Society participation in anti-corruption hackathons in Brazil
results from the perspective of institutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36428/revistadacgu.v15i27.523Keywords:
Hackathons, Anti-corruption, Public Administration, Society participation, Open InnovationAbstract
This study aimed to verify the opinion of promoters of anti-corruption programming marathons about the results of such events held in Brazil since 2000. In 18 actions of this type that took place during the period, 58 projects were awarded, but only two were effectively available to the public and presented updated data in 2020. Thus, what drives the organizers of these hackathons to continue holding them? To this end, two fronts of research were conducted in this study. With the data obtained, it was observed that tangible results are always sought, as opposed to intangible ones. Contradictorily, the latter are the ones that have brought the most learning and growth (using the events as a strategy for innovation, starting from the participation of society in this process) to the organizing institutions of the events under analysis (especially the public ones), while the fight against corruption seems to take a back seat, appearing as an indirect consequence of holding the programming marathons.
Downloads
References
Agune, R., Carlos, J.A. (2019). Radar da Inovação: O que os governos precisam enxergar. In: Gregório, A. et. al. Inovação no Judiciário: Conceito, criação e práticas do primeiro laboratório de inovação do poder judiciário. São Paulo: Blucher.
Angarita, M.A., Nolte, A. (2020). What do we know about hackathon outcomes and how to support them? In: International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing – CollabTech 2020: Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing.
Bauer, M. (2008). Classical Content Analysis: a Review. In; Bauer, M., Gaskell, G.(edi.). Qualitative Researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage Publications.
Braighi, A.A. (2020). Hackathons anticorrupção no Brasil. In: Anais do Intercom – 43º Congresso Brasileiro de Ciências da Comunicação. Sociedade Brasileira de Estudos Interdisciplinares da Comunicação.
Braighi, A.A. (2022). Ativismo contra a corrupção em hackathons no Brasil. In: Revista Fronteiras. No Prelo.
Brasil. Constituição. (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Senado Federal: Centro Gráfico.
Briscoe, G., Mulligan, C. (2014). Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon. In: Creative Works London. Paper 6. Londres: Queen Mary University of London.
Chêne, M. (2012). Use of Mobile Phones to Detect and Deter Corruption. In: U4 Expert-Answer. Bergen: Chr.Michelsen Institute.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dahlander, L., Gann, D.M. (2010). How open is innovation? 2016. In: Research Policy. v.39. I.6.
D'Ignazio, C., Hope, A., Metral, A., Brugh, W., Raymond, D., Michelson, B., Achituv, T., Zuckerman, E. (2016). Towards a feminist hackathon: the “make the breast pump not suck!”. In: The Journal of Peer Production. Issue 8.
Ferreira, G.D., Farias, J.S. (2017). Construção e validação da Escala de Motivação para a Participação de cidadãos em Citizen-sourcing (EMPC) utilizando casos de Hackathons. In: Anais do EnANPAD.
Filgueiras, F. (2008). Corrupção, democracia e Legitimidade. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Gonçalves, B.A. (2019). Estudo de caso sobre aspectos motivacionais em participantes de hackathons cívicos: uma análise sobre a continuidade das soluções desenvolvidas. Dissertação de mestrado. Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação-UFPE.
Inuwa, I., Kah, M., Ononiwu, C. (2019). Understanding How the Traditional and Information Technology AntiCorruption Strategies intertwine to Curb Public Sector Corruption: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, China.
Klering, L.R., Andrade, J.A. (2006). Inovação na gestão pública: compreensão do conceito a partir da teoria e da prática. In: Jacobi, R., Pinho, J.A. Inovação no campo da gestão pública local. Rio de Janeiro: FGV.
Kukutschka, R.M.B. (2016). Technology against corruption: the potential of online corruption reporting apps and other platforms. In: U4 Expert-Answer. Bergen: Chr.Michelsen Institute.
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. In: Government Information Quarterly.
Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. In: Government Information Quarterly, 29(1).
Oliveira, S. (2016). Gerações: encontros, desencontros e novas perspectivas. São Paulo: Integrare.
Zinnbauer, D. (2012). False Dawn, Window Dressing or Taking Integrity to the Next Level? Governments Using ICTs for Integrity and Accountability – Some Thoughts on an Emerging Research and Advocacy Agenda. In: SSRN.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista da CGU
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Revista da CGU follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which allows the use and sharing of published works with mandatory indication of authors and sources. Contents published until 2019 have generic permission for use and sharing with mandatory indication of authorship and source.
We highlight some essential and non-exhaustive points related:
- The submission of the proposal implies a commitment not to submit it to another journal and authorizes if approved, its publication.
- The submission of the proposal also implies that the author(s) agrees with the publication, without resulting in remuneration, reimbursement, or compensation of any kind.
- The published texts are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the journal.
- Responsibility for any plagiarism is the responsibility of the author(s).
- The person responsible for the submission declares, under the penalties of the Law, that the information on the authorship of the work is complete and correct.
Also highlighted are the items related to our Editorial Policies, in particular on the Focus and Scope, Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, and Open Access Policy.
