The social impact of open government data in Hong Kong: Umbrella Movement protests and adversarial politics

References

• Benhabib, S. 1986. Critique, norm, and utopia. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chattapadhyay, S. 2014. Access and use of government data by research and advocacy organisations in India: A survey of (potential) open data ecosystem. In ICEGOV ’14: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. 361–64. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, P. T. Y. 2011. Civic engagement in the policy process in Hong Kong: Change and continuity. Public Administration and Development 31(2):113–21. doi: 10.1002/pad.597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 2009. Philosophy, politics, democracy: Selected essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, R. 2012. Some observations on the practice of “open data” as opposed to its promise. The Journal of Community Informatics 8(2). http://ci-journal.org/index.php/ciej/article/view/920 (accessed March 12, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Currie, M., B. S. Paris, I. Pasquetto, and J. Pierre. 2016. The conundrum of police officer-involved homicides: Counter-data in Los Angeles County. Big Data & Society 3(2):1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. 1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T. 2010. Open data, democracy and public sector reform. Master’s thesis, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T. 2013. Open data barometer: 2013 global report. Washington, DC: World Wide Web Foundation. http://www.opendataresearch.org/dl/odb2013/Open-Data-Barometer-2013-Global-Report.pdf (accessed March 11, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T. 2014. Open data in developing countries: Emerging insights from phase I. Washington, DC: World Wide Foundation. http://www.opendataresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/Phase%201%20-%20Synthesis%20-%20Full%20Report-print.pdf (accessed March 15, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T., R. M. Sharif, and J. M. Alonso. 2016. Open data barometer: ODB global report. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: World Wide Web Foundation. http://opendatabarometer.org/3rdEdition/report/ (accessed March 11, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T., and F. Perini. 2016. Researching the emerging impacts of open data: Revisiting the ODDC conceptual framework. The Journal of Community Informatics 12(2):148–78.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed., eds. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• DiSalvo, C. 2010. Design, democracy and agonistic pluralism. Paper presented at the 2010 Design Research Society Conference, Montreal, Canada, July. http://www.drs2010.umontreal.ca/proceedings.php (accessed March 16, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• DiSalvo, C. 2012. Adversarial design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. 1996. Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratization. American Political Science Review 90(03):475–87. doi: 10.2307/2082603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, A. M., and A. Campos. 2013. Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(1):172–85. doi: 10.1002/pam.21651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Volume 1 (translation by Thomas McCarthy). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, K. 2012. Open government data and the right to information: Opportunities and obstacles. The Journal of Community Informatics 8(2). http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/952/954 (accessed March 12, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, M., Y. Charalabidis, and A. Zuiderwijk. 2012. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management 29(4):258–68. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, N. 2011. Value changes and legitimacy crisis in post-industrial Hong Kong. Asian Survey 51(4):683–712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magalhaes, G., C. Roseira, and S. Strover. 2013. Open government data intermediaries: A terminology framework. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV’13), Eds. Tomasz JANOWSKI, Jeanne HOLM, and Elsa ESTEVEZ, 330–333. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Meng, A. 2014. Investigating the roots of open data’s social impact. JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government 6(1):1–13. doi: 10.29379/jedem.v6i1.288.
   Google Scholar
• Meng, A., and C. DiSalvo. 2018. Grassroots resource mobilization through counter-data action. Big Data & Society 5(2):1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2000. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Ombudsman, Hong Kong. 2014. Direct investigation into the access to information regime in Hong Kong (Issue No. 4 of Reporting Year 2013/14). http://ofomb.ombudsman.hk/abc/en-us/direct_investigations (accessed March 16, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Open Data Barometer. opendatabarometer.org. http://opendatabarometer.org/barometer/ (accessed September 26, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Poon, K. 2007. The political future of Hong Kong: Democracy within communist China. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, D. G., H. Yu, W. P. Zeller, and E. W. Felten. 2009. Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal of Law & Technology 11: 160–76.
   Google Scholar
• Schrock, A. 2016. Civic hacking as data activism and advocacy: A history from publicity to open government data. New Media & Society 18(4):581–99. doi: 10.1177/1461444816629469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrock, A., and G. Shaffer. 2017. Data ideologies of an interested public: A study of grassroots open government data intermediaries. Big Data & Society 4(1):1–10. doi.org/10.1177/2053951717690750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sein, M. 2011. The “I” between G and C: e-Government intermediaries in developing countries. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 48(1):1–14. doi: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2011.tb00338.x.
   Google Scholar
• Srinivasan, J., M. Finn, and M. Ames. 2017. Information determinism: The consequences of the faith in information. The Information Society 33(1):13–22. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2016.1248613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsang, S., M. Burnett, P. Hills, and R. Welford. 2009. Trust, public participation and environmental governance in Hong Kong. Environmental Policy and Governance 19(2):99–114. doi: 10.1002/eet.502.
   Google Scholar
• Ubaldi, B. 2013. Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open government data initiatives (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/open-government-data_5k46bj4f03s7-en (accessed March 18, 2019)
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1968. Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar