Issues and Guiding Principles for Opening Governmental Judicial Research Data

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7443)


The opening of data is considered to provide many benefits. However, opening up data by public bodies is a complex and ill-understood activity. Although many public bodies might be willing to open up their data, they lack any systematic guidance. In this paper, guidance is provided by investigating the publishing processes at the Dutch Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), which owns governmental judicial research data. We developed guidance by providing 1) a list of issues that play a role in deciding whether to open data, 2) an alternative to completely publishing data (i.e. restricted access) and 3) solutions for overcoming some of the issues. The latter include dealing with privacy-sensitive data, deletion policies, publishing after embargo periods instead of not publishing at all, adding related documents and adding information about the quality and completeness of datasets. The institutional context should be taken into account when using the guidance, as opening data requires considerable changes of organizations.


open data guiding opening data institutional theory opening governmental data judicial research data 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    European_Commission: Digital agenda: Turning government data into gold (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, J., Dawes, S.S., Sarkis, J.: Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 18, 548–567 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charalabidis, Y., Ntanos, E., Lampathaki, F.: An architectural framework for open governmental data for researchers and citizens. In: Janssen, M., Macintosh, A., Scholl, J., Tambouris, E., Wimmer, M., Bruijn, H.d., Tan, Y.H. (eds.) Electronic government and electronic participation joint proceedings of ongoing research and projects of IFIP EGOV and ePart 2011, Delft, pp. 77–85 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blakemore, M., Craglia, M.: Access to Public-Sector Information in Europe: Policy, rights and obligations. The Information Society 22, 13–24 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Geiger, C.P., Lucke, J.v.: Open Government Data. Free accessible data of the public sector. In: Parycek, P., Kripp, M.J., Edelmann, N. (eds.) Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM 2011), Danube University Krems, Austria, pp. 183–194 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boulton, G., Rawlins, M., Vallance, P., Walport, M.: Science as a public enterprise: the case for open data. The Lancet 377, 1633–1635 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalidien, S., Choenni, S., Meijer, R.: Crime statistics online: potentials and challenges. In: Chun, S.A., Sandoval, R., Philpot, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities, pp. 131–137. Digital Government Society of North America, Puebla (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: Open Government Data: A Stage Model. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Tan, Y.-h. (eds.) EGOV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6846, pp. 235–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pollard, P.: Opening up government data: making the case. European Public Sector Information Platform (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahid, F.: Explaining History of eGovernment Implementation in Developing Countries: An Analytical Framework. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Tan, Y.-h. (eds.) EGOV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6846, pp. 38–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lampathaki, F., Charalabidis, Y., Sarantis, D., Koussouris, S., Askounis, D.: E-Government Services Composition Using Multi-faceted Metadata Classification Structures. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 116–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Avgerou, C.: IT and organizational change: an institutionalist perspective. Information Technology and People 13, 234–262 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassan, S., Gil-Garcia, J.R.: Institutional Theory and E-Government Research. In: Garson, G.D., Khosrow-Pour, M. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Public Information Technology, pp. 349–360. Information Science Reference, London (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phang, C.W., Kankanhalli, A., Ang, C.: Investigating Organizational Learning in eGovernment Projects: A Multi-Theoretic Approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 99–123 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B.: Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scott, W.R.: Institutional Theory: Contributing to a Theoretical Research Program (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Barley, S.R.: Technology and institutions: what can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly 25, 145–166 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winter, H.B., de Jong, P.O., Sibma, A., Visser, F.W., Herweijer, M., Klingenberg, A.M., Prakken, H.: Wat niet weet, wat niet deert. Een evaluatieonderzoek naar de werking van de Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens in de praktijk. Pro Facto, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, De Jong Beleidsadvies, WODC, Groningen (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buruma, Y.: Het recht op vergetelheid. Politiële en justitiële gegevens in de digitale wereld. In: Broeders, D., Cuijpers, C., Prins, J.E.J. (eds.) De Staat van Informatie, WRR/AUP, vol. 25, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faerman, S.R., McCaffrey, D.P., Slyke, D.M.V.: Understanding interorganizational cooperation: public-private collaboration in regulating financial market innovation. Organization Science 12, 372–388 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edmiston, K.D.: State and local e-government: prospects and challenges. American Review of Public Administration 33, 20–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dawes, S.S.: Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15, 377–394 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van den Braak, S.W., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., Zuiderwijk, A.: Trusted third parties for secure and privacy-preserving data integration and sharing in the public sector. In: Luna-Reyes, L.F., Mellouli, S. (eds.) 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. ACM, University of Maryland, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zuiderwijk, A.M.G., Jeffery, K.G., Janssen, M.F.W.H.A.: The necessity of metadata for open linked data and its contribution to policy analyses. In: Edelmann, P.P.N. (ed.) Conference on E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM 2012), pp. 281–294. Danube-University Krems, Krems (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry of Security and JusticeResearch and Documentation Center (WODC)Den HaagThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Rotterdam University of Applied SciencesRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Information and Communication Systems EngineeringUniversity of AegeanKarlovassiGreece
  4. 4.Rutherford Appleton LaboratoryScience and Technology Facilities CouncilDidcotUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations