Design and Validation of a Model to Assess the Open Data Status of Iranian Government Institutions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Research Institute for Information and Communication Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD., Imam Sadeq University, Tehran, Iran.

3 PhD., Information Technology Engineering, Research Institute for Information and Communication Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose: Open data refers to non-confidential data that is made available without restrictions on use or distribution. Open government data is a tool for empowering citizens and giving them access to and permission to utilize data produced by the government sector. This enables individuals to use, store, redistribute, and integrate the data with other sources. Providing information as open data helps reduce corruption, fosters public trust, and contributes to the development of a democratic society. Open data offers significant opportunities for monitoring governance activities. Unfortunately, despite the importance of this issue and the existence of legal requirements, no reliable model has yet been developed to assess the open data status of Iranian government institutions. This study aims to design and validate a model for evaluating the open data status of these institutions, focusing on general axes to promote transparency within governmental organizations.
Method: The research method is applied in terms of purpose and utilizes a mixed data type, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Three sources of information were utilized to identify the items for evaluating the open data index. Initially, the theoretical foundations and research conducted in this field were reviewed, and items suggested by experts were extracted. Subsequently, elites and scholars in the field were selected using purposive and snowball sampling methods, and in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with them until theoretical saturation regarding the items was achieved. The third source of information was Resolution No. 1 from the 16th session of the Executive Council of Information Technology in Iran. This resolution was proposed to enhance transparency and ensure citizens have free access to the open data of executive agencies. According to the resolution, all executive agencies are required to publish their data in twelve categories. After identifying and combining similar items and weighting them, the initial model was developed. To assess the validity of the items in the initial model, the Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed. Finally, structural equation modeling and related statistical tests were employed to validate the initial model, leading to its finalization.
Findings: A review of the three previously mentioned information sources used to identify open government data evaluation indicators resulted in the identification of 33 indicators categorized into four distinct dimensions: basic information, financial information, participation, and legal and functional systems. Following an examination of the validity and reliability of the initial model, 29 indicators within these four dimensions were approved for the evaluation of open government data. The results of the best-worst method used to prioritize dimensions based on their importance revealed that the dimensions of financial information, with a weight of 51.08%, are the most important, followed by the legal and functional system at 23.57%, participation at 18.42%, and basic information at 6.94%. These findings indicate the ranking of dimensions in the evaluation of open government data, from most to least important.
Conclusion: The findings of this study have the potential to enhance the accurate evaluation of open government data by focusing on the relevant indicators and dimensions. The findings can assist officials, researchers, and the general public in properly evaluating government organizations or institutions by taking into account the specified evaluation indicators. This approach will enable the positive impacts of open government data to be observed in society.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Aboalmaali, F.S., Daneshfard, K. & Pourezzat, A.A. (2020). A Pattern to Recognition of Triggering Element of Open Government Implementation in Iran's Public Organizations (Case Study: Ministry of Interior). Journal of Public Administration, 12(1): 145-174. [in persian]
Armstrong, C.L. (2011). Providing a clearer view: An examination of transparency on local government websites. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1): 11-16.‏ 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.006
Azizi, H. & Ameri, F. (2021). A Comparative Study of the Transparency of Environmental Requirements in Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts in Iranian and American Laws. Journal of comparative law, 8(2): 165-186. https://doi.org/10.22096/law.2021.114404.1549 [in persian]
Bacon, D.R., Sauer, P.L. & Young, M. (1995). Composite reliability in structural equations modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3): 394-406.     
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055003003
Bearfield, D.A. & Bowman, A.O.M. (2017). Can you find it on the web? An assessment of municipal e-government transparency. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2): 172-188.‏ https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015627694
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T. & Grimes, J.M. (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(3): 264-271.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
Clark, N.A., Ardron, J.A. & Pendleton, L.H. (2015). Evaluating the basic elements of transparency of regional fisheries management organizations. Marine policy, no. 57: 158-166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.003
Cucciniello, M., Nasi, G. & Valotti, G. (2012). Assessing transparency in government: rhetoric, reality and desire. In: 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 2451-2461). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.123
Dahbi, K.Y., Lamharhar, H. & Chiadmi, D. (2018). Toward an evaluation model for open government data portals. In: International Conference Europe Middle East & North Africa Information Systems and Technologies to Support Learning (pp. 502-511). Springer, Cham.         
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03577-8_55
Daniels, M.S.F. & Lopez, R. (2014). Automatic generation of roadmaps for open data. In: Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research, Posters, Workshop and Projects of IFIP EGOV 2014 and EPart 2014 (vol. 21, p. 95). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-429-9-95
Fedosov, V. & Paientko, T. (2018). Government financial accountability: Key problems and main trends in post-communist countries. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 99 (155): 25-39.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
Gigler, B.S., Tanner, R.B. & Kiess, J. (2011). Enhanced social accountability through open access to data: geomapping world bank projects. Development Outreach, 13(2): 48-51.          
https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797X_13_2_48
Halonen, A. (2012). Being open about data. Analysis of the UK Open Data Policies and Applicability of Open Data. London: Finnish Institute in London.‏
Huijboom, N. & Van den Broek, T. (2011). Open data: An international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice, no.12: 4-16.
Jamali, G., Nargesian, A. & Pirannejad, A. (2017). Evaluation of Transparency of Governmental Portals (Ministries of Iran). Journal of Public Administration, 9(1): 61-84.    
https://doi.org/10.22059/jipa.2017.230125.1964 [in persian]
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.‏          
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.01.004
Janssen, K. (2012). Open government data and the right to information: Opportunities and obstacles. The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v8i2.3042
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information systems management, 29(4): 258-268.         
https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
Juana-Espinosa, S. & Luján-Mora, S. (2020). Open government data portals in the European Union: Considerations, development, and expectations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, no. 149.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105156
Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315788135
Lee-Geiller, S. & Lee, T.D. (2019). Using government websites to enhance democratic E-governance: A conceptual model for evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2): 208-225.‏
Lord, F.M. & Novick, M.R. (2008). Statistical theories of mental test scores. IAP.
Lövnord, A. (2014). Barriers when adopting, implementing, and innovating open data in local municipal organizations, Department of informatics. Master of IT Mangement.
Magner, N., Welker, R.B. & Campbell, T.L. (1996). Testing a model of cognitive budgetary participation processes in a latent variable structural equations' framework. Accounting and Business Research, 27(1): 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1996.9729530
Moradi, M. & Mazoochi, M. (2021). Comprehensive Method of Evaluating Open Government Data with the Aim of Improving Data Quality and Increasing Citizens' Willingness. Human and information interaction, 8(4): 47-65. [in persian]
Nikiforova, A. & McBride, K. (2021). Open government data portal usability: A user-centred usability analysis of 41 open government data portals. Telematics and Informatics, no. 58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101539
Noveck, B.S. (2016). Is Open Data the Death of FOIA? Yale LJF, no. 126: 273.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, no. 53: 49-57.       
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, no. 64: 126-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001
Røge, K.M. & Lennon, N.J. (2018). A study on the criteria of internal transparency, efficiency
and effectiveness in measuring local government performance. Financial Accountability & Management, 34(4): 392-409.‏ https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12176
Sá, F., Rocha, Á. & Cota, M.P. (2016). From the quality of traditional services to the quality of local e-Government online services: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1): 149-160.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.004
Schrock, A.R. (2016). Civic hacking as data activism and advocacy: A history from publicity to open government data. New media & society, 18(4): 581-599.       
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816629469
Thornton, J.B. & Thornton, E. (2013). Assessing state government financial transparency websites. Reference Services Review, 41(2): 366-387.‏ https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321311326273
Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open government data initiatives. OECD iLibrary‏ https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en
Valentini, F. & Damasio, B.F. (2016). Average variance extracted and composite reliability: reliability coefficients/variancia media extraida e confiabilidade composta: Indicadores de precisao. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32(2).
Waltz, C.F. & Bausell, B.R. (1981). Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis. Davis FA.
Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L. & Jöreskog, K.G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological measurement, 34(1): 25-33.‏   
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400104
Zheng, L., Kwok, W.M., Aquaro, V., Qi, X. & Lyu, W. (2020). Evaluating global open government data: Methods and status. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 381-391).‏ https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428553
Zuiderwijk, A. & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government information quarterly, 31(1): 17-29.‏
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003
Zuiderwijk, A. & Janssen, M. (2015). Towards decision support for disclosing data: Closed or open data? Information Polity, 20(2-3): 103-117. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150358
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M. & Davis, C. (2014). Innovation with open data: Essential elements of open data ecosystems. Information polity, 19(1-2): 17-33.‏ https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-140329
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Sciences and Techniques of Information Management
Volume 10, Issue 3
November 2024
Pages 7-40

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics