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: beat.estermann@bfh.chPhone: +41 31 848 34 38

▶ Project Portal:• http://survey.openglam.ch

Thank you for your attention!