. Political concepts, Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper No. 49Google Scholar
  17. Mishory E. N (2013). Clarifying transparency: transparency relationships in government procurement. In Government Procurement Seminar, Chris Yukins & David A. Drabkin, 4 November 2013Google Scholar
  18. Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) (2014). Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN) Developer DocumentationGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosson M, Carroll J (2002) Scenario-based design. In: The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruijer E, Grimmelikhuijsen S, Enzerink S, Meijer AJ (2016) The societal activity model of open data use. Deliverable 3.1Google Scholar
  21. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46:186–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang S, Avrunin G (2008) Plug-and-play architectural design and verification. In: Architecting dependable systems V. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  23. Warfield J (2006) An introduction to systems science. World Scientific, HackensackCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. White PRR (2002) Appraisal—the language of evaluation and stance. In: Verschueren J, Östman J-O, Blommaert J, Bulcaen C (eds) The handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp 1–23Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vittorio Scarano
    • 1
  • Delfina Malandrino
    • 1
  • Michael Baker
    • 2
  • Françoise Détienne
    • 2
  • Jerry Andriessen
    • 3
  • Mirjam Pardijs
    • 3
  • Adegboyega Ojo
    • 4
  • Michael Hogan
    • 5
  • Albert Meijer
    • 6
  • Erna Ruijer
    • 6
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di SalernoSalernoItaly
  2. 2.CNRS - Telecom ParisTechParisFrance
  3. 3.Wise & Munro Learning ResDen HaagThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland GalwayLower DanganIreland
  5. 5.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  6. 6.Utrecht School of GovernanceUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations