Trusting Datification Through Labification

Living reference work entry


Trust is both an ongoing challenge for governments, and a ubiquitous term among civil servants with public debates around whether trust in government is declining. This has been exacerbated by big data and different technology and communications platforms, with public failures in privacy or use of the data potentially contributing to declining trust in government. Big data presents new opportunities and challenges for government agencies in how they function and deliver services. This chapter examines the trust and big data literature, describing the current state of play internationally. It then questions whether the trend of policy innovation labs (PILs) can provide new pathways forward for government in the management of data, and retaining citizen trust. PILs play a critical role in governments’ attempts to address big data issues. They often provide an experimental environment where innovative tools and techniques can be employed. Critically, they use tools and techniques that foster trust and collaboration, which means they may go some way to address the much-debated trust deficit around big data.


Big Data Disruptive Technologies Policy Innovation Labs Trust 


  1. Arrow, K.J., 1978. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. In Uncertainty in economics (pp. 345–375). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, C. 2012. Optimism shines through experts’ view of the future. Sydney Morning Herald.
  3. Bailey J, S. Hinrichs-Krapels, A. Pollitt, and B. Duffy. 2019. Policy and innovation lab landscape review. Technical internal document. London: The Policy Institute, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, B. 1983. The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  5. Bélanger, F., and L. Carter. 2008. Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17 (2): 165–176.Google Scholar
  6. Bellefontaine, Teresa. 2012. Innovation labs: Bridging think tanks and do tanks. Ottawa: Policy Horizons Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Bertot, J.C., and H. Choi. 2013. Big data and e-government: Issues, policies, and recommendations. In Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on digital government research, 1–10. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  8. Bijlsma-Frankema, K., and A.C. Costa. 2005. Understanding the trust-control nexus. International Sociology 20 (3): 259–282.Google Scholar
  9. Blau, P. 2017. Exchange and power in social life. Routledge. New York, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Bloor, R. 2012. Big data, FrankenData: Exabyte databases in the future.
  11. Bouckaert, G. 2012. Trust and public administration. Administration 60 (1): 91–115.Google Scholar
  12. Bouckaert, G., and S. Van de Walle. 2003. Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences 69 (3): 329–343.Google Scholar
  13. Carnevale, D.G., and B. Wechsler. 1992. Trust in the public sector: Individual and organizational determinants. Administration & Society 23 (4): 471–494.Google Scholar
  14. Carney, T. 2019. Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law? Alternative Law Journal 44 (1): 4–10.Google Scholar
  15. Carstensen, H.V., and C. Bason. 2012. Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can innovation labs help. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 17 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
  16. Chayka, K. 2016. The library of last resort. N+1 Magazine.
  17. Clark, W.R., and M. Golder. 2015. Big data, causal inference, and formal theory: Contradictory trends in political science?: Introduction. PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (1): 65–70.Google Scholar
  18. Coblence, E., F. Pallez, E. Vivant, and J.M. Weller. 2017. Lab or no-lab? Exploring institutional trajectories of public innovation teams (No. hal-01484093).Google Scholar
  19. Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Connelly, R., C.J. Playford, V. Gayle, and C. Dibben. 2016. The role of administrative data in the big data revolution in social science research. Social Science Research 59: 1–12.Google Scholar
  21. Creed, W.D., Miles, R.E., Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R., 1996. Trust in organizations. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, pp.16–38.Google Scholar
  22. Currall, S.C. and Inkpen, A.C., 2006. On the complexity of organizational trust: a multi-level co-evolutionary perspective and guidelines for future research. Handbook of trust research, pp. 235–246.Google Scholar
  23. Dasgupta, Partha. 2000. Trust as a commodity, Chapter 4. In Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, ed. Diego Gambetta, 49–72. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Davis, J.H., F.D. Schoorman, R.C. Mayer, and H.H. Tan. 2000. The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 21 (5): 563–576.Google Scholar
  25. De Mauro, A., M. Greco, and M. Grimaldi. 2016. A formal definition of Big Data based on its essential features. Library Review 65 (3): 122–135.Google Scholar
  26. Desouza, K. 2014. Realizing the promise of big data. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  27. Desouza, K.C., and B. Jacob. 2017. Big data in the public sector: Lessons for practitioners and scholars. Administration & Society 49 (7): 1043–1064.Google Scholar
  28. Dickinson, H. 2018. The next industrial revolution? The role of public administration in supporting government to oversee 3D printing technologies. Public Administration Review 78 (6): 922–925.Google Scholar
  29. El-Haddadeh, R., Z. Irani, J. Millard, and A. Schroder. 2014. Toward a coherent methodological framework for examining social innovation in the public sector. Information Systems Management 31: 250–258.Google Scholar
  30. Fledderus, J. 2015. Building trust through public service co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28: 550.Google Scholar
  31. Fricker, R.D., W.W. Kulzy, and D.J. Combs. 2014. The integrative model of organizational trust as a framework for understanding trust in government. Monterey: Naval Postgraduate School.Google Scholar
  32. Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Fuller, M., and A. Lochard. 2016. Public policy labs in European Union member states. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  34. Gambetta, D. 1988. Can we trust. In Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations, 213–237. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Garcia, S. 2019. U.S. requiring social media information from visa applicants. New York Times, June 3.Google Scholar
  36. Gargiulo, M., and G. Ertug. 2006. The dark side of trust. In Handbook of trust research, 165. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Giest, S. 2017. Big data for policymaking: Fad or fasttrack? Policy Sciences 50 (3): 367–382.Google Scholar
  38. Government of Canada. 2020. The policy community: Innovation labs/hubs.Google Scholar
  39. Gryszkiewicz, L., I. Lykourentzou, and T. Toivonen. 2016. Innovation labs: Leveraging openness for radical innovation? Available at SSRN 2556692.Google Scholar
  40. Guerrero, A., 2011. Rebuilding trust in government via service delivery: The case of Medellin, Colombia. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  41. Hall, I. 2019. Digital tech will bring ‘autonomous government’, claims Lithuanian ICT chief. Global Government Forum.
  42. Hardin, R. 2002. Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Heitmueller, A., S. Henderson, W. Warburton, A. Elmagarmid, A.S. Pentland, and A. Darzi. 2014. Developing public policy to advance the use of big data in health care. Health Affairs 33 (9): 1523–1530.Google Scholar
  44. Hinrichs-Krapels, S., J. Bailey, H. Boulding, B. Duffy, R. Hesketh, E. Kinloch, A. Pollitt, S. Rawlings, A. van Rij, B. Wilkinson, and R. Pow. 2020. Using policy labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: A guide to one approach. Palgrave Communications 6 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
  45. Höchtl, J., P. Parycek, and R. Schöllhammer. 2016. Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 26 (1–2): 147–169.Google Scholar
  46. Howlett, M., A. Kekez, and O.O. Poocharoen. 2017. Understanding co-production as a policy tool: Integrating new public governance and comparative policy theory. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 19 (5): 487–501.Google Scholar
  47. IEAG, U. 2014. A world that counts–Mobilising the data revolution for sustainable development. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  48. Janowicz, M., and N. Noorderhaven. 2006. 15 levels of inter-organizational trust: Conceptualization and measurement. In Handbook of trust research, 264. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  49. Jetzek, T., M. Avital, and N. Bjorn-Andersen. 2014. Data-driven innovation through open government data. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 9 (2): 100–120.Google Scholar
  50. Kang, C. 2019. F.T.C. Commissioners back privacy law to regulate tech companies. New York Times.Google Scholar
  51. Kanno-Youngs, Z., and D. Sanger. 2019. Border agency’s images of travelers stolen in hack. New York Times.Google Scholar
  52. Kettl, D.F. 2019. From policy to practice: From ideas to results, from results to trust. Public Administration Review 79: 763.Google Scholar
  53. Khodyakov, D. 2007. Trust as a process: A three-dimensional approach. Sociology 41 (1): 115–132.Google Scholar
  54. Kim, G.H., S. Trimi, and J.H. Chung. 2014. Big-data applications in the government sector. Communications of the ACM 57 (3): 78–85.Google Scholar
  55. Kitchin, R. 2014. Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society 1 (1): 2053951714528481.Google Scholar
  56. Klievink, B., B.J. Romijn, S. Cunningham, and H. de Bruijn. 2017. Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness. Information Systems Frontiers 19 (2): 267–283.Google Scholar
  57. Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B., 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 114, p.139.Google Scholar
  58. Lewis, J.D., and A. Weigert. 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63 (4): 967–998.Google Scholar
  59. Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Maciejewski, M. 2017. To do more, better, faster and more cheaply: Using big data in public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 83 (1_Suppl): 120–135.Google Scholar
  61. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734.Google Scholar
  62. Mayer-Schönberger, V., and K. Cukier. 2013. Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  63. McAllister, D.J. 1995. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38 (1): 24–59.Google Scholar
  64. McEvily, B., V. Perrone, and A. Zaheer. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science 14 (1): 91–103.Google Scholar
  65. McGann, M., E. Blomkamp, and J.M. Lewis. 2018. The rise of public sector innovation labs: Experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sciences 51 (3): 249–267.Google Scholar
  66. McKnight, D.H., and N.L. Chervany. 2001. Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In Trust in cyber-societies, 27–54. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Mergel, I., R.K. Rethemeyer, and K. Isett. 2016. Big data in public affairs. Public Administration Review 76 (6): 928–937.Google Scholar
  68. Mintrom, M., and J. Luetjens. 2016. Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 (3): 391–402.Google Scholar
  69. Misztal, B. 1996. Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order. Wiley, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
  70. Morgeson, F.V., III, D. VanAmburg, and S. Mithas. 2010. Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of the e-government-citizen trust relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2): 257–283.Google Scholar
  71. Murtin, F., L. Fleischer, V. Siegerink, A. Aassve, Y. Algan, R. Boarini, S. González, Z. Lonti, G. Grimalda, R.H. Vallve, and S. Kim. 2018. Trust and its determinants. OECD statistics working papers, no. 2018/02. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  72. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2016. Getting petabytes to people: How the EOSDIS facilitates earth observing data discovery and use. [Online].
  73. Newton, K., and S. Zmerli. 2011. Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review 3 (2): 169–200.Google Scholar
  74. Nyhan, R.C. 2000. Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations. The American Review of Public Administration 30 (1): 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Offe C. How can we trust our fellow citizens? (1999). In: Institutionen, Normen, Bürgertugenden. Ausgewählte Schriften von Claus Offe, vol 3. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  76. Oomsels, P., and G. Bouckaert. 2014. Studying interorganizational trust in public administration: A conceptual and analytical framework for “Administrational Trust”. Public Performance & Management Review 37 (4): 577–604.Google Scholar
  77. Pettersson, F., S. Westerdahl, and J. Hansson. 2018. Learning through collaboration in the Swedish public transport sector? Co-production through guidelines and living labs. Research in Transportation Economics 69: 394–401.Google Scholar
  78. Pirog, M.A. 2014. Data will drive innovation in public policy and management research in the next decade. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33 (2): 537–543.Google Scholar
  79. Poel, M., E.T. Meyer, and R. Schroeder. 2018. Big data for policymaking: Great expectations, but with limited progress? Policy & Internet 10 (3): 347–367.Google Scholar
  80. Power, D.J. 2014. Using ‘Big Data’ for analytics and decision support. Journal of Decision Systems 23 (2): 222–228.Google Scholar
  81. Putnam, R.D., R. Leonardi, and R.Y. Nanetti. 1994. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Rothstein, B., and D. Stolle. 2008. The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics 40 (4): 441–459.Google Scholar
  83. Rotter, J.B. 1967. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust 1. Journal of Personality 35 (4): 651–665.Google Scholar
  84. ———. 1971. Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist 26 (5): 443.Google Scholar
  85. Rousseau, D.M., S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Burt, and C. Camerer. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 393–404.Google Scholar
  86. Ruscio, K.P. 1996. Trust, democracy, and public management: A theoretical argument. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (3): 461–477.Google Scholar
  87. Sänger, J., C. Richthammer, S. Hassan, and G. Pernul. 2014. Trust and big data: A roadmap for research. In 2014 25th international workshop on database and expert systems applications, 278–282. Los Alamitos: IEEE.Google Scholar
  88. Schwab, K. 2017. The fourth industrial revolution. Currency, Published by Crown Publishing Group, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  89. Seligman, A.B.. 2000. The problem of trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Spavin, C., and L. Fegan. 2017. The data-trust deficit. Data Driven Government @Gov KPMG.
  91. Sztompka, P. 1999. Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Tindale, J., and O. Muirhead. 2019. Trust, transparency and tech – building data policies for the public good. Policy Connect.
  93. Tolbert, C.J., and K. Mossberger. 2006. The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review 66 (3): 354–369.Google Scholar
  94. Tõnurist, P., R. Kattel, and V. Lember. 2017. Innovation labs in the public sector: What they are and what they do? Public Management Review 19 (10): 1455–1479.Google Scholar
  95. Van de Walle, S. 2017. Trust in public administration and public services. In Trust at risk: Implications for EU, 118. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  96. van Veenstra, A.F., and B. Kotterink. 2017. Data-driven policy making: The policy lab approach. In International conference on electronic participation, 100–111. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Wellstead, A.M. 2020. Policy innovation labs. In Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance, ed. A. Farazmand. Cham: Springer. Scholar
  98. Wellstead, A.M., R.C. Stedman, and M. Howlett. 2011. Policy analytical capacity in changing governance contexts: A structural equation model (SEM) study of contemporary Canadian policy work. Public Policy and Administration 26 (3): 353–373.Google Scholar
  99. Williamson, O.E. 1993. Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. The Journal of Law and Economics 36 (1, Part 2): 453–486.Google Scholar
  100. Williamson, B. 2015. Governing methods: Policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History 47 (3): 251–271.Google Scholar
  101. Yang, K., and M. Holzer. 2006. The performance–trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review 66 (1): 114–126.Google Scholar
  102. Zaheer, A., B. McEvily, and V. Perrone. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science 9 (2): 141–159.Google Scholar
  103. Zucker, L.G. 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behavior 8: 53–111.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Gemma Carey
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations