Realising the collective value of data by governing with rather than over

Abstract

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. Data is now seen as an asset and a new source of value creation. However, value realisation is often fraught, and it is not uncommon to get it scandalously wrong, inadvertently causing harm, and damaging reputations and trust. In this thesis, I argue that often this failure to realise data's value derives from the temptation to extrapolate approaches that work well in uniform stable situations to complex ones. Such approaches are informed by a linear-mechanistic logic that assumes a closed predictable world governed by timeless universal laws. However, across economics, public administration theory, and theories of evidence-based policy, a linear-mechanistic logic has been shown to undermine value creation in complex problem spaces. Yet governments do not yet know how to govern complexity. Alongside this temptation to extrapolate approaches from uniform and stable to complex situations, I propose two additional sources of this low capacity to govern complexity. I also propose a solution.

The first source is a lack of clarity about what value is. It is challenging to consistently realise value unless you know what it looks like, and current theories of value creation are an inadequate guide. They only provide measures of value. They fail to clarify what is being measured, that is, what motivates subjective evaluations. The second source is the primary focus in theories of power on power's negative exercise (i.e. domination), neglecting its positive exercise. How can governors positively exercise the power entrusted to them to create collective value if they do not know what that looks like? Additionally, when power is primarily conceptualised as domination, it is not surprising that powerful agents distance themselves from power, describe their practice as neutral, and gravitate towards a technocratic linear mechanistic logic.

I argue that these two areas of theoretical ambiguity point to a solution; value is inextricably linked to power. I present a combined theory of value and power underpinned by Deleuze and Guattari's assemblage theory (which is informed by complexity science). That is, firstly I define value as the enhanced capacity to act to achieve outcomes (i.e. the base definition of power) we seek from all social relationships (i.e. assemblages). Secondly, I rework the power to, -over, and -with trichotomy to differentiate the positive from the negative exercise of power. I argue that the value produced in social assemblages can be hoarded (power-over) or shared (power with). Thirdly, I make a case for why power-with is normatively superior to power-over. In the short term, taking all the value for yourself (i.e. power over) can be more profitable. However, in the long-term, it undermines individual and collective value creation and flourishing; that requires value sharing and governing with. I combine insights from theory, and case studies from Australian governments' use of data, to demonstrate what governing with data (rather than governing-over) looks like in practice and to elucidate its key features. This thesis proposes power-with and governing with as dominations' foil, and essential to collective value creation and flourishing. Show more