Government departments and agencies around the world routinely collect administrative data produced by citizen interaction with the state. The UK government increasingly frames data as an 'asset'. The potential in administrative data can be exploited by sharing and linking across datasets, but when the rhetoric of the benefits of data sharing is bound up in commercial exploitation, trustworthy motivations for sharing data come into question. Such questions are framed around two apparently conflicting public goods. The public good in re-using data to increase government efficiency and to enhance research is set against the public good in protecting privacy. Privacy is a collective as well as an individual benefit, enabling the public to participate confidently in citizen-state interactions. Balancing these public goods is challenging given rapidly evolving technology and data science. The analysis presented here draws on research undertaken by the authors as part of the Administrative Data Research Centre in England. Between 2014 and 2017, four case studies were conducted on government administrative data across education, transport, energy and health. The purpose of the research was to examine stakeholder perspectives in relation to administrative data sharing and re-use. The themes of trust, risk and consent were chosen to articulate the research questions and analysis: this article focuses on the findings related to trust. It explores the notion of trust in the collection, analysis, linkage and re-use of routinely collected government administrative data in England. It seeks to demonstrate that securing public trust in data initiatives is dependent on a broader balance of trust between a network of actors involved in data sharing and use.

Open government data and access to public sector information is commonplace, yet little attention has focused on the essential roles and responsibilities in practice of the information and records management professionals, who enable public authorities to deliver open data to citizens. The article considers the perspectives of open government and information practitioners in England on the procedural and policy implications of open data, across local public authorities. Design/methodology/approach Using four case studies from different parts of the public sector in England (local government, higher education, National Health Service (NHS) and hospital trust), the research involved Masters level students in the data collection and analysis, alongside academics, thus enhancing the learning experience of students. Findings There was little consistency in the location of responsibility for open government data policy, the range of job roles involved, or the organizational structures, policy and guidance in place to deliver this function. While this may reflect the organizational differences and professional concerns, it makes it difficult to share best practice. Central government policy encourages public bodies to make their data available for re-use. However, local practice is very variable, and perhaps understandably responds more to local organizational strategic and resource priorities. A lack of common metadata standards for open data, different choices about which data to open, problems of data redundancy, inconsistency and data integrity and a wide variety of views on the corporate and public benefits of open data. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to England and to non-national public bodies and only draws data from a small number of case studies. Originality/value The research contributes to the debate about emerging issues around the complexities of open government data and its public benefits, contributing to the discussions around technology-enabled approaches to citizen engagement and governance. It offers new insights into the interaction between open data and public policy objectives, drawing on the experience of local public sectors in England.

This article draws on research undertaken by the authors as part of the Administrative Data Research Centre in England (ADRC-E). Between 2014 and 2017, we conducted four case studies on government administrative data for education, transport, energy and health. The purpose of the research was to examine stakeholder perspectives about the sharing, linking and re-use (secondary use) of government administrative data. In relation to the role and nature of consent given by data subjects for re-use, our study revealed significant variations in data provider and researcher attitudes. Although our study setting was England, we believe that the findings have wider resonance. Our analysis identified six factors which might account for the variations around consent: the specificities of the legislative framework governing the collection and processing of particular data; the type of data being collected and the relational context in which it is created; the broader information governance framework in which the data resides; the creating organization's approach to data release; the relative levels of risk aversity within the creating organization; and public perceptions and social attitudes. In conclusion, we consider whether consent is still the best mechanism available for data re-use, or whether a social contract model of data sharing should be developed.

No abstract

On the 7 th of June 2018, The National Archives UK held its inaugural Digital Lecture, delivered by Professor Luciano Floridi entitled "Semantic Capital: What it is and how to protect it". The lecture was followed by a poster exhibition, showcasing nine cutting-edge digital research projects at The National Archives. 1 This paper aims at giving a distinct overview of The National Archives' digital research priorities, drawing on examples from the active and recently completed research projects, which were displayed at the exhibition on the 7 th of June 2018. The focus of this paper is to discuss the research challenges that we are facing as we seek to become a second-generation digital archive, that is digital by instinct and design. By placing a particular emphasis on the conceptual and epistemological challenges relating to trust and openness, the paper suggests that research is the key for us as a rapidly evolving digital archive; enabling us not only to inform but also innovate around the forthcoming digital challenges, and helping us to define future directions and lead the shaping of the future archive.