In this, the 14th episode of the PolicyViz Podcast, I speak with Ken Melero, Director of Federal at Socrata. Socrata is a cloud-based open data software company that helps local, state, and federal governments open their data and make those data more widely available. Ken and I chat about the challenges organizations face when determining when and how to open their data and the evolution of open data from a time when data were locked away in PDFs and other unreadable formats to machine-readable formats to data that are increasingly human-readable.
Links
Socrata’s Open Data Field Guide
Sunlight Foundation | Open Data Policy Guidelines
Hi Jon. Excellent podcast, as usual. I was puzzled after I heard the talk with Ken Melero. I teach Data Visualization and do research on Public Administration, and I think there are two completely different narratives about the use of data on government.
There is agreement on the data visualization and open data initiatives from a normative point of view (the more data out there the better), but not about its instrumental value for government. Ken Melero (and the dataviz people) argue that the new possibilities of using data in government are big, particularly to increase performance through data sharing, decision making, etc. I would like to believe that having good platforms for creating, visualizing and distributing data can make a difference, but there is research showing that it’s not so simple, especially at the federal and state level.
Many studies show that performance data is used for political ends (selecting some data to argue about some issues); that people’s views about issues do not change after being exposed to results; that elected officials rarely use data, and that having clear and measurable goals doesn’t make a difference if there is no empowerment of managers. Performance data is much more used and regarded as more objective at the “street level” (a local government), because it’s easier to relate to direct actions. But that’s not the case at the federal and state level.
So, I was surprised that somebody working with the Federal government had a very positive view of the uses of data. I’m try to reconcile these two visions, and I’m not sure about which one is correct. Maybe it’s a mix?
Hi Gabriel,
Thanks for listening to the show and for your comments!
I’m not sure I agree that each of your points shows that distributing data does not have an effect. I would also guess that many of these studies show average effects, right? For example, some data surely changes the minds of some people, right? Maybe not on average, but maybe you only need to change the minds of a fraction of your readers to have an impact. Further, I don’t see how “elected officials rarely use data” and “using data for political ends” are consistent? And isn’t using data for political ends a good thing? It may not be the political point of view you or I agree with, but at least achieving those political goals by rooting them in data is a good thing, right? (I’d further argue that elected officials *do* often use data; just look at the Ryan-Murray proposal (HR831) to use evidence-based policymaking.
In general, I’m with Ken and I think more open, usable data is a good thing. And not only because it can help outside groups, the media, and individuals better understand their government, but because data sharing within agencies can help government run better and more effectively (this gets to your last point above about empowering managers, which I think is not necessarily strictly a data issue, but often a culture issue).
Thanks again and happy to continue this conversation!
Jon
Thanks for your comments Jon.
I think you are right, it’s different to look at averages than to look at the tails of the distribution. I would guess that Socrata’s clients are the ones more motivated to use data. I also agree that more open and usable data is something good, no worries about that.
What I tried to highlight is more related to “performance data” used by agencies to make decisions. These go from financial reporting to activities performed, population served, and so forth. This is different to the evidence-based policy making, although related, since evidence-based policy making involves scientific studies and goes beyond the data collection.
Practically all the states require agencies to collect these performance data, following federal government initiatives like the Performance Assessment Rating Tool. What studies have shown is that when agencies are required to collect data, many times the agencies or public officials: 1) don’t use the data at all, 2) use “cherry picking” of the data for political gains, 3) are cognitive biased towards interpreting the results in a way that accommodates their beliefs, 4) can’t do much when they decide to use the data because they have administrative constrains (laws, requirements).
So, when I hear software vendors or companies selling a rather simple concept of “open data therefore better government” I’m very skeptical. It’s like people arguing that power point is a bad tool, when what matters is what you do with the tool, and I think that’s more important than the tool itself. If you are interested, I recommend looking at Donald Moynihan “The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform”.