On Names and Naming #2: Problems with Open Data

This is the second in my series on the accuracy, connotations and denotations of terms/expressions widely known and used in the global society of data management for social change and development. Here is the first.

*

    My impressions so far with the reactions to the term Open Data of people across diverse sectors of the global community of data management for social change and development.

#1. Data is scary

Say “data” and people hear a jamboree of geeks such as statisticians, economists, computer scientists, number-crunchers and evil hackers.  

#2. Data is exclusive and exclusionary

As a result, the knee-jerk reaction of the significantly larger majority of those in the global community of data management for social change and development who do not see themselves as geeks is “Not interested. That’s not my thing.”

#3. Open Data is scarier

Open Data projects a global community of hacktivists who manipulate data to portray in a bad light (in)famous people such as politicians, corporatists, celebrities, barons and cartels. To these “embattled victims”, ethical and legal obligations governing data integrity, access and use, or those relating to balance and fairness or defamation matter little to not at all to the hacktivists.

#4. Open Data is adversarial

As a result, those of the government sector (whose support and participation are critical, especially in developing countries) are wary about the “true intent” of program sponsors and implementing partners. They tend to see them as tools enabling their opponents to cause trouble and remove them from office, rather than effective tools for good governance, sustainable development and local innovation and entrepreneurship. It does not help at all that quite a few of them have a foggy knowledge of this dreaded alien thing called Open Data.

#5. Open Data is (only) digital data accessible online

This view is doubtless informed by the history in developed countries of the collection of citizens’ data, first by government, then by corporations, currently by both in concert. Citizens’ apprehension of technological, economic and political developments and activities on these continue to influence their relentless advocacy on information(al) access, privacy and security.  In this information society (more accurately data society), practically all data are created, collected, stored, shared, archived and/or destroyed digitally.

Therefore for those in developed countries, the focus on Open Data is not at all data; this is assumed to be digital. Nor is it much on access; many laws guarantee them that. Laws such as court/open public records acts, open meetings/sunshine acts, freedom of information acts and public domain provisions in copyright and patent laws, to name but a few. More precisely, the focus is on making open data actionable to enable citizens to advocate for a government that is more transparent, answerable and responsive to the needs, wants and desires of its citizenry.

This belief influences the design and implementation strategies of most of the open data programs in developing countries. But with two distinct differences.  First, developing countries need to be open-data ready—in fact, readiness is a key indicator in the prestigious global open data barometer study conducted annually by the Open Data Research Network. And for this to happen, much faith is placed on government as the host and primary actor in the creation of laws and institutions similar if not identical to those in developed countries.

Secondly, programs that use Open Data to solve problems relating to health, education, agriculture, poverty alleviation, environmental protection and the like are actively encouraged and supported.  The activities of GODAN readily come to mind.

But as I, like a growing number of others, continue to point out, our understanding of data and of open data needs to be expanded to embrace the reality of the nature and magnitude of data management (i.e. from collection to destruction) in developing countries.

#6. Open Data is a privilege

A significant number (though not the majority) of Open Data advocates in developed countries tend to think that Open Data issues are negligibly applicable to developing countries. “They have more pressing issues to deal with” is the spoken and unspoken belief. Pressing issues like access to basic needs such as safe drinking water, reliable electricity supply, K-12 education, health, gender equality, individual and public safety & security, etc.

This view is easily debunked by countless examples on the ground that show the laudable extent to which Open Data is used to effectively address said pressing issues. Suffice it to say that this perception is strongly undergirded by that of #5 above.

Evidently, with the exception of the few above-noted, all of these beliefs are far from the reality. But then again we tend to be driven more by our perceptions than by the truth. It would help a lot to explore ways of addressing these misperceptions in our workshops, symposia, conferences and the like. It would help in equal measure to bear these (mis)perceptions in mind when we work on policies and programs geared primarily to those in developing countries.