مدل سنجش میزان تمایل خط‏ مشی‏ گذاران به دولت باز در ایران

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی (با رویکردهای آمیخته)

نویسندگان

1 دانش‏ آموخته دکتری، مدیریت دولتی- سیاستگذاری عمومی، موسسه عالی آموزش و پژوهش مدیریت و برنامه ‏ریزی

2 گروه مدیریت دولتی، مؤسسه عالی آموزش و پژوهش مدیریت و برنامه‏ریزی، ایران، تهران

3 گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، ایران، تهران

4 گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ایران، تهران

چکیده

هدف: دولت باز به ­عنوان یک خط‌‏مشی در جهت تقویت شفافیت، مشارکت و همکاری، در سرتاسر جهان در حال گسترش است. ازآنجاکه برای حرکت به ­سوی خط‌‏مشی‌‏گذاری و تدوین خط‏‌مشی‏‌های دولت باز، میزان تمایل خط‏‌مشی‏‌گذاران به دولت باز تعیین‏‌کننده است، هدف از این پژوهش ارائه مدلی برای سنجش میزان تمایل خط‌مشی‏‌گذاران به دولت باز و بررسی تفاوت سطح تمایل به دولت باز در گروه‏‌های مختلف خط‌‏مشی‌‏گذاران است.
طراحی/ روش‌شناسی/ رویکرد: در این پژوهش از طرح پژوهش آمیخته اکتشافی استفاده شده است که در مرحله کیفی، روش فراترکیب و در مرحله کمّی، انجام پیمایش و تحلیل داده‏‌های پرسشنامه 116 نفر از خط‏‌مشی‌‏گذاران به‌­کار گرفته شده است.
یافته‌های پژوهش: «تمایل به دولت باز» سازه‌‏ای چندبُعدی است و عبارت­‌است از: میل و رغبت خط‏‌مشی‌‏گذار نسبت به شفافیت، مشارکت شهروندان، همکاری، پاسخگویی دولت و پشتیبانی از نوآوری و کمک به توسعه کسب­وکار. به­‌علاوه نتایج حاکی از آن است که سطح تمایل خط‏‌مشی‌‏گذاران به دولت باز در ایران بالا است و میزان تمایل به دولت باز در میان گروه‏‌های سنی مختلف، گروه‏‌های دارای جایگاه فعلی مختلف و گروه‏‌های مختلف از نظر نحوه آشنایی با دولت باز متفاوت است.
محدودیت‌ها و پیامدها: عدم‌­امکان تعمیم‌‏پذیری نتایج پژوهش به همه جوامع و محدودیت ذاتی پرسشنامه از جمله محدودیت‌‏های پژوهش فعلی است.
پیامدهای عملی: نیاز به برخورداری از یک نظام حاکمیتی کارآمد، شفاف، پاسخگو و مبتنی بر مشارکت مردم انکارناپذیر است. با توجه به چالش‏‌های موجود در موضوع­‌های نام‏برده در کشور، این پژوهش به طراحی مدل مطلوب دولت باز برای ایران و تحقق ارزش‌‏های یادشده کمک خواهد کرد.
ابتکار یا ارزش مقاله: دولت باز و داده باز، مفاهیم نو و جدیدی هستند و پژوهش‏‌های انجام‌­شده در این زمینه در کشور بسیار اندک است؛ از­این­‌رو این پژوهش می‏‌تواند آغازگر باب جدیدی در تولید علم در کشور در این حوزه باشد و این شکاف مطالعاتی را از طریق ارائه مدل یادشده به‌­عنوان نخستین مدل در این زمینه پر می‏‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A model for measuring the willingness of policy makers to open government in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Noushin Momen Kashani 1
  • Farajollah Rahnavard 2
  • Mahdi Mortazavi 3
  • Mahmoud Shirazi 4
1 Graduate PhD in Public Administration (Public Policy), Institute for Advanced Education and Research on Management and Planning
2 Public administration, Institute for Advanced Education and Research on Management and Planning (IMPS), Iran, Tehran
3 Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modarres University, Iran, Tehran
4 Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran, Tehran
چکیده [English]

Purpose: Open government is expanding around the world as a policy to enhance transparency, participation and collaboration. Since the level of policy makers' willingness to open government is crucial for moving towards policy making of open government and development of those policies, the purpose of this paper is to provide a model for measuring policy makers’ willingness of open government and examine the differences in the level of willingness in policy-makers' groups.
Design/Methodology/Approach:In this research, an exploratory mixed method has been used which in qualitative stage, synthesis method and in the quantitative stage, the survey and analysis of the data of the 116 policy makers’ questionnaires has been applied.
Research Findings: "open government willingness" is a multidimensional construct, including the willingness of the policymaker towards transparency, citizen participation, collaboration, government accountability, and support for innovation and help business development. In addition, the results indicate that the level of policy makers' willingness to open government in Iran is high and the rate of willingness to open government among different age groups, status and levels of awareness of open government is different.
Limitations& Consequences: The impossibility of generalizing the research results to all communities and the inherent limitations of the questionnaire are among the limitations of the current study.
Practical Consequences: The need for an efficient, transparent, accountable, and participatory governance system cannot be denied. Given the challenges in the aforementioned issues in our country, this research will help to design a favorable model of open government for Iran and realize that values.
Innovation or Value of the Article: Open government and open data are new concepts, and research in these fields are scarce in Iran. Therefore, this research could initiate a new chapter in the production of science in the country in this field and fills the research gap by providing the aforementioned model as the first model in this field.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Public Policy
  • open government
  • Transparency
  • accountability & citizen participation

مراجع

  1. Abu-Shanab, E. (2015, a). Open government initiatives in public sector: A proposed framework for future research. Saba Journal of Information Technology and Networking, 3(1), 4–14.
  2. Abu-Shanab, E.A. (2015, b). Re-engineering the open government concept: An empirical support for a proposed model. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 453-463.
  3. Ahmadi Zeleti, F., Ojo, A., & Curry, E. (2016). Exploring the economic value of open government data. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 535-551.
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological bulletin, 84(5), 888.
  5. Andhika, L. R. (2017). Negative Effects of Open Government. Jurnal Bina Praja: Journal of Home Affairs Governance, 9(2), 219-229.
  6. Armstrong, E. (2005). Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional and international developments and emerging issues. NewYork: United Nations.
  7. Behn, R.D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  8. Benito, B., & Bastida, F. (2009). Budget transparency, fiscal performance, and political turnout: An international approach. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 403-417.
  9. Birou, A. (1987). Social Science Dictionary. Translated by Sarookhani, B. Tehran: Keyhan. (In Persian)
  10. Born, C., Meschede, C., Siebenlist, T., & Mainka, A. (2019, January). Pushing Open Government Through Social Media. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  11. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
  12. Caplan, R., Davies, T., Wadud, A., Verhulst, S., Alonso, J., & Farhan, H. (2014). Towards common methods for assessing open data: workshop report & draft framework. World Wide Web Foundation. Retrieved from http://opendataresearch.org/sites/default/files/posts/Common%20Assessment%20Workshop%20Report.pdf
  13. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management science, 52(1), 68-82.
  14. Cortés Selva, L., & Pérez Escolar, M. (2016). Civic participation and interactive documentaries: a contribution to the open government model. El profesional de la información, 25(4), 578-587.
  15. Dawes, S. S. (2010). Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 377–383.
  16. De Blasio, E., & Selva, D. (2019). Implementing open government: a qualitative comparative analysis of digital platforms in France, Italy and United Kingdom. Quality & Quantity, 53(2), 871-896.
  17. Gasco´-Hernández, M. (2014). Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance, New York: Springer.
  18. Geiger, C. P., & Von Lucke, J. (2012). Open government and (linked)(open)(government)(data). JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and open Government, 4(2), 265-278.
  19. Geldes, C., Felzensztein, C., & Palacios-Fenech, J. (2017). Technological and non-technological innovations, performance and propensity to innovate across industries: The case of an emerging economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 61, 55-66.
  20. Government of Canada  (2014). Canada's Action Plan on Open Government 2014-16. Retrieved Ceptember 2016 from http://open.canada.ca/en/content/canadas-action-plan-open-government-2014-16#ch4-3
  21. Harrison, T. M. & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, Participation, and Accountability Practices in Open Government: A Comparative Study. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 513-525.
  22. Heller, N. (2012). A working definition of open government. Global Integrity Commons.
  23. Ingrams, A. (2018). Transparency for results: Testing a model of performance management in open government initiatives. International journal of public administration, 41(13), 1033-1046.
  24. Jetzek, T., Avital, M., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2013). Generating value from open government data. Paper presented at International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013): Reshaping Society through Information Systems Design, Milan. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2013/proceedings/GeneralISTopics/5/
  25. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Jiang, S., Elechi, O. O., Benjamin, B., Morris, A., ... & Dupuy, P. (2010). The relationship among distributive and procedural justice and correctional life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent: An exploratory study. Journal of Criminal justice, 38(1), 7-16.
  26. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y.H. (2012). An Open Government Maturity Model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 492–503.
  27. Lourenço, R.P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323–332.
  28. Meijer, A. J, Curtin D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.
  29. Mothe, C., & Uyen Nguyen Thi, T. (2010). The link between non-technological innovations and technological innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(3), 313-332.
  30. Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ Attitudes Toward Open Government and Government 2.0. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 346–368.
  31. Newig, J. (2007). Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality?: towards an analytical framework. Communication, Cooperation, Participation (International Journal of Sustainability Communication), 1(1), 51-71.
  32. Noblit, G. W. & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). United States of America, Sage.
  33. Noveck, B.S. (2011). Testimony of Dr. Beth S. Noveck before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics of the Canadian Parliament. Retrieved from http://cairns.typepad.com/blog/2011/03/testimony-before-the-standing-committee-on-access-to-informationprivacy-and-ethics-of-the-canadian-.html#_ftn1
  34. Odongo, A. O., & Rono, G. C. (2016, March). Open Government Data as a Right for Effective Citizen Participation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 365-366). ACM.
  35. OECD (2009). Integrity in Government: Towards Output and Outcome Measurement. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments /publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=GOV/PGC/ETH(2009)4
  36. OECD (2012). OECD Public Governance Reviews: Greece, Key recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/49264931.pdf
  37. Parycek, P., Hochtl, J., & Ginner, M. (2014). Open government data implementation evaluation. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 9(2), 80-99.
  38. Rapp, M., Rhomberg, M., Koch, G., & White, K. (2016, September). A new path for the public sector: how to design a co-created strategy in higher education. In International Conference on Electronic Participation (pp. 29-40). Springer, Cham.
  39. Reggi, L., & Dawes, S. (2016). Open government data ecosystems: Linking transparency for innovation with transparency for participation and accountability. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 74-86). Springer, Cham.
  40. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York: the Free Press.
  41. Ruijer, E. H., & Huff, R. F. (2016). Breaking through barriers: the impact of organizational culture on open government reform. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10(2), 335-350.
  42. Ruppert, E. (2015). Doing the Transparent State: open government data as performance indicators.
  43. SamGnanakkan, S. (2010). Mediating role of organizational commitment on HR practices and turnover intention among ICT professionals. Journal of Management Research, 10(1), 39.
  44. Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Voils, C. I. (2007). Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in nursing & health, 30(1), 99-111.
  45. Sandoval-Almazan, R. & Ramon Gil-Garcia, J. (2016). Toward an integrative assessment of opengovernment: Proposing conceptual lenses and practical components. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 170-192.
  46. Schmidthuber, L., Stütz, S., & Hilgers, D. (2019). Outcomes of open government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438-456.
  47. Shepherd, E. (2015). Freedom of information, right to access information, open data: who is at the table?. The Round Table, 104(6), 715-726.
  48. Sirianni, C. (2009). Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
  49. Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 13(1), 24.
  50. Veljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S., & Stoimenov, L. (2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 278-290.
  51. Weinstein, J., & Goldstein, J. (2012). The Benefits of a Big Tent: Opening up Government in Developing Countries: A Response to Yu & Robinson's the New Ambiguity of Open Government. UCLA L. Rev. Discourse, 60, 38.
  52. Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open Government: Origin, Development, and Conceptual Perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381-396.
  53. WJP Open Government Index 2015 report, Retrieved August 2016 from https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/ogi_2015.pdf
  54. Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does E-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(2), 275–297.
  55. Yavuz, N., & Welch, E. W. (2014). Factors affecting openness of local government websites: Examining the differences across planning, finance and police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 574-583.
  56. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: Drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Government information quarterly, 32(4), 429-440.

فایل ها

اشتراک گذاری

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار