Big data is a well-known phenomenon, even a buzzword nowadays. It refers to an abundance of data and new possibilities to process and use them. Big data is subject of many publications. Some pay attention to the many possibilities of big data, others warn us for their consequences. This special issue goes beyond the hype. It contains accessible contributions about opportunities and threats of big data. The authors have put special emphasize on big data institutions. Many publications about big data seem relatively poor on institutions, reflecting a more technocratic approach. In this first contribution we will introduce core concepts around big data. Additionally, we will specify the need to delve into institutions of big data.

Many people see big data as the solution to large societal challenges. But is this really the case? To what extend is the current interest in big data merely an example of the hype cycle, which is common to many technologies? Based on experiences in several big data projects, we explore what is truly novel about big data, and where big data might be meaningfully employed. From this, we distil two main points. First, ensuring the quality throughout the chain from data gathering through analysis and up to decision support is critical in ensuring the successful use of big data. Second, there are unavoidable tensions between the usability, desirability, and technological possibility of big data. Careful reflection on each of these is needed in any big data project.

In the sequence of creating, processing and use of data several actors are involved. They have different knowledge, skills, motives and interests. In this contribution big data is framed as a coordination effort in a chain. This perspective emphasizes the importance of transfers between actors. It emphasizes their difficulties too. Do actors mean the same? Do actors understand the same? Do actors want the same? To understand the value of data, the entire process from data creation to use need to be considered. This process may entirely take place within an organization. More often parts of the process are outside the organization. The challenge for governments that use big data for their decisions, is managing the quality of data and the chain that process them.

Big data has been adhered many potential benefits for the public sector. It could contribute to performance increase and to a better service delivery in many policy domains, across multiple public sector organisations and administrative levels. Within this debate the question of governance is blatantly absent, though crucial to address. To properly use big data in the public sector it will be necessary to integrate big data governance on three interconnected levels: micro, meso and macro-level, respectively referring to the proficient use of big data, its integrated use within an organisational context and the use of big data within the larger public sector for the benefit of public service delivery.

Big data can be seen as vital fuel for the innovation of diverse processes in both companies and in government policies and practices. In this short article we describe local efforts in the region around the Dutch city of Alkmaar in which the (local) government, (local) companies and a nearby university (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) work together on data-related challenges in a typical triple-helix structure. The municipality of Alkmaar gathers activities in a physical location to stimulate interaction and cooperation among (potential) partners, and it engages in the formation of new governance structures to increase both the intensity and the regional spread of the activities around data. All this raises many new and interesting issues and challenges for public administration researchers and practitioners.

Public administrations have always dealt with large volumes of data. They are now increasingly adopting sophisticated big data technologies to further leverage the data. Data provided by citizens, observed by sensors, deduced and inferred from diverse data sets are being used for decision making and making (pre-emptive) predictions about the behaviour of citizens and groups of citizens. The data and algorithms are not neutral nor flawless, but contain biases and may induce harms to individuals, such as discrimination, loss of autonomy, infringing their privacy. Big data decision making systems are usually opaque. Providing transparency about input, process, and even outcomes may be difficult due to the complexity inherent to the technology and even undesirable because it could affect the effectiveness of the system. This lack of transparency is at odds with the Rule of Law, which requires transparency and accountability of government action. What transparency should entail in the context of predictive analytics, however, is unclear. This short article points out some of the issues at stake.

The Internet of Things might have a high impact on privacy. However, privacy is a rather ambiguous concept in the world of big data. There is no unambiguous villain, no unambiguous victim, privacy is just one value in a set of other values and the ‘right’ tradeoff cannot be determined ex ante. Instruments to protect privacy prove to have ambiguous effects. They have there pros and cons and we often do not know what these pros and cons will be. The governance challenge will therefor be to develop a variety of new governance arrangements that will have to go through a process of trial and error. The question how to design such a process might be as important as the question what governance arrangements will work.

This article focuses on the question how Big, Open and Linked Data systems (BOLD) are shifting human-data relations. BOLD is creating a new type of society which is both data-focused and data-driven. Both governments and citizens are measuring, analyzing and verifying data and acting upon these types of analyses. As BOLD is itself becoming intelligent, the process of collecting, linking, and analyzing data is no longer merely the domain of humans. Machine-learning is picking up speed and algorithmic accuracy is being maximized as data are becoming more complex and unpredictable its output. Both citizens and governments will increasingly have to deal with non-human actors in the form of intelligent data-driven systems. By referring to literature on human-animal relations this article makes the argument that data systems are gaining autonomy and a certain level of wildness. As such systems are mediating human relations, the article argues that social relations are shifting to becoming triad relationships in which intelligent information systems are a significant actor.

In this final contribution we will summarize the main findings of this special issue. Moreover, we will think through the main consequences. The contributions all suggest major societal shifts. Organization of government is changing as a consequence of big data. They either reorganize or initiate new collaborations with businesses and knowledge institutions. What’s more, the processes of data generation, data processing and use are far from neutral. It requires more - at least other - technological knowledge and skills, which some possess and others not. New checks and balances are necessary, notably between data scientists and decision makers, between organizations that make big data their business and civilians, and maybe even between man and computer. Their relations might get reconfigured and those not familiar with the new big data methods will prove vulnerable. This final contribution contains an institutional research agenda that will meet these concerns.

In 2015, Dutch local governments have become responsible for youth care, social welfare, employment and income assistance programs, as a result of decentralization. Many municipalities have set up service delivery networks and community teams, in which they collaborate with healthcare providers and civic organizations to build integrated care services. It is assumed that these networks will improve outcomes in terms of enhanced people’s self-reliance and healthcare cost control; by operating close to citizens they are in a position to know the client, activate a client’s social network and mobilize specialized professional expertise if necessary. However, a comparative case study of 26 emerging local networks in the Arnhem area indicates that healthcare providers use the networks mainly for presentation purposes in an effort to secure business continuity, that the role of local governments is fuzzy, and that citizen participation only thrives when actively encouraged in a climate of trust.

The field of public administration research is continuously changing. This article takes stock of the field by asking four open questions to a large group of public administration practitioners and scholars. The questions prompt a debate about the state of play of the field of public administration in The Netherlands. Several dilemmas become apparent. Firstly, there is the tension between rigor and relevance of research. More rigorous methodology should not come at the expense of relevance in practice. Moreover, pressure to publish in international academic journals draws scholars away from the more practical outlets for research findings. Ever more is ‘written’, but less of that reaches the more practical audiences. This is congruent with the impression that public administration scholars should invest more in their narratives, so that the important message of public administration research reaches wider audiences and helps to reflect on pressing societal issues. Furthermore, there is a need for public administration scholars to be more active in helping practitioners solve the complex policy puzzles they face. This requires the ability to walk the fine line between keeping distance and becoming genuinely involved in policy processes. All of these factors can help the field of public administration take next steps in its development, to regain the connection with practice and raise its academic standards.

This essay review discusses three publications on co-creation: ‘We, the government’ by Davied van Berlo (2012), ‘Co-creation of innovation’ by Corry Ehlen (2015), and ‘New Business Models’ by Jan Jonker et al. (2014). The theme of this essay is the specific character of co-creation compared to other buzzwords (e.g. participation, co-production, social responsibility) that can be heard in the search for a new balance between the state and civil society. We suggest that the distinctive character of co-creation lies in the active engagement of parties who work together to co-create. Co-creation means raising the bar of collaboration and dialogue. Openness, trust, equality and reciprocity are emphasised as essential elements in the process. It is literally about collectively creating multiple values in which there should be plenty of room for creativity and sharing ideas. Following on the publications of Ehlen and Jonker a dual vision on co-creation arises. In general terms, the potential of co-creation depends on the know-how, commitment and values of the actors involved (microscopic perspective) and on the social capital in the wider environment that they can draw upon to bolster the co-creation process (macroscopic perspective).