Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

Open data and commons literature

Some ruminations on why I turn to commons literature to answer the questions of ODECO.

Commons can yield productive insights from an ecosystemic perspective

Central to ODECO is an ecosystemic perspective. ODECO starts from the premise that the generation and use of open data is not linear, but depends on multiple intersecting forces of competition and collaboration between various actors. In this regard, ODECO identifies 8 actor groups, and studies the roles played by these actors – non-specialised users, journalists, students, local government, regional/national government, NGOs, companies and open data intermediaries.

Literature and research from the digital commons lend themselves well to this ecosystemic approach. Digital commons research has yielded useful empirical research methods as well as a rich analytical framework to ‘see’ the different technical, social and institutional components of a complex resource ecosystem.

The realization of value from open data is a collective action problem

The other central aspect of ODECO is the question of how to realise value from open data.

The realization of value from open data as a common goal of all actor groups in an open data ecosystem. The challenge however, is in establishing a common understanding of what ‘value’ is, rendering the goal of value realization a shared but obfuscated goal. Collective action theory allows us to study why actors attribute different meanings to a common goal, and propose the incentives for heterogenous actors to act in the interest of long-term sustainability as opposed to short-term individual gains.

Further, the inherent nature of open data as a ‘constructed’ good is also important here.  Comparing open data to other information systems is useful here. The “good” in question is not open data per se, but “the functionalities that it affords, and the willingness (interests) and capabilities (resources) of the users to take advantage of those affordances.” (Constantinides and Barrett, 2015). This means that the generation, use and maintenance of open data is more sociotechnically dependent on the “heterogeneity of interests and resources of a distributed user base.” (Id.)

Commons literature is again well-suited to studying collective action problems, and proposing institutional mechanisms for resource management that are not centralized in either the state or in market-actors. Decentralised governance from open access commons (particularly commons-based peer production) can yield especially insightful research in this regard.

Commons-based governance recognizes the relationality of open data

Here, a quote from Purtova and van Maanen (2024) resonates strongly with me –

“The core strength of the commons literature in our view lies in its problem analysis. What distinguishes the commons from other classifications of data as an economic good is the ecological thinking that acknowledges the complexity of the data-related problems and draws attention to the broader societal, technical and economic context of production and use of data in connection to broader societal goals. Data commons push us to think about data-related problems and solutions in terms that are beyond data. This feature is observable to some extent in all versions of the data commons we reviewed but is especially apparent in Ostrom-inspired analyses reviewed under ‘Information – or data commons for broader societal goals’ which employ ecological thinking about resources to be governed and problems to be solved.”

This is crucial for the study of open data not as an end in itself, but as a means to something else – a more just, open, equitable society. The focus should not only be the generation of more open data or the turn towards more open data-driven decision making. Instead, the focus should be on who benefits from open data, who is missed out, and who decides.

Bibliography

Constantinides, P., & Barrett, M. (2015). Information Infrastructure Development and Governance as Collective Action. Information Systems Research, 26(1), 40–56. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0542

Purtova, N., & van Maanen, G. (2023). Data as an economic good, data as a commons, and data governance. Law, Innovation and Technology, 16(1), 1–42. Doi:10.1080/17579961.2023.2265270



OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Ramya Chandrasekhar (19 septembre 2024). Open data and commons literature. Open Knowledge. Consulté le 10 février 2025 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/135df


Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.