Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Estermann montreal symposium_2016_open_glam_benchmark_survey_20160509

569 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey - Measuring the Advancement of Open Data / Open Content in the Heritage Sector. Presentation at the International Symposium on the Measurement of Digital Cultural Products, Montreal, May 2016.

Veröffentlicht in: Wissenschaft
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Estermann montreal symposium_2016_open_glam_benchmark_survey_20160509

  1. 1. OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey Measuring the Advancement of Open Data / Open Content in the Heritage Sector Beat Estermann, 9 May 2016 – International Symposium on the Measurement of Digital Cultural Products, Montreal ▶ Bern University of Applied Sciences | E-Government Institute Montreal Biosphere. Photo by Philipp Hienstorfer, CC BY-SA (Wikimedia Commons) This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Note that trademarks may be subject to trademark protection.
  2. 2. ▶ G(alleries) L(ibraries) A(rchives) M(useums) ▶ OpenGLAM stands for «Open Data/Open Content» and new participatory approaches in the cultural heritage domain What is OpenGLAM?
  3. 3. 1. Release digital information about the artefacts (metadata) into the public domain using an appropriate legal tool such as the Creative Commons Zero Waiver. 2. Keep digital representations of works for which copyright has expired (public domain) in the public domain by not adding new rights to them. 3. When publishing data make an explicit and robust statement of your wishes and expectations with respect to reuse and repurposing […] 4. When publishing data use open file formats which are machine- readable. 5. Opportunities to engage audiences in novel ways on the web should be pursued. Full version with examples: http://openglam.org/principles/ The 5 OpenGLAM Principles
  4. 4. Early Adopters 13.5% Shareofinstitutions(%) Innovators 2.5% Early Majority 34% Late Majority 34% Laggards 16% OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey: 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 different countries? Awareness Evaluation AdoptionTrialInterest Innovation Diffusion Model, Everett Rogers, 1962
  5. 5. ▶ Diffusion of Internet-related practices among heritage institutions ▶ Adoption rates for the different practices ▶ Interdependencies between the adoption of various practices ▶ Further factors influencing the adoption of various practices (institution’s characteristics & country-level variables) ▶ Observed changes in attitudes ▶ Driving forces and hindering factors regarding the adoption of «open content» and «crowdsourcing» from the point of view of the institutions ▶ Country comparisons Selection of Key Findings
  6. 6. Bulgaria, Brazil, Finland, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Ukraine, all institution types combined, N = 1030. Cases with «stagnation» / «discontinuance» have been ignored. Proportionofinstitutions(%) Innovators 2.5% Early Majority 34% Late Majority 34% Early Adopters 13.5% Laggards 16% Collaborative content creation Social media Open content Digitization Linked data Open data Advanced implementation Adoption Trial Evaluation Interest No interest Everett Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Model Diffusion of Innovative Practices among Heritage Institutions
  7. 7. Factors influencing the adoption of Internet-related practices
  8. 8. Country-level variables macro-levelmeso-   
  9. 9. ▶ 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
  10. 10. ▶ 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
  11. 11. Attitudes: Conditions for Releasing Content N = 457 Based on data from four countries: Poland, Finland, Switzerland, and The Netherlands (N = 457)
  12. 12. Driving and Hindering Factors of Open Content and Crowdsourcing Driving Factors1 Hindering Factors1 Open Content Improving the visibility of the institution and its holdings Making content more easily available for existing users and attract new users Facilitating networking among institutions Improving interactions with users Doing a better job at fulfilling the institution’s core mission Extra time effort and expenses (digitization, documentation, rights clearance) Feeling of loss of control Wish to prevent commercial use of content by third parties without due compensation Technical issues and insufficient staff skills Crowdsourcing Intention to get access to external expertise and to have certain tasks carried out by volunteers Quest for an improved relationship with users/visitors (trust, loyalty, public ownership and responsibility) Extensive preparation and follow-up Difficulties to estimate the time scope; low planning security; continuity of data maintenance is not guaranteed 1 Factors which are of relevance for more than 50% of responding institutions
  13. 13. 35% 6% 42% 13% 47% 17% 17% 6% 55% 19% 61% 15% 51% 23% 27% 10% 71% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Open data Linked data / semantic web Digitization Open content Social media Collaborative content creation Archives Museums Libraries N = 1030 Adoption Rates According to Institution Type
  14. 14. 26% 23% 18% 30% 38% 24% 28% 33% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Open data N = 1030 Adoption Rates – Country Comparison
  15. 15. 11% 12% 4% 6% 10% 9% 6% 19% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Linked data / semantic web N = 1030 Adoption Rates – Country Comparison
  16. 16. 42% 50% 44% 58% 71% 50% 38% 39% 39% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Digitization N = 1030 Adoption Rates – Country Comparison
  17. 17. 16% 17% 12% 15% 31% 12% 12% 17% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Open content N = 1030 Adoption Rates – Country Comparison
  18. 18. 74% 66% 34% 74% 70% 71% 75% 58% 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Social media N = 1030 Adoption Rates – Country Comparison
  19. 19. 16% 19% 8% 26% 17% 9% 13% 11% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Collaborative content creation N = 1030 Adoption Rates – Country Comparison
  20. 20. 82% 46% 71% 71% 71% 71% 64% 57% 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Institutions with centrally managed metadata N = 1030
  21. 21. 0.56 0.45 0.41 0.55 0.55 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.54 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA OpenGLAM Index: Country Comparison N = 1030
  22. 22. 0% 8% 22% 1% 46% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Pure volunteer organizations (without paid staff) N = 1030
  23. 23. 6% 7% 22% 4% 4% 9% 0% 4% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Institutions with no more than 1 FTE paid staff and/or volunteers N = 1030
  24. 24. 0 50 100 150 200 250 BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA Density of heritage institutions (number of institutions per mio. inhabitants) N = 1030
  25. 25. 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA E-Government Development Index and E-Participation Index (UNPACS, 2014) E-Government Development Index EGDI E-Participation Index EPI
  26. 26. 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 BG BR CH FI NL NZ PL PT UA GDP per capita (in 10’000 USD) GDP per capita (2012) GDP per capita (2002)
  27. 27. Comparison with the ENUMERATE Survey OpenGLAM Survey ENUMERATE Survey Main purpose Measure the state of advancement of OpenGLAM-related practices in various countries Monitor the progress on digitization of cultural heritage across Europe Thematic coverage Focuses on the adoption of several Internet-related practices that build upon or are complementary to the digitizaton of cultural heritage. Includes questions about driving and hindering factors as well as future practice. Focuses on questions relating to digitization, providing much more detail in this area than the OpenGLAM Survey. Methodological approach Online survey (distribution lists). Calculation of response rates. Designed to allow for country comparisons. Online survey (open call and/or distribution lists). Controlling for a target quota per country. Not designed to allow for country comparisons. N of countries / institutions covered 9 (10) countries / 1030 institutions 29 countries / 1951 institutions
  28. 28. Comparison with the Open Data Barometer OpenGLAM Survey Open Data Barometer Main purpose Measure the state of advancement of OpenGLAM-related practices in various countries Monitor the state of «openness» of government data Thematic coverage Broader in scope insofar that it covers not only the publication of data, but also aspects of online participation and collaboration. Makes no assumptions about the importance of particular collections. Does not evaluate the countries’ readiness to secure positive outcomes from OpenGLAM. Covers the impacts that arise from «open content» and «crowd-sourcing» from the perspective of heritage institutions. Focuses on the level of legal and technical «openness» of government data in a limited number of thematic areas. Makes assumptions about the importance of certain datasets for certain purposes (e.g. transparency). Covers the countries’ readiness to secure positive outcomes from an open government data initiative. Covers the impacts that arise from open data publication. Methodological approach Online survey among heritage institutions Covers the perspective of data providers Focuses on individual institutions Expert poll among country experts Covers the perspective of data users in quite some detail Focuses on the country level N of countries / institutions 9 (10) countries / 1030 institutions 86 countries / not applicable
  29. 29. ▶ ENUMERATE Survey ▶ Stroeker, N., and Vogels, R. (2014). Survey Report on Digitisation in European Cultural Heritage Institutions 2014. ENUMERATE Project. ▶ Open Data Barometer ▶ World Wide Web Foundation (2015) Open Data Barometer Global Report, Second Edition. ▶ OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey ▶ Estermann, Beat (2015) Diffusion of Open Data and Crowdsourcing among Heritage Institutions. Based on data from Finland, Poland, Switzerland, and The Netherlands. Paper Presented at the EGPA 2015 Conference, held on 26-28 August 2015 in Toulouse, France. ▶ Estermann, Beat (2016) "OpenGLAM" in Practice – How Heritage Institutions Appropriate the Notion of Openness. Paper presented at the IRSPM 2016 Conference in Hong Kong. Final Draft. ▶ Estermann, Beat (2016) OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey – Measuring the Advancement of Open Data / Open Content in the Heritage Sector. Paper presented at the International Symposium on the Measurement of Digital Cultural Products, 9-11 May 2016, Montreal, Canada. Final Draft. References
  30. 30. ▶ Contact Details: • Beat Estermann E-mail: beat.estermann@bfh.ch Phone: +41 31 848 34 38 ▶ Project Portal «OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey»: • http://survey.openglam.ch Thank you for your attention!

×