Estermann irspm2016 open_glam_in_practice_20160414
-
Upload
beat-estermann -
Category
Science
-
view
229 -
download
0
Transcript of Estermann irspm2016 open_glam_in_practice_20160414
OpenGLAM in Practice – How Heritage Institutions Appropriate the Notion of OpennessBeat Estermann, 14 April 2016 – IRSPM, Hong Kong
▶ Bern University of Applied Sciences | E-Government Institute
Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Center. Photo by Sarah Stierch, CC BY-SA 4.0 (Wikimedia Commons)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.
Early Adopters13.5%
Shar
e of
inst
itutio
ns (
%)
Innovators2.5%
Early Majority
34%
Late Majority34%
Laggards16%
Research Questions
Where do heritage institutions stand with regard to……Open Data?…Linked Data / Semantic Web?…Digitization…Open Content?…Engaging Audiences on the Internet…Collaborative Content Creation
What are the perceived risks and opportunities? (drivers vs. hindering factors)What are the expected benefits?What are the differences between different types of heritage institutions?
International comparisons: In what ways does the situation vary in the different countries?
Awareness Evaluation
AdoptionTrialInterest
Innovation Diffusion Model, Everett Rogers, 1962
Positioning of the practices covered with regard to the «Open Government Implementation Model»
Source: Lee and Kwak 2011: «Open Government Implementation Model»
Bulgaria, Brazil, Finland, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Ukraine, all institution types combined, N = 1030.Cases with «stagnation» / «discontinuance» have been ignored.
Prop
ortio
n of
inst
itutio
ns (
%)
Innovators2.5%
Early Majority
34%
Late Majority34%
Early Adopters13.5%
Laggards16%
Collaborative content creation
Social media
Open content
Digitization
Linked data
Open data
Advanced implementationAdoptionTrialEvaluationInterestNo interest
Everett Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Model
Diffusion of Innovative Practices among Heritage Institutions
▶ What are the links and mutual influences between the various Internet-related practices? Is there a typical path institutions follow when adopting the practices under consideration?
▶ Which context factors at the country level influence the adoption of the various practices?
▶ To what extent do attitudes with regard to the different practices change as heritage institutions transit through the various stages of the innovation adoption process?
Focus of the conference paper
Factors influencing the adoption of Internet-related practices
Country-level variablesCorrelations
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1 -.613 ** -.107 ** .892 ** .570 ** -.285 ** .889 ** .670 ** .711 ** -.518 **
.000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 924
-.613 ** 1 .617 ** -.356 ** -.189 ** .103 ** -.389 ** .033 -.773 ** .340 **
.000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .296 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 924
-.107 ** .617 ** 1 .042 .197 ** .323 ** .041 .323 ** -.263 ** -.150 **
.001 .000 .179 .000 .000 .184 .000 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 924
.892 ** -.356 ** .042 1 .811 ** -.022 .980 ** .878 ** .612 ** -.395 **
.000 .000 .179 .000 .482 .000 .000 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1030 1030 1030 1028 1028 1028 924
.570 ** -.189 ** .197 ** .811 ** 1 .531 ** .860 ** .754 ** .613 ** -.063
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .056
1028 1028 1028 1030 1030 1030 1028 1028 1028 924
-.285 ** .103 ** .323 ** -.022 .531 ** 1 .058 .039 .192 ** .353 **
.000 .001 .000 .482 .000 .064 .211 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1030 1030 1030 1028 1028 1028 924
.889 ** -.389 ** .041 .980 ** .860 ** .058 1 .837 ** .699 ** -.416 **
.000 .000 .184 .000 .000 .064 .000 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 924
.670 ** .033 .323 ** .878 ** .754 ** .039 .837 ** 1 .224 ** -.319 **
.000 .296 .000 .000 .000 .211 .000 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 924
.711 ** -.773 ** -.263 ** .612 ** .613 ** .192 ** .699 ** .224 ** 1 -.318 **
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 924
-.518 ** .340 ** -.150 ** -.395 ** -.063 .353 ** -.416 ** -.319 ** -.318 ** 1
.000 .000 .000 .000 .056 .000 .000 .000 .000
924 924 924 924 924 924 924 924 924 924
**.
mac
ro- l
evel
mes
o-
▶ Calculated as part of the UN E-Government Survey
▶ Three Sub-Indexes:
▶ E-Information Sharing: Use of online services to facilitate provision of information by governments to citizens
▶ E-Consultation: Interaction with stakeholders
▶ E-Decision Making: Engagement in decision-making processes
E-Participation Index
▶ All Internet-related practices are self-reinforcing: higher adoption levels translate into higher scores on perceived importance and desirability
▶ Small differences, but no dramatic effects in attitudes across adoption stages
▶ Attitude changes are slow; in some cases, crucial attitude changes seem to lag behind changes of practice (e.g. with regard to «open content»)
▶ Institutions are heading for a win-win situation, based on more ‘openness’ towards and participation by users:
▶ improved visibility and perceived relevance of institutions▶ improved access to external working power and expertise▶ improved interactions and relationship with users▶ networking and community building among target audiences and
heritage institutions▶ increased sense of public ownership and responsibility among users
Observed changes in attitudes
▶ Contact Details:• Beat Estermann
E-mail: [email protected]: +41 31 848 34 38
▶ Project Portal:• http://survey.openglam.ch
Thank you for your attention!