Ash Center logo

Research & Resources

Through our books, case studies, journal articles, papers, and surveys, the Ash Center is home to some of the world’s most advanced research and publications on issues related to democratic governance and self-governance.

To explore all research authored by Ash Center faculty, please visit the Harvard Kennedy School website. You can view the Ash Center’s open access policy here.

Captiol building with trend graphic

Additional Resource

How Americans Navigate Voting Information Ahead of the 2026 Midterm Elections

The Shorenstein Center’s 2026 Voting Information Trends project—developed in collaboration with the National Internet Observatory at Northeastern University, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation’s Program on Democracy and the Informed Public, and The Civic Health and Institutions Project—provides new insights into the voter information landscape in the United States ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Among the resources, an interactive dashboard maps where Americans are finding voting information and learning about key aspects of the voting process—from sourcing polling locations to voter registration. Also included are a series of trends reports gauging perceptions of voting in the lead up to the 2026 midterm elections.

Read The Story

Filter by

  • Issue Areas
  • Programs
  • Format

Filters

Close

Filters

Issue Areas
Programs
Format

238 Items

of 27

Newest

Can Transparency and Technology Make Us Healthier?
Man looking at health details on watch

Article

Can Transparency and Technology Make Us Healthier?

Archon Fung and Elena Fogotto describe a new Commonwealth Fund–supported project examining whether smartphones, apps, and wearables can create a better model of transparency: one where patients not only access information but generate and share their own health data through platforms like Smart Patients and patient-powered research networks. The project will study these platforms’ features, how they empower patients, and whether their benefits reach all users or mainly the tech-savvy.

 

Citizen Voices, Community Solutions: Designing Better Transparency and Accountability Approaches to Improve Health
Classroom of people learning

Occasional Paper

Citizen Voices, Community Solutions: Designing Better Transparency and Accountability Approaches to Improve Health

The Transparency for Development (T4D) study was designed to answer the question of whether a community-led transparency and accountability program can improve health outcomes and community empowerment, and, if so, how and in what contexts. To answer this question, researchers and civil society organization partners began by co-designing a program that would activate community participation to address myriad barriers to proper maternal and newborn care, with the ultimate goal of improving maternal and newborn health outcomes. This report presents the design of the program that was then implemented in 200 villages in Tanzania and Indonesia and studied using a mixed methods impact evaluation. In addition to detailing the program, the report outlines how we got there—describing a number of principles that informed some distinguishing features of the program, as well as an iterative design process that defined other features through trial and error.

Want To Know If A Job Is Safe? The Government Should Let You Find Out
Employee writing on safety checklist

Article

Want To Know If A Job Is Safe? The Government Should Let You Find Out

Wouldn’t it make sense to find out—before applying for a job in a dangerous industry—which firms have a safe track record and which don’t? The Obama administration thought so and proposed an online system for accessing workplace safety data. The Trump administration disagreed, delaying it indefinitely—a decision that raises injury risk for thousands of workers.

David Michaels and David Weil argue that OSHA-driven transparency can push dangerous employers to improve: making injury data public would likely “nudge” them into better protecting their workers.

An Approach to Small-Scale Mixed-Methods Experimentation Transparency for Development, Phase 2
Group of Malawi women

Paper

An Approach to Small-Scale Mixed-Methods Experimentation Transparency for Development, Phase 2

The growth of experimentation has brought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) into evaluations of complex interventions in policy areas like health care or education, which often occur at the group or society level, at a large scale, and the implementation of which can take myriad forms. For precisely evaluating the benefits of complex programs, RCTs remain the gold standard, frequently used when, for example, a health or education program is under consideration for scaling, is already being done at large scale but is of uncertain benefit, or is almost perfected save for a very specific design question. But often large-scale randomized controlled trials of complex interventions are not the best choice. When, for whatever reason, evaluation of a complex intervention is important but small-scale experimentation is more appropriate than a full RCT, how might further refinement of that intervention be most rigorously and reliably evaluated? This paper describes one approach to such an evaluation.

Our Desperate Need to Save U.S. Democracy From Ourselves
Intercom with Hands held high

Article

Our Desperate Need to Save U.S. Democracy From Ourselves

Archon Fung argues that American democracy is eroding because everyone—campaigns, politicians, journalists, social media platforms, and citizens—pursues narrow self-interest instead of protecting it. He points to attack ads, gerrymandering, policy that favors the wealthy, “fake news,” and low voter turnout as evidence.

Transparency for Development: Baseline Report
Indonesian women looking at a document

Paper

Transparency for Development: Baseline Report

Ahead of launching their community scorecard intervention in 200 villages, the Transparency for Development team surveyed households in Indonesia and Tanzania. This report details the demographics, health conditions, and empowerment levels of the communities included in the sample prior to the intervention. One interesting finding is although respondents rated their local health providers as fairly responsive, very few viewed local government as responsive.