Fenster, M. (2015)

From 4open
Jump to: navigation, search

Please insert questions regarding the text below. Remember to add an acronym with the first two letters of your first and family name respectively in brackets to your question (e.g., "HaMa" for "Hans Mayr").

  • It is said that democracy would be strengthened by (complete) transparency. However, doesn't the prevailing concept of democracy imply that others (politicians/experts) make decisions on my behalf because I entrust them with the expertise? (For example because, as described in the text, the citizens are limited in rationally processing information or are partly unwilling to.) (JoAn)
  • Fenster argues that transparency ideals are based on a simplistic understanding of communication that reduces it to the transmission of information from a sender (the state) to a receiver (the public). Moreover, recipients are not rational and compliant, as transmission theories assume. One of the reasons is that receivers are not willing or able to consider such information, perhaps because of its complexity. Do you think future technologies such as AI could eliminate this problem in order to convey information to the public in a more understandable way? What problems might arise from the use of such technologies (e.g., AI)? (MiNi)
  • The text looks at the concept of transparency and 'open government' within a framework of a fairly simplistic and instrumental of the 'sender-receiver-model' of communication. Would more complex communication theories and concepts reveal other aspects of transparency which fall short in this analysis? (SiYo)
  • Instead of aiming for a pure form of transparency (which seems to be impossible anyways), one could start by switching roles and have the citizens be the sender and the government the receiver in terms of what information they actually want to know. What would happen to the citizens if they get the role of the sender and the government actually listens and acts upon the demands of the public- would the democracy actually become more participative? (JuRo)
  • Fenster concludes that there is no unified theory of how transparency can be successfully achieved without the possibility of negative consequences. How can the various definitions of transparency (in particular instrumental, democratic, and moralistic) help to create a holistic definition of transparency? (JaBo)
  • How does Fenster's exploration of transparency challenge our assumptions about the concept and its theoretical foundations and what implications does this have for our understanding of transparency in contemporary society? (JoKa)
  • What are the limitations of transparency and secrecy in the communication of information by the state, that may appeared during the Covid -19 pandemic? I was thinking pf new challenges in this area. (SaSt)
  • Fenster writes several times about the coherence between transparancy in a democracy and bureaucracy. So is more transparancy only possible if we have less bureaucracy? How could that be possible especially in Germany a country with a high bureaucracy? (LeTi)
  • As Fenster notes in his article, technological advancements have made a significant contribution to transparency, but when can transparency be considered threatening with the use of technology? (EvYü)
  • What is the fundamental problem with both transparency and secrecy in a democratic system? What are the limitations of transparency and secrecy in a democratic state? (KaHe)
  • How can we ensure that transparency does not lead to political decisions being made solely based on public opinion rather than on facts and expert opinions? (VaMü)
  • The text mentions the public’s ignorance, even regarding basic matters of politics, government, and history. Is this just a matter of ignorance, or is it also a problem of information bubbles that are difficult to escape, especially when one is unaware of such? Mainly thinking of social media as echo chambers of one’s opinion and message control, etc. (BeFa)
  • According to Fenster, access to government information is essential in a democracy. Nevertheless, the open government laws provide certain privileges for the state. For example, government officials can decide which documents to release and when, and what may be redacted. But what impact do these decisions have on society? (BaWe)
  • While reading this article, I kept wondering if transparency (disclosure of government information) really makes a state more open and if it increases citizens' trust in the state/government? (KaWe)
  • Although the term transparency is ambiguous and does not have clear boundaries, it is one of the pillars of the democracy (or expected to be), in this sense without the ideal type of transparency (in Weberian terms) and liabilities, how can democracy survive or is it even possible ? (KaAk)
  • How has the discourse of transparency evolved over time, and what historical events or cultural factors played an important role for this development? (AlWi)
  • What might be unintended consequences for organizations seeking to be more transparent? And how can an organization balance transparency and the protection of sensitive information? (MiMa)
  • How to achieve greater transparency in contemporary societies? Is there any specified roadmap for achieving it in practice? (NaRa)
  • According to Fenster, transparency doesn´t alway achieve the wanted effects in democracies. So how can societies balance the desire for transparency with the need for privacy and the protection of individual rights and do Fensters arguments give higher weight to secrecy? (PaHe)
  • what role would economic organizations have in a completely transparent state?, Would economic organizations also have to be 100% transparent as they are often seen as political influential? (NiGr)
  • The author describes, among other things, Edward Snowden's publications about NSA wiretapping practices. Diplomatic relations and thus the openness between the USA and some states suffered from the publications. My question, therefore, is what such a trade-off between whistleblower disclosure and dwindling openness might look like as a result? (MaBe)
  • How does the concept of the opaque state intersect with issues of power and inequality? Are certain groups or individuals more likely to be targetedby opaque state practices and how can we ensure that these groups are protected and empowered? (AnHe)
  • Fenster (2015) names the classic sender-receiver model that underlies transparency, and based on its poor fit with reality concludes that transparency is not possible because the state cannot control the flow of information and the public cannot accurately receive it. Are there other conceptions of transparency that take into account these complexities? (EvSc)