Defining transparency movements
| Pages | 1025-1041 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2017-0158 |
| Published date | 10 September 2018 |
| Date | 10 September 2018 |
| Author | Jan Michael Nolin |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Defining transparency movements
Jan Michael Nolin
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås,
Borås, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –A multitude of transparency movements have been developed and grown strong in recent
decades. Despite their growing influence, scholarly studies have focused on individual movements.
The purpose of this paper is to make a pioneering contribution in defining transparency movements.
Design/methodology/approach –An exploratory approach has been used utilizing movement-specific
professional and scholarly documents concerning 18 transparency movements.
Findings –Different traditions, ideologies of openness and aspects involving connections between
movements have been identified as well as forms of organization.
Originality/value –This is the first attempt at identifying and defining transparency movements as a
contemporary phenomenon.
Keywords Open data, Accountability, Government 2.0, Open government, Accessibility literacy,
Creative Commons, Free software, Ideology of openness, Open research data, Transparency movements
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Just about any contemporary practice is pressured by claims toward more transparency
(Austin and Upton, 2016). However, it is rare that such imperatives of openness originate
within the governmental policy. The movement toward more transparency is pushed from a
multitude of actors with diverse arguments and ideologies. The concept of transparency
movements has sometimes been mentioned as a concept of use when talking about this
contemporary push toward more openness (Florini, 2007; Shaxson, 2007; Fenster, 2011;
Lupia and Elman, 2014). However, so far this concept has not been targeted for serious
theoretical treatment. The alternative term of “accountability movements”has also been
suggested (Chen and Haynes, 2016).
Increased transparency is universally associated with positive values, but are there
negative aspects as well? The current text acknowledges that transparency movements are
fundamentally positive in character. However, it is argued that it is vital to distinguish
between positions of seeing them as fundamentally positive and as constituting an
unmitigated good. Once this difference has been recognized, researchers can explore
transparencymovements as multifacetedprojects that we in some ways also can be criticalof.
One starting point for the current paper is that transparency has unintended
consequences when put into practice (Lord, 2006; Fung et al., 2007; Cukierman, 2009).
Therefore, the development over time involves transformation of initial values and visions.
A second starting point is that even though the ideals of transparency can be traced back to
the enlightenment and the scientific revolution, contemporary transparency movements
must be understood as digital phenomenon.
There is a remarkable lack of literature on the broad shift in recent decades that has been
called “the transparent society”(Brin, 1998) and “age of transparency”(Sifry, 2011). This is
perhaps not surprising as increased transparency has been pursued in diverse ways by
separate movements allowing for a wealth of direct and indirect societal impacts.
Consequently, various movements appear disconnected from each other, seemingly
appropriate objects of study for separate disciplines. Creative Commons (CC), open access
and open research data are pursued by information science. Political scientists are interested
in a multitude of movements connected to open government. Movements such as
open source, linked data and open platform are studied by computer scientists and so on.
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 74 No. 5, 2018
pp. 1025-1041
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-11-2017-0158
Received 16 November 2017
Revised 12 March 2018
Accepted 25 March 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
1025
Defining
transparency
movements
Given the entanglement and cross-hybridization between transparency movements as well
as their aggregated effects on modern societies, this kind of departmentalized scholarly
approach seems increasingly problematic.
The current paper is an attempt at defining transparency movements. Social scientists
regularly identify new phenomenon and introduce concepts that allow a distinction between
similar forms of manifestations in order to investigate underlying processes and
mechanisms. Transparency movements are in this paper understood as concerned with
digital resources in the form of code (or software), content and data. As a consequence,
twentieth-century reflections on the movements are today of a limited value. The ambition
in this paper has been to develop a theoretically grounded definition of transparency
movements to be used for the critical exploration of a new phenomenon. Through the
identification of a complex phenomenon with substantial presence in democratic societies, it
becomes possible to pursue research on what problems appear when numerous separate
movements are studied with one analytical frame.
Within the boundaries of a single paper, it is not possible to dwell on the presentations of
an individual movement. The act of describing the phenomenon of transparency movements
requires a disciplined broadbrush approach. It is all too tempting to be caught up with the
wealth of historical turning points within individual movements. The aim of the current
approach is to explicitly focus on the larger phenomenon. Information on some of the most
notable projects will be introduced when appropriate. Although hundreds of sources on
individual transparency movements have been consulted in the writing of this paper,
referencing will be selective. It should be noted that most previous research has been geared
toward strengthening the individual movements.
Following sections on previous research on transparency and method, a theoretical
definition will be stipulated. This makes use of the several concepts that need further
deliberation: transnational entities, traditions of reuse, traditions of accountability,
datafication and ideologies of openness. These will be dealt with in separate sections.
In various sections, additional concepts will be suggested as useful for understanding the
diverse aspects of transparency movements. The paper concludes with a discussion on
some overarching aspects of transparency movements as they have come to be defined,
followed by the conclusion.
Transparency and transparency movements
The ideal of transparency can be tracked back to Kant and his view of scientific reasoning
as providing enlightenment, rooting out ignorance (Weinert, 2009). During much of the
twentieth century, transparency was tied to the evolving political imperative of freedom of
information as well as the notions of access to information (Calland and Bentley, 2013).
It has been suggested that transparency with time has become a catchall answer to a wide
variety of social, financial, political and corporate problems (Birchall, 2011).
A benchmark initiative of recent years was “Transparency and Ope n Government”
(White House, 2009, p. 4685) launched by US President Obama on his first day in office,
aiming to enhance “transparency, public participation, and collaboration”and promising to
create “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”The Obama administration
extended existingstatutes concerning freedomof information and E-government.It should be
noted that muchof the earlier regulation stemmed fromthe Reagan and Bush administrations
of the 1980s, viewing information “not as a public good”but as an “economic resource”
(McDermott, 2010). This distinction is crucial for understanding the difference between open
government and Government 2.0. In the latter case, government-based data are seen as a
platform for reusable resources and economic exploitation (O’Reilly, 2011).
In an influential resolution by the UN General Assembly (1996), public administration and
development was connected to “transparent and accountable governance.”Elaborating on th is,
1026
JD
74,5
To continue reading
Request your trial