Dijital Şeffaflık Kavramı: Uluslararası Literatürün PRISMA Yöntemiyle Sistematik İncelenmesi

Year 2023, , 109 - 136, 30.06.2023

Mehmet Keskin , Esra Keloğlu İşler

https://doi.org/10.24146/tk.1283373

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada şeffaflık hakkında yazılmış uluslararası makale, konferans bildirisi, kitap bölümü, gibi çalışmaların bibliyografik olarak incelenerek türdeş alanlı (cross-disciplinary) bir sentez yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda dijital iletişim kanalları yoluyla uygulanan şeffaflık uygulamalarının saptanmasıyla birlikte araştırmaya yön veren sorular 1) Şeffaflıkta kamu sektörü, özel sektör veya yurttaş bakımından hedefler nelerdir? 2) Şeffaflık kimin faydasınadır? 3) Şeffaflıkla ilişkili alt kavram setleri nelerdir? 4) Şeffaflıkla ilgili literatürde üzerinde durulan konular nelerdir? 5) Şeffaflığın gerçekleşmemesi bağlamında hangi engeller vardır? 6) Aşırı şeffaflık veya tam tersine hiç şeffaflığın olmaması durumlarında hangi tehlike, ihlal ve riskler bulunmaktadır? olarak belirlenmiştir.

Yöntem: Araştırmada 2001-2022 (Mart) yılları arasında Web of Science, Scopus, Taylor & Francis, ScienceDirect ve JSTOR veri tabanlarında yayınlanmış çalışmalardan elde edilen veriler PRISMA 2020 bildirgesi kullanılarak derlenmiştir. Verilerin kodlanmasında ve kategorize edilmesinde bu çalışma yazarları tarafından geliştirilen “veri toplama formu” kullanılmış ve MAXQDA 20 programı ile analiz edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Veri tabanlarının taranması sonucu tespit edilen 4681 çalışmanın sadece 255'i sistematik derleme için uygun bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmaların neredeyse yarısı Kuzey Avrupa ve Kuzey Amerika gibi iki bölgede yoğunlaşmıştır ancak Latin Amerika, Avustralya, Asya ve Afrika’da şeffaflık araştırmalarının eksikliği gözlemlenmiştir. Doküman incelemesi, nitel ve nicel veri toplama yöntemleri arasında en yaygın kullanılan yöntem olarak belirlenirken, deneysel tasarımların kullanımında eksiklik saptanmıştır. Ayrıca dijital mecra araştırma konularına yönelik web tabanlı araştırmaların her yıl düzenli olarak artan bir şekilde çalışıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışmaların teknolojideki gelişmelerle birlikte blok zinciri, nesnelerin interneti, artırılmış gerçeklik ve sanal gerçeklik gibi alanlara kayabileceği de öngörülmektedir. Araştırmacıların çoğu, kamu sektörü performansını iyileştirebileceği düşüncesiyle, yurttaşlara yönelik bilgi akışının var olduğu şeffaflık çalışmalarına odaklanmaktadır. Ayrıca dijital iletişimde, şeffaflığın demokratik eylemler üzerinde olumlu etkileri olduğunu gösteren çok sayıda araştırma bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Sonuç: Bu çalışma, sadece iletişim bilimleri alanında değil diğer sosyal bilimler disiplinlerinde de sıklıkla atıfta bulunulan şeffaflık konusundaki literatürü gözler önüne sererek teorik ve pratik çalışmalara temel oluşturması bakımından bir katkı sağlamaktadır. Ayrıca dijital iletişim kanallarının şeffaflık kavramıyla ilişkilerini netleştirerek gelecekteki araştırmalar için de faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir. Araştırma sonuçları, şeffaflığın demokratik bir ortamda önemli olduğuna ve dijital iletişim kanallarının bu bağlamdaki önemine işaret etmektedir. Ancak dijital iletişim kanallarının gizlilik ve veri koruması gibi diğer önemli yönleri de göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Bu nedenle şeffaflık konusuyla ilgili farkındalığın artırılması ve dijital iletişim kanallarının etkileri hakkında daha fazla araştırma yapılması gerekmektedir. Bu araştırmalar, şeffaflık kavramının daha iyi anlaşılmasına ve şeffaflık uygulamalarının daha etkili hale getirilmesine yardımcı olabilir. Ayrıca dijital iletişim kanallarında veri koruması ve gizlilik konularının da ele alınması gerekmektedir. Tüm bunlar, daha şeffaf ve güvenli bir toplumsal iletişim ortamı yaratmak için atılması gereken önemli adımlardır.

Özgünlük: Dijitalleşmenin ve şeffaflığın ilişkisine dair kavramsal ve kuramsal literatürün detaylı bir şekilde incelenmesi, bu çalışmanın önemini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca çalışmanın gelecekteki araştırmalar için potansiyel alanları belirleyerek mevcut bilgi boşluklarını doldurma açısından da önemli bir katkı sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Dijital şeffaflık, mahremiyet, sistematik literatür taraması, dijital iletişim araçları, PRISMA kontrol listesi

Supporting Institution

YOKTUR

Project Number

Bu çalışma, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü'nde devam eden doktora tezinden üretilmiştir

Thanks

YOKTUR

The Concept of Digital Transparency: A Systematic Analysis of International Literature by Using the PRISMA Method

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to make a cross-disciplinary synthesis by conducting a bibliographic analysis of international articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, etc., written on transparency. In line with this, the research aims to identify transparency practices implemented through digital communication channels and address the following guiding questions: 1) What are the goals of transparency for the public sector, private sector, or citizens? 2) Who benefits from transparency? 3) What are the sub-concepts related to transparency? 4) What are the issues emphasized in the literature on transparency? 5) What are the obstacles to transparency? 6) What are the dangers, violations, and risks in cases of excessive transparency or, conversely, no transparency?

Method: In this research, data obtained from studies published between 2001 and March 2022 in Web of Science, Scopus, Taylor & Francis, ScienceDirect, and JSTOR databases were analyzed using the PRISMA 2020 statement. The data were coded and categorized using a “data collection form” developed by the authors of this study and analyzed using the MAXQDA 20 software.

Findings: Only 255 of the 4681 studies identified by the database search were eligible for systematic review. Almost half of these studies were concentrated in two regions, Northern Europe and North America, but a lack of transparency research was observed in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and Africa. Document analysis was identified as the most common method of qualitative and quantitative data collection, with a weak trend in the use of experimental designs. In addition, it was determined that web-based studies on digital media research topics are regularly studied each year. It is also predicted that these studies may shift to areas such as blockchain, the Internet of Things, augmented reality, and virtual reality with technological developments. Most researchers focus on transparency studies where information flows to citizens, with the idea that this can improve public sector performance. A large body of research also shows that greater transparency in digital communication positively affects democratic action.

Implications: This study provides an important contribution to transparency research in the field of communication sciences by presenting an interdisciplinary perspective. This work will also be useful for future research by clarifying the relationship between digital communication channels and the concept of transparency. The results of this study show that transparency is important in a democratic environment and emphasizes the importance of digital communication channels in this context. However, other important aspects of digital communication channels, such as privacy and data protection, should also be considered. Therefore, there is a need to raise awareness of transparency and to conduct more research on the effects of digital communication channels. This research can help to better understand the concept of transparency and make transparency practices more effective. There is also a need to address data protection and privacy issues in digital communication channels. Such studies can contribute to a better understanding of the concept of transparency and enhancing transparency practices. Additionally, data protection and privacy issues in digital communication channels should be addressed. All of these steps are crucial for creating a more transparent and secure social communication environment.

<

Originality: An in-depth analysis of the theoretical and conceptual literature on the connection between digitalization and transparency highlights the significance of this study. In addition, it is believed that the study can significantly contribute by identifying potential areas for future research and filling existing knowledge gaps.

Keywords

Digital transparency, privacy, systematic literature review, digital media of communication, PRISMA checklist

Project Number

Bu çalışma, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü'nde devam eden doktora tezinden üretilmiştir

References

• Albu, O. B., ve Flyverbom, M. (2016). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 58(2), 268-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/
• 0007650316659851
• Alryalat, M. A. A., Rana, N. P., Sahu, G. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., ve Tajvidi, M. (2017). Use of social media in citizen-centric electronic government services: A literature analysis. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 13(3), 55-79.
• Amir-Behghadami, M., ve Janati, A. (2020). Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (Picos) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emergency Medicine Journal, 37(6), 387-387.
• Andrejevic, M. (2007). Ispy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. University Press of Kansas.
• Asrak Hasdemir, T., ve Keskin, M. (2023). Şeffaflık, bilgi edinme ve i̇letişim hakkı: Covid-19 pandemisi koşullarında kurumsal uygulamalar üzerine bir i̇nceleme. Etkileşim, 6(11), 12-42.
• Bannister, F., ve Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: A critical review of openness in e-government. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 158-187.
• Baothman, F., Saeedi, K., Aljuhani, K., Alkatheri, S., Almeatani, M., ve Alothman, N. (2021). Computational intelligence approach for municipal council elections using blockchain. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, 27(3), 625-639.
• Bernstein, E. S. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181-216.
• Bertram, T., Bursztein, E., Caro, S., Chao, H., Feman, R. C., Fleischer, P., Gustafsson, A., Hemerly, J., Hibbert, C., Invernizzi, L., Donnelly, L. K., Ketover, J., Laefer, J., Nicholas, P., Niu, Y., Obhi, H., Price, D., Strait, A., Thomas, K., ve Verney, A. (2019). Five years of the right to be forgotten [Bildiri]. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer and Communications Security.
• Bhuiyan, S. H. (2011). Trajectories of e-government implementation for public sector service delivery in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(9), 604-615.
• Birchall, C. (2016). Shareveillance: Subjectivity between open and closed data. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1-12. doi:10.1177/2053951716663965
• Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation (S.Glaser, Çev.). University of Michigan Press.
• Baudrillard, J. (1993). The transparency of evil: Essays on extreme phenomena (J. Benedict, Çev.). Verso.
• Bratton, B. H. (2016). The stack: On software and sovereignty. The MIT Press.
• Boyd, D., ve Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
• Castells, M. (2010). End of Millennium: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Vol.3). John Wiley & Sons
• Chen, G., Kang, H., ve Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2019). Key determinants of online fiscal transparency: A technology-organization-environment framework. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(3), 606-631.
• Chenou, J.-M., ve Rodríguez Valenzuela, L. E. (2021). Habeas data, habemus algorithms: Algorithmic intervention in public interest decision-making in Colombia. Law, State and Telecommunications Review, 13(2), 56-77.
• Chowdhury, M. J. M., Colman, A., Kabir, M. A., Han, J., ve Sarda, P. (2018). Blockchain versus database: A critical analysis [Bildiri]. 2018 17th IEEE International Conference On Trust, Security And Privacy In Computing And Communications/ 12th IEEE International Conference On Big Data Science And Engineering (TrustCom/BigDataSE), (ss. 1348-1353).
• Cuillier, D. ve Pinkleton, B. E. (2011). Suspicion and secrecy: Political attitudes and their relationship to support for freedom of information. Communication Law and Policy, 16(3), 227-254.
• Dalio, R. (2017). Principles: Life and Work. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
• Davis, C. N. ve Cuillier, D. (2014). Transparency 2.0: Digital data and privacy in a wired world. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.
• de Vries, P. (2018). Black Transparency in the Era of Post-Truth: Review of Metahaven (2015) Black Transparency: The Right to Know in the Age of Mass Surveillance. Berlin: Sternberg Press, 205 pp. Krisis Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, (1), 98-102. 7 Ocak 2023 tarihinde https://
• archive.krisis.eu/black-transparency-in-the-era-of-post-truth/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A.-K., ve Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x
• De Fine Licht, J. (2014). Transparency actually: How transparency affects public perceptions of political decision-making. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 309-330. https://doi.org/
• 10.1017/S1755773913000131
• Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism?: Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884905056815
• Diakopoulos, N., ve Koliska, M. (2017). Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism, 5(7), 809-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053
• Díez-Garrido, M., ve Renedo Farpón, C. (2020). La transparencia institucional y mediática del coronavirus. Un análisis de los portales de datos y de los medios de comunicación digitales en Iberoamérica. Revista Latina, 78, 393-418. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2020-1482
• Dunayev, I., Kud, A., Latynin, M., Kosenko, A., Kosenko, V. ve Kobzev, I. (2021). Improving methods for evaluating the results of digitizing public corporations. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 6(13-114), 17-28. https://doi.org:10.15587/1729-4061.2021.248122
• Fenster, M. (2012). The transparency fix: Advocating legal rights and their alternatives in the pursuit of a visible state. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 73(3). https://doi.org/10.5195/
• lawreview.2012.225
• Finel, B. I., ve Lord, K. M. (1999). The surprising logic of transparency. International Studies Quarterly, 43(2), 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00122
• Gacitua, R., Astudillo, H., Hitpass, B., Osorio-Sanabria, M., ve Taramasco, C. (2021). Recent models for collaborative e-government processes: A survey. IEEE Access, 9, 19602-19618. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3050151
• Ganapati, S., ve Reddick, C. G. (2014). The use of ict for open government in u. S. Municipalities: Perceptions of chief administrative officers. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(3), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576370302
• Gandía, J. L., Marrahí, L., ve Huguet, D. (2016). Digital transparency and Web 2.0 in Spanish city councils. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 28-39.
• Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Herkes, F., Leistikow, I., Verkroost, J., Vries, F., ve Zijlstra, W. G. (2021). Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment. Regulation & Governance, 15(1), 17-31.
• Gupta, A., Boas, I., ve Oosterveer, P. (2020). Transparency in global sustainability governance: To what effect? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 84-97.
• Han, Byung-Chul (2022). Palyatif toplum: Günümüzde acı (H. Barışcan, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
• Halachmi, A., ve Greiling, D. (2013). Transparency, e-government, and accountability: Some issues and considerations. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 572-584.
• Hayashida Carrillo, A. H., Rolón Sánchez, J. E., ve Leal Cota, V. (2022). Metrics of open government in Mexican fisheries. Journal of Rural Studies, 92, 462-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/
• j.jrurstud.2019.07.007
• Hood, C., ve Heald, D. (Ed.). (2006). Transparency: The key to better governance? Oxford University Press.
• Heimstädt, M. (2017). Openwashing: A decoupling perspective on organizational transparency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
• j.techfore.2017.03.037
• Hilbert, M., Miles, I., ve Othmer, J. (2009). Foresight tools for participative policy-making in inter-governmental processes in developing countries: Lessons learned from the eLAC Policy Priorities Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(7), 880-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.01.001
• Hofmann, Y. E., ve Strobel, M. (2020). Transparency goes a long way: Information transparency and its effect on job satisfaction and turnover intentions of the professoriate. Journal of Business Economics, 90(5-6), 713-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-00984-0
• Holeman, I., Cookson, T. P., ve Pagliari, C. (2016). Digital technology for health sector governance in low and middle income countries: A scoping review. Journal of Global Health, 6(2), 020408. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.020408
• Jacobs, N., Loveday, F., Markovic, M., Cottrill, C. D., Zullo, R., ve Edwards, P. (2022). Prototyping an IoT transparency toolkit to support communication, governance and policy in the smart city. The Design Journal, 25(3), 459-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2022.2061775
• Jaeger, P. T., ve Bertot, J. C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.003
• Karlsson, M. (2010). Rituals of transparency: Evaluating online news outlets’ uses of transparency rituals in the United States, United Kingdom and Sweden. Journalism Studies, 11(4), 535-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616701003638400
• Kelleher, T., ve Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 395-414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00019.x
• Lindquist, E. A., ve Huse, I. (2017). Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital-era governance: Monitoring Government In The Digital Era. Canadian Public Administration, 60(4), 627-656.
• Longo, J. (2011). # OpenData: Digital-era governance thoroughbred or new public management Trojan horse? Public Policy & Governance Review, 2(2), (ss. 38-51).
• Lourenço, R. P. ve Serra, L. (2014, Eylül). An online transparency for accountability maturity model [Bildiri]. International Conference on Electronic Government. (ss. 35-46). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Lykidis, I., Drosatos, G. ve Rantos, K. (2021). The use of blockchain technology in e-government services. Computers, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10120168
• Manes Rossi, F., Brusca, I., ve Aversano, N. (2018). Financial sustainability as a driver for transparency and e-democracy: A comparative study in Italian and Spanish local governments. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 22-33.
• Manfredi-Sánchez, J.-L. (2017). Horizontes de la información pública. El Profesional de la Información, 26(3), 353. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.may.01
• Mansoor, M. (2021). An interaction effect of perceived government response on COVID-19 and government agency’s use of ICT in building trust among citizens of Pakistan. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(4), 693-707.
• Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2006). Exploring the dynamics of collaboration in interorganizational settings. S. Schuman (Ed.), Creating a culture of collaboration: The International Association of Facilitators handbook içinde (ss. 69-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2011). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton University Press.
• Meijer, A. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255-269.
• Meijer, A., ve Thaens, M. (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113-121.
• Mohelská, H., ve Sokolová, M. (2017). Digital transparency in the public sector – case study Czech Republic. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 20(4), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/
• 2017-4-016
• Nissenbaum, H. F. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford Law Books.
• Nussbaumer, P., Matter, I., Reto à Porta, G. ve Schwabe, G. (2012). Designing for cost transparency in investment advisory service encounters. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(6), 347-361.
• Onufreiciuc, R. (2020). Some reflections on transparency as the first economic disinfectant. Postmodern Openings, 11(3), 278-289. doi:10.18662/po/11.3/214
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (N. Çınar ve G. Hür, Çev.) BMJ.
• Pant, R. R., Prakash, G., ve Farooquie, J. A. (2015). A framework for traceability and transparency in the dairy supply chain networks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 385-394.
• Paul, S. (2007). A case study of E-governance initiatives in India. International Information & Library Review, 39(3-4), 176-184. doi:10.1080/10572317.2007.10762747
• Porumbescu, G. A. (2016). Comparing the effects of e-government and social media use on trust in government: Evidence from Seoul, South Korea. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1308-1334.
• Pozen, David. E. (2005). The mosaic theory, national security and the freedom of information act. The Yale Law Journal, 628-679.
• Qian, L., Du, L. ve Hou, J. (2019). Research on the micro charity characteristic and its influences on individual charity participation behavior. J. Manag. Sci., 32(120-134).
• Rella, A., Marrone, A., Raimo, N. ve Vitolla, F. (2022). The antecedents of transparency of Italian public entities: An empirical analysis in universities and public research institutes. Administrative Sciences, 12(1). doi:10.3390/admsci12010029
• Rieder, B. ve Hofmann, J. (2020). Towards platform observability. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1-28. doi:10.14763/2020.4.1535
• Rissman, A., Morris, A., Kalinin, A., Kohl, P., Parker, D. ve Selles, O. (2019). Private organizations, public data: Land trust choices about mapping conservation easements. Land Use Policy, 89. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104221
• Rizal Batubara, F., Ubacht, J., ve Janssen, M. (2019). Unraveling transparency and accountability in blockchain [Bildiri]. Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, (ss. 204-213). https://doi.org/10.1145/3325112.3325262
• Robinson, S. C. (2020). Trust, transparency, and openness: How inclusion of cultural values shapes Nordic national public policy strategies for artificial intelligence (AI). Technology in Society, 63, 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101421
• Kovach, B., ve Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect (1st rev. ed., Completely updated and rev). Three Rivers Press.
• Rossa, S. (2019). Law, technology, and administration in Italy and Estonia. A comparative analysis of the right to information. Publicum, 5(2), 160-183. doi:10.12957/publicum.2019.47206
• Rumbul, R. (2016a). Developing transparency through digital means? Examining institutional responses to civic technology in Latin America. EJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 8(3), 12-31. doi:10.29379/jedem.v8i3.439
• Rumbul, R. (2016b). ICTs, openness and citizen perceptions of government: How civic technologies can facilitate external citizen efficacy. Medijske Studıje-Media Studies, 7(14), 32-47.
• Rupar, V. (2006). How did you find that out? Transparency of the newsgathering process and the meaning of news: A case study of New Zealand journalism. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 127-143.
• Schenk, B., Dolata, M., Schwabe, C. ve Schwabe, G. (2021). What citizens experience and how omni-channel could help-insights from a building permit case. Information Technology & People, 1-25.
• Singer, J. B. (2007). Contested autonomy: Professional and popular claims on journalistic norms. Journalism Studies, 8(1), 79-95.
• Stohl, C., Stohl, M. ve Leonardi, P. M. (2016). Digital age managing opacity: Information visibility and the paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 123-137.
• Strauß, S. (2011). The limits of control – (Governmental) identity management from a privacy perspective. İçinde S. Fischer-Hübner, P. Duquenoy, M. Hansen, R. Leenes, & G. Zhang (Ed.), Privacy and Identity Management for Life (C. 352, ss. 206-218). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
• Tang, J., Zhang, B., & Akram, U. (2021). What drives authorization in mobile applications? A perspective of privacy boundary management. Information, 12(8), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12080311
• Tunney, S. ve Thomas, J. (2015). Public access to NHS financial information: From a freedom of information regime to full open-book governance? Social Theory & Health, 13(2), 116-140. doi:10.1057/sth.2014.19
• Vázquez, A.P., ve Zamorano, M. A. M. (2017). Transparencia, accountability y gobierno abierto: Comparación de los municipios de hermosillo, sonora y juárez, chihuahua desde la acreditación ciudadana de la función contralora de los municipios en méxico. Revista Estudo & Debate, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.22410/issn.1983-036X.v24i2a2017.1243
• Ye, Q., Rafique, Z., Zhou, R., Asmi, F., Anwar, M. A., ve Siddiquei, A. N. (2021). Embedded philanthropic csr in digital China: Unified view of prosocial and pro-environmental practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 695468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.695468