Transparency is in the eye of the beholder: the effects of identity and negative perceptions on ratings of transparency via surveys
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852315615197 |
| Author | John Blenkinsopp,Heungsik Park |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(1S) 177–194
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315615197
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
Article
Transparency is in the eye of the
beholder: the effects of identity
and negative perceptions on
ratings of transparency via surveys
Heungsik Park
Chung-Ang University, South Korea
John Blenkinsopp
Hull University Business School, UK
Abstract
Surveys are a commonly used means of measuring transparency levels, but they are
potentially vulnerable to perceptual biases. This study sought to examine perceptual
differences by the respondents’ identities as general citizens or public employees, and
the possible negative perceptions that one group may have of the other concerning
responses to a survey-based measure of transparency. The survey was designed on the
basis of existing literature, suggesting that transparency has up to six facets. Two sam-
ples were taken: from citizens who visited district offices to file civil applications during
the survey period; and from public employees involved in processing these applications.
A total of 472 surveys were used for analysis: 233 citizens and 239 public employees.
The results indicated that the two groups had different understandings of transparency.
Data from public employees produced a three-factor solution, which was labeled as
Efficiency, Reliability, and Access. For citizens, a two-factor solution was a better fit, with
the factors being described as Accessibility (a wider notion than Access) and Utility. The
findings suggest that public employees adopt a somewhat technical view of transparency,
whereas citizens have more practical concerns about it. Only citizens’ unfavorable
perception of public employees had a negative influence on the level of transparency.
This study contributes to the understanding of how public employees and citizens have
qualitatively different perceptions of transparency.
Points for practitioners
To assess progress in governmental transparency, we must measure it, and surveys offer
an accessible and potentially cost-effective approach. However, the survey responses of
citizens and public employees show that they understand transparency in qualitatively
Corresponding author:
Heungsik Park, College of Public Service, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, South Korea.
Email: hspark@cau.ac.kr
different ways, with citizens’ perceptions of transparency also influenced by their per-
ceptions of public employees. If governments are to increase public trust in policy-
making and administration, they must focus on improving transparency as it is
understood by the public rather than how it is understood by public servants.
Keywords
administration and democracy, e-government, public administration, transparency, trust
Introduction
Studies have highlighted the positive effects of transparency on democracy and pol-
itical legitimacy, good governance, the elimination of corruption, trust, accountabil-
ity, and national competitiveness (Bauhr and Grimes, 2012; Grimmelikhuijsen and
Meijer, 2014; Heald, 2003; Hollyer et al., 2011; Park and Blenkinsopp, 2011; Rawlins,
2009; Vishwanath and Kaufmann, 2001). Many governments and agencies have
shown a strong commitment to transparency and have taken steps to incorporate it
into their policies (Coglianese, 2009; Otenyo and Lind, 2004: 288; Sternstein, 2011). In
order to assess the progress being made in improving transparency, it is vital to be
able to measure it. Yet, it has been found to be difficult to measure directly. When
attempting the task, proxy measures have been used, which include access-to-infor-
mation laws, e-government, official websites, a free press, data dissemination, feed-
back on public policies and practices, delays in information disclosures, and the
number of citizen complaints about the quality of information (Bertot et al., 2010;
Hollyer et al., 2011: 1194; Islam, 2006). However, surveys remain the most widely
used method of gauging transparency (Da Cruz et al., 2015: 10; Rawlins, 2009). Any
survey of transparency is inevitably a survey of perceived transparency, a ‘measure of
opinion’ regarding ‘what [people] think of transparency in government’ (Sternstein,
2011: 25), with citizens’ evaluations being influenced by many factors, ‘in complex and
changing ways’ (Wang and Gianakis, 1999: 550). Therefore, responses to survey-
based measures of transparency may be prone to perceptual biases, such as
self-serving interests and one’s negative perception of another, depending upon
who completes the survey. Surveys asking about the perception of transparency in
government agencies or public services risk obtaining data that are as much subjective
as a rating of satisfaction with public service (Rawlins, 2009). Furthermore, public
employees have all the information on the transparency levels of public services they
provide, whereas citizens do not. While public employees are required to grasp the
problems in information disclosure and to improve their ability to increase transpar-
ency, citizens’ perceptions of transparency may vary greatly from those of public
employees. This is not necessarily a problem in cases where agencies are concerned
with what citizens think about transparency, but it is a concern for researchers look-
ing to use perception of transparency as a proxy for actual transparency.
Unlike the majority of earlier transparency studies tied to identifying properties
of transparency and assessing the level of government transparency using an index,
178 International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(1S)
To continue reading
Request your trial