Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2021.9.3.2

Identifying Stakeholder Perspectives on Data Industry Regulation in South Korea  

Lee, Youhyun (Department of Public Administration, Ajou University)
Jung, Il-Young (Office of Future Industry Strategy Research, Science and Technology Policy Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.9, no.3, 2021 , pp. 14-30 More about this Journal
Abstract
Data innovation is at the core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. While the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the societal shift toward a data-driven society, the direction of overall data regulation remains unclear and data policy experts have yet to reach a consensus. This study identifies and examines the ideal regulator models of data-policy experts and suggests an appropriate method for developing policy in the data economy. To identify different typologies of data regulation, this study used Q methodology with 42 data policy experts, including public officers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and professors, and additional focus group interviews (FGIs) with six data policy experts. Using a Q survey, this study discerns four types of data policy regulators: proactive activists, neutral conservatives, pro-protection idealists, and pro-protection pragmatists. Based on the results of the analysis and FGIs, this study suggests three practical policy implications for framing a nation's data policy. It also discusses possibilities for exploring diverse methods of data industry regulation, underscoring the value of identifying regulatory issues in the data industry from a social science perspective.
Keywords
data policy; data industry; data regulation; Q methodology; focus group interviews;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Kim, T. O. (2018). The constitutional right to informational self-determination in the era of data-driven innovation - focused on the improvement of regulations through comparison of the IT network act and the EU GDPR -. Administrative Law Journal, 55, 29-56. http://doi.org/10.35979/ALJ.2018.11.55.29.   DOI
2 Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
3 Brown, S. R. (1997). The history and principles of Q methodology in psychology and the social sciences. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Symposium on "A Quest for a Science of Subjectivity": The Lifework of William Stephenson, London, UK.
4 Brown, S. R., Danielson, S., & van Exel, J. (2015). Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect: a reply to Kampen and Tamas. Quality & Quantity, 49(2), 523-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0007-x.   DOI
5 Chang, R., Cao, Y., Lu, Y., & Shabunko, V. (2019). Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions? - revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology. Energy Policy, 129, 307-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.047.   DOI
6 Cho, S. Y. (2018). A study on the guarantees of basic rights of data subject and consent by data subject in the law of personal data protection. Law Review, 18(1), 321-346. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE07408469.
7 Curry, R., Barry, J., & McClenaghan, A. (2013). Northern visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 624-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.693453.   DOI
8 Jang, Y. J. (2018). Changes of data technology industry in the field of 4th industry and tasks of Korea. KIET Industrial Economic Review, 10, 7-21.
9 Janssen, M., & Helbig, N. (2018). Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared! Government Information Quarterly, 35(4 Supplement), S99-S105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.009.   DOI
10 Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001316446002000116.   DOI
11 Kerber, W. (2017). Rights on data: The EU communication 'building a European data economy' from an economic perspective. In S. Lohsse, R. Schulze, & D. Staudenmayer (Eds.), Trading data in the digital economy: Legal concepts and tools (pp. 109-134). Nomos.
12 Kim, H. K. (2010a). A study on the regulation of the non-linear channel in the age of the convergence. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 24(3), 98-136. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01447529.
13 Kim, J. H. (2013). Finding critical success factors for spatial data industry by comparing strategies of digital earth enterprises. Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 13(3), 318-329. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.03.318.   DOI
14 Lee, S. Y. (2018). Response and evolution of the law on datadriven innovation in Korea. Journal of Law & Economic Regulation, 11(2), 147-167. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE07582373.
15 Lee, Y., & Jung, I. (2020). Dilemma of data driven technology regulation: Applying principal-agent model on tracking and profiling cases in Korea. Journal of Digital Convergence, 18(6), 17-32. https://www.earticle.net/Article/A377473.   DOI
16 Nam, T. (2017). Achievable or ambitious?: A comparative and critical view of Government 3.0 in Korea. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 13(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2017010101.   DOI
17 Prosser, W. L. (1960). Privacy. California Law Review, 48(3), 383-423. https://doi.org/10.2307/3478805.   DOI
18 Purtova, N. (2017). Do property rights in personal data make sense after the big data turn? Individual control and transparency. Journal of Law & Economic Regulation, 10(2), 208-222. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE07296102.
19 Nijnik, M., Nijnik, A., & Bizikova, L. (2009). Analysing the development of small-scale forestry in Central and Eastern Europe. Small-scale Forestry, 8(2), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-009-9077-3.   DOI
20 Ockwell, D. G. (2008). 'Opening up' policy to reflexive appraisal: A role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9066-y.   DOI
21 Son, Y. H. (2017). The challenges of protecting personal information in the age of internet of things (IoT) - focusing on the revised personal information protection act of 2015 in Japan -. Business Law Review, 31(2), 293-324. https://doi.org/10.24886/BLR.2017.06.31.2.293.   DOI
22 Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220. https://doi.org/10.2307/1321160.   DOI
23 Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Sage.
24 Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010160.   DOI
25 Kang, H. G., & Jeon, S. M. (2018). The current issues on domestic e-commerce regulations and global competitions: Market dominance, data sovereignty, and Amazon effects. Korean Journal of Law and Economics, 15(3), 355-374. http://doi.org/10.46758/kjle.2018.12.15.3.355.   DOI
26 Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2008). Q methodology. In C. Willig, & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 215-239). Sage .
27 Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67-91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa.   DOI
28 Cliff, N. (1988). The eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule and the reliability of components. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 276-279. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.276.   DOI
29 Kim, S. E. (2010b). Theories and philosophy of Q-methodology. Korean Society and Public Administration, 20(4), 1-25. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01378759&language=ko_KR.
30 Trute, H.-H. (2017). Industry 4.0 in Germany and the EU - data between property and access in the data-driven economy. Journal of Law & Economic Regulation, 10(2), 169-192. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE07296100.