Doing the transparent state: Open government data as performance indicators

doi:10.1017/CBO9781316091265.006

6 - Doing the transparent state: Open government data as performance indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2015

Edited by

Sung-Joon Park and

Evelyn Ruppert: Affiliation:
University of London
Richard Rottenburg: Affiliation:
Martin Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
Sally E. Merry: Affiliation:
New York University
Sung-Joon Park: Affiliation:
Martin Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
Johanna Mugler: Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Data is the new raw material of the 21st century; it allows citizens to hold governments to account, drives improvements in public services by informing choice, and provides a feedstock for innovation and growth.

Google Data Analytics Social Science Research (2012)

Introduction

In 2010 the Cabinet Office of the UK government introduced its Transparency Agenda (TA) as a key part of its efficiency and reform programme and as a means of taking power away from Whitehall and putting it in the hands of the public. Through the oversight of the Public Sector Transparency Board, all Whitehall departments must publish key public data-sets, from expenses to business plans, on their websites in specified open data standards as a means of advancing a public right to data. A number of platforms then consolidate all of the data via online and interactive access points. In addition to spurring service delivery improvements and stimulating the digital economy, the TA is said to be liberating and making government data more accessible, interesting and dynamic via websites, mobile device apps and other platforms. Along with powerful visualization devices, quantitative data about the performance of the state is being rendered accessible and legible in innovative ways. Through the TA government data is on the move and travelling to myriad sites and even sceptics see the possibilities that are opened up by this ‘big data’.

As the title of this chapter suggests, open government data constitute indicators of the state's performance just as indicators in general make phenomena visible so that they can be assessed, compared and ranked. The TA ostensibly renders the state visible to scrutiny such that the gaze is turned from the governed back onto the governors where subjects of ‘dataveillance’ now engage in ‘sousveillance’ – a ‘watchful vigilance from underneath’ (Dennis 2008). In a time of Wikileaks, MPs' expenses and open government data, it is tempting to conclude that ‘seeing like a state’ (Scott 1998) is being transformed into ‘seeing a state’. However, rather than considering the TA as a practice of disclosure and oversight, I argue that the transparent state is being done by a changing configuration of mediators that is generative of data publics and multiple versions of the state and the very condition that it seeks to eradicate: distrust in the workings of the state.

Type: Chapter
Information: The World of Indicators
The Making of Governmental Knowledge through Quantification
, pp. 127 - 150

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316091265.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adkins, Lisa and Lury, Celia 2009. ‘Introduction to Special Issue “What is the empirical?”’. European Journal of Social Theory 12: 5–20Google Scholar

Birchall, Clare 2011. ‘Introduction to “Secrecy and Transparency”: The Politics of Opacity and Openness’. Theory, Culture and Society 28(7–8): 7–25CrossRef Google Scholar

Burrows, Roger 2012. ‘Living with the H-Index? Metric Assemblages in the Contemporary Academy’. Sociological Review 60(2): 335–57CrossRef Google Scholar

Office, Cabinet 2011. Making Open Data Real: A Public Consultation. HM Government.Google Scholar

Cabinet Office Open Data Team 2012. ‘Open data initiative goes back to school’, Transparency Hub, 2 February

Cameron, David 2009. ‘A new politics: the post-bureaucratic age’, Guardian, 25 MayGoogle Scholar

Cheney-Lippold, John 2011. ‘A New Algorithmic Identity: Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control’, Theory, Culture and Society 28(6): 164–81CrossRef Google Scholar

Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge: Zone BooksGoogle Scholar

Davies, Tim 2010. Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform: A Look at Open Government Data Use from data.gov.uk, Masters thesis, Social Science of the Internet, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Dennis, Kingsley 2008. ‘Keeping a Close Watch: The Rise of Self-surveillance and the Threat of Digital Exposure’, Sociological Review 56(3): 347–57CrossRef Google Scholar

Dunleavy, Patrick, Margetts, Helen, Bastow, Simon and Tinkler, Jane 2006. Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and e-Government. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Espeland, Wendy and Stevens, Mitchell 1998. ‘Commensuration as a Social Process’, Annual Review of Sociology 24: 313–43CrossRef Google Scholar

Filloux, Frédéric 2009. ‘Can Data Revitalise Journalism?’, Monday Note: Media, Tech and Business ModelsGoogle Scholar

Galloway, Alexander 2011. ‘Are Some Things Unrepresentable?’, Theory, Culture and Society 28(7–8): 85–102CrossRef Google Scholar

Goffey, Andrew 2012. ‘Breaking the Laws of Code: Programming as Socio-technical Praxis’, paper presented at the CRESC Annual Conference, Manchester, 6 September

Hacking, Ian 1999. The Social Construction of What?Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Halford, S. and Savage, Mike 2010. ‘Reconceptualizing Digital Social Inequality’, Information, Communication and Society 13(7): 937–55CrossRef Google Scholar

Hardie, Ian and MacKenzie, Donald 2007. ‘Assembling an Economic Actor: The Agencement of a Hedge Fund’, Sociological Review 55(1): 57–80CrossRef Google Scholar

Harris, Derrick 2012. ‘How Cisco Wants to Make Big Data a Community Affair’, GIGAOMGoogle Scholar

Harvey, Penny, Reeves, Madeleine and Ruppert, Evelyn 2013. ‘Anticipating Failure: Transparency Devices and their Effects’, Journal of Cultural Economy 3: 294–312Google Scholar

Hayles, N. Katherine 2006. ‘Unfinished Work: From Cyborg to the Cognisphere’, Theory, Culture and Society 23(7–8): 159–66.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hayles, N. Katherine 2009. ‘RFID: Human Agency and Meaning in Information-Intensive Environments’, Theory, Culture and Society 26(2–3): 47–72CrossRef Google Scholar

Helbig, Natalie, Gil-Garcia, J. Rarmón and Ferro, Enrico 2009. ‘Understanding the Complexity of Electronic Government: Implications from the Digital Divide Literature’, Government Information Quarterly 26(1): 89–97CrossRef Google Scholar

Horrocks, Ivan 2009. ‘“Experts” and E-Government: Power, Influence and the Capture of a Policy Domain in the UK’, Information, Communication and Society 12(1): 110–27CrossRef Google Scholar

John, Gemma 2010. ‘Transparency in Motion: Freedom of Information in Scotland as Ends and Means’, paper presented at the Law and Society Annual Conference, Chicago, Ill.

Kang, Jerry and Cuff, Dana 2005. ‘Pervasive Computing: Embedding the Public Sphere’, Washington and Lee Law Review 62(1): 93–146Google Scholar

Karounos, Thodoros and Lampsa, Paulina 2011. ‘Introduction: Contested Transparencies’, Special Issue, Re-public: Re-imagining DemocracyGoogle Scholar

Knorr Cetina, Karin and Bruegger, Urs 2002. ‘Traders’ Engagement with Markets: A Postsocial Relationship’, Theory, Culture and Society 19(5/6): 161–85Google Scholar

Lash, Scott 2007. ‘Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation’, Theory, Culture and Society 24(3): 55–78CrossRef Google Scholar

Law, John 2008. ‘On Sociology and STS’, Sociological Review 56(4): 623–49CrossRef Google Scholar

Law, John 2011. ‘Collateral Realities’ in Domínguez Rubio, Fernando and Baert, Patrick (eds.), The Politics of Knowledge. London: Routledge, pp. 156–78Google Scholar

Law, John and Urry, John 2004. ‘Enacting the Social’, Economy and Society 33(3): 390–410CrossRef Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Adrian 2005. ‘The Performativity of Code: Software and Cultures of Circulation’, Theory, Culture and Society 22(1): 71–92CrossRef Google Scholar

Marres, Noortje 2005. ‘Issues Spark a Public into Being: A Key but Often Forgotten Point of the Lippmann-Dewey Debate’ in Latour, Bruno (ed.), Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 208–17Google Scholar

Marres, Noortje 2010 ‘Frontstaging Non-humans: The Politics of “Green” Things and the Constraint of Publicity’ in Braun, B. and Whatmore, S. (eds.), Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy and Public Life. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 177–210Google Scholar

McFall, Liz 2009. ‘The Agencement of Industrial Branch Life Assurance’, Journal of Cultural Economy 2(1–2): 49–65CrossRef Google Scholar

Merry, Sally Engle 2011. ‘Measuring the World: Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance’, Current Anthropology 52(S3): 83-95CrossRef Google Scholar

Mol, Annemarie 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, N.C.: Duke University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Porter, Theodore 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Power, Michael 1999. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Rogers, Simon 2011. ‘Data journalism at the Guardian: what is it and how do we do it?’, Guardian, 28 July 2011Google Scholar

Ruppert, Evelyn 2011. ‘Population Objects: Interpassive Subjects’, Sociology 45(2): 218–33CrossRef Google Scholar

Ruppert, Evelyn, Law, John and Savage, Mike 2013. ‘Reassembling Social Science Methods: The Challenge of Digital Devices’, Theory, Culture and Society, Special Issue on The Social Life of Methods 30(4): 22–46Google Scholar

Ruppert, Evelyn and Savage, Mike 2012. ‘Transactional Politics’, Sociological Review 59(S2): 73–92Google Scholar

Scott, James 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. New Haven, Conn./ London: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar

Shapin, Steven 1984. ‘Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology’, Social Studies of Science 14(4): 481–520CrossRef Google Scholar

Strathern, Marilyn 2000a. Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London/New York: RoutledgeCrossRef Google Scholar

Strathern, Marilyn 2000b. ‘The Tyranny of Transparency’, British Educational Research Journal 26(3): 309–21CrossRef Google Scholar

Thrift, Nigel 2004. ‘Remembering the Technological Unconscious by Foregrounding Knowledges of Position’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(1): 175–90CrossRef Google Scholar

United Kingdom Statistics Authority 2012. Monitoring Review: Public Availability of Official Statistics – Three ONS Datasets. London: UKSA

Verran, Helen 2012. ‘Number’ in Lury, Celia and Wakeford, Nina (eds.), Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London: Routledge, pp. 110–24Google Scholar

Wajcman, Judy 2007. ‘From Women and Technology to Gendered Technoscience’, Information, Communication and Society 10(3): 287–98CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, Matthew W. 2011. ‘“Training the Eye”: Formation of the Geocoding Subject’, Social and Cultural Geography 12(4): 357–76CrossRef Google Scholar

Wintour, Patrick 2012. ‘Freedom of Information Act has not improved government, says MoJ’, Guardian, 13 FebruaryGoogle Scholar