Usability of transparency portals: Examination of perceptions of journalists as information seekers
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Author | Michele Crepaz,Liam Kneafsey |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12777 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Usability of transparency portals: Examination of
perceptions of journalists as information seekers
Michele Crepaz
1
| Liam Kneafsey
2
1
School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy
and Politics, Queen's University Belfast,
Belfast, UK
2
Department of Political Science, Trinity
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Correspondence
Michele Crepaz, School of History,
Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics,
Queen's University Belfast, University Rd,
Belfast BT7 1NN, UK.
Email: m.crepaz@qub.ac.uk
Funding information
Irish Research Council
Abstract
Transparency in public institutions is relevant only in so far
as the disclosed information is useful for the stakeholders
who access it. Hence, we ask: what do users do with
the information they obtain through transparency laws?
Despite the growing interest in transparency research, the
ways transparency portals are used to gather information
remain strikingly understudied. We study the use of proac-
tively and reactively disclosed information under four differ-
ent transparency laws. Data are collected in the Republic of
Ireland through a survey of what is generally considered to
be the main category of users, benefiters, and guardians of
transparency, namely journalists. This is one of the first sur-
veys of the media's use of resources intended to ensure
greater transparency in politics and offers a standard
approach to the study of open government as a means to
improve democratic governance.
1|INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, democracies across all continents placed transparency reforms on the govern-
ment agenda. Reformshave been championed by international organizations(IOs), such as the World Bank, or transna-
tional advocacy groups, such as Transparency International. Considering solely IOs, major reforms in transparency in
politics are currently advocated by the UnitedNations (UN), the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Develop-
ment and Cooperation (OECD), the European Union (EU), the Council of Europe (CoE), and the Open Government
Partnership (OGP).If nongovernmental organizations are included inthe count, the number of transparencyadvocates
increases substantially. These advocacy campaigns for the passage of transparency reforms have been surprisingly
successful,with different countries, from Indiato Finland, introducing major reformsin government openness.
This trend toward more transparency in politics goes hand in hand with growing interest in transparency
research. In particular, the study of the effects of transparency and newly implemented policies has been paramount
Received: 14 July 2020 Revised: 14 July 2021 Accepted: 20 July 2021
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12777
978 © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Public Admin. 2022;100:978–998.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm
for policy evaluation and for the betterment of established transparency systems. A first group of scholars has explored
the origins of transparency reform tracing them back to the eruptions of political scandals, corr uption and the advocacy
of international organizations (Attard et al., 2015;Berliner,2014; Hood & Heald, 2006; Worthy, 2017a). A second group
of scholars studied the effects of different forms of transparency on public trust in government (Grimmelikhuijsen
et al., 2013; Schmidthuber et al., 2020), democratic legitimacy (De Fine Licht, 2014), citizens' engagement (Porumbescu &
Grimmelikhuijsen, 2018), and corruption (Lindstedt & Naurin, 2010). Results in this line of research are however often dis-
cordant, with transparency having both positive (i.e., expected) and negative (unexpected) effects. In order to better
understand this inconclusiveness, a third line of research focused on the processes and practices within public institutions
that regulate transparency (Heimstädt & Dobusch, 2018;Kreimer,2018).
This latter research focuses on information providers, who disclose, and information seekers, who access,
request, and benefit from information. The effectiveness of a transparency system depends on the interplay between
these sets of actors in the transparency ecosystem, which sustains itself thanks to mechanisms of feedback and com-
munication between the actors in the ecosystem through information technologies (Dawes et al., 2016). This line of
research also shows that sometimes the relationship between information providers and information seekers can be
labeled as openwashing. This term describes a mismatch between the information seekers' expectation about what
and how information is to be shared, and how organizations actually share information (Heimstädt, 2017, 78). Orga-
nizations seek to make the claim that they are transparent in providing access to information, but other actors dis-
agree with this given the strategies and practices the organizations employ in controlling the information-sharing
process. Information can be partial, bent, or tailored for a particular audience, making it less relevant for information
seekers. In fact, Birchall (2021) argues that institutions seek to employ strategic opacity and obfuscation to counter
requests for meaningful data-sharing and engagement. This literature however agrees that in order to create trans-
parency, disclosed information needs to be relevant (Heimstädt & Dobusch, 2018).
One may debate about what defines relevant information; however, it can be safely assumed that information is
relevant as far as information seekers, who are expected to benefit from disclosure, can make use of it. The extent to
which disclosed information is useful and usable for information seekers remains however drastically underexplored.
Lindstedt and Naurin (2010, 302) argue that for transparency reforms and resources to address concerns about cor-
ruption or malfeasance, the publicity principle must hold, that is, the information made available through these
reforms “must stand a reasonable chance of actually reaching and being received by the public.”To satisfy this pub-
licity principle, information made available through transparency portals must be usable by information seekers. The
focus of our study is therefore on usability of information as a critical dimension of transparency.
Some may consider this approach narrow and note, first of all, that usability is not necessarily a good indicator
of how much transparency there is in a given polity since the strategic use of delay and restricted disclosure may
result in the provision of information that is usable but falls short of meaningful data-sharing. Moreover, transpar-
ency may, of course, have other relevant dimensions and contributions. One could take, the supply-side perspective
into account (i.e., the disclosing party's point of view), and debate the extent to which information disclosure prac-
tices rationalize administrative procedures (Drori et al., 2006)or“civilize the behaviour”of decision-makers
(Naurin, 2007). We claim that the opposite approach, which considers the information seekers, offers opportunities
to further improve current understandings of transparency. This is because of two main shortcomings we identify in
the existing literature taking this approach. Firstly, studies which have focused on the effects of transparency on citi-
zens' attitudes regarding trust, perceived corruption, and political efficacy assume the disclosed information is
sought, used, and consumed by citizens and other key stakeholders (in other words, useful) (Grimmelikhuijsen
et al., 2013; Schmidthuber et al., 2020). As Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002) and their influential concept of stealth
democracy demonstrates, however, this might not be the case (consequently undermining the assumption behind the
benefits of transparency). Hence, as Michener (2019) already argued, a more fine-grained understanding of the
modes in which disclosed information is used is needed in order to better understand its effects.
Secondly, studies which evaluate the effectives of transparency policies (Michener, 2011; Worthy, 2017a), and
describe them as “window dressing”through an evaluation of implementation and compliance levels (e.g., number of
CREPAZ AND KNEAFSEY 979
To continue reading
Request your trial