Working across boundaries in smart city research

ABSTRACT

In this paper, four early career researchers discuss and reflect upon the unique research space offered by Smart City projects. We do so in an attempt to publicly reconcile some of the tensions and difficulties that we encountered while collaborating across organisational boundaries during three "Smart City" projects, which we briefly outline in the paper. We focus our discussion on four types of tensions that we encountered: motivations; accountability; participation, and; qualifying success. We believe that the tensions we encountered in our projects, and that we discuss in this paper, might be experienced similarly by other early career researchers. By sharing our tensions, raising our questions, and proposing some preliminary answers to those questions based on our experiences and reflections, we hope to provoke a discussion amongst our dg.o peers that will lead to improved future collaborations, a supportive community environment and, ultimately, smoother Smart City research projects.

References

1. Muhittin Acar, Chao Guo, and Kaifeng Yang. 2008. Accountability When Hierarchical Authority Is Absent Views From Public-Private Partnership Practitioners. The American Review of Public Administration 38, 1 (2008), 3--23.
2. Magnus Adenskog, Joachim Aström, Titiana Ertiö, Martin Karlsson, Sampo Ruoppila, and Sarah-Kristin Thiel. 2017. Balancing Potential and Risks : the Living Lab Approach in Mobile Participation Research. In Proceedings of 9th IFIP International Conference on eParticipation - ePart '17, Peter Parycek, Yannis Charalabidis, Andrei V Chugunov, Panos Panagiotopoulos, Theresa A Pardo, Øystein Saebø, and Efthimios Tambouris (Eds.). St. Petersburg, Russia, 12--23. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007
3. Tamara Almarabeh and Amer AbuAli. 2010. A general framework for e-government: defnition maturity challenges, opportunities, and success. European Journal of Scientific Research 39, 1 (2010), 29--42.
4. Sherry Arnstein. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 4 (1969), 216--224.
5. Joachim Åström, Magnus E. Jonsson, and Martin Karlsson. 2014. Policy Process and Governance Requirements: Pervasive Participation in Turku âĂŞ A Process Guideline. (2014).
6. Joachim Åström, Sampo Ruoppila, Titiana Ertiö, Martin Karlsson, and Sarah-Kristin Thiel. 2015. Potentials and Challenges of a Living Lab Approach in Research on Mobile Participation. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. ACM Press, Osaka, 795--800.
7. Matthias Baldauf and Holger Schnädelbach. 2013. How to Raise the Voice Anytime Anywhere: Technological Fundamentals for Enabling Pervasive Participation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Pervasive Participation. Munich, 4. https://www.b-part.eu/wp-content/uploads/PerPart2013
8. Jeffrey M Berry, Kent E Portney, Mary Beth Bablitch, and Richard Mahoney. 1984. Public involvement in administration: The structural determinants of effective citizen participation. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 13, 2 (1984), 7--23.
9. Susanne Bødker, Kasper Hornbæk, Antti Oulasvirta, and Stuart Reeves. 2016. Nine Questions for HCI Researchers in the Making. interactions 23, 4 (June 2016), 58--61.
10. Manu J. Brueggemann, Angelika Strohmayer, Matthew Marshall, Nataly Birbeck, and Vanessa Thomas. 2017. Reflexive Practices for the Future of Design Education: An Exercise in Ethno-Empathy. The Design Journal 20, sup1 (2017), S1260--S1269.
11. Martin Brynskov, Juan Carlos Carvajal Bermúdez, Manu Fernández, Henrik Korsgaard, Ingrid Mulder, Katarzyna Piskorek, Lea Rekow, and Martijn de Waal. 2014. Urban Interaction Design: Towards City Making. (2014).
12. Michael Carley, Paul Jenkins, and Harry Smith. 2013. Urban development and civil society: The role of communities in sustainable cities. Routledge.
13. Ned Crosby, Janet M Kelly, and Paul Schaefer. 1986. Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review (1986), 170--178.
14. JM Eger. 2000. Smart Communities Becoming smart is not so much about developing technology as about engaging the body politic to reinvent governance in the digital age. Urban Land 60, 1 (2000), 50--55.
15. Titiana Petra Ertiö and Sampo Rouppila. 2014. Supporting "Participation" in Mobile Participation. In Proceedings of the Electronic Government and Electronic Participation Conference, Marijn F.W.H.A. Janssen, Frank Bannister, Olivier Glassey, Hans Jochen Scholl, Efthimios Tambouris, Maria A. Wimmer, and Ann Macintosh (Eds.). IOS Press BV, 3--12.
16. Titiana Petra Ertiö, Sampo Ruoppila, and Sarah-Kristin Thiel. 2016. Motivations to Use a Mobile Participation Application. In International Conference on Electronic Participation. Springer, 138--150.
17. S Evans. 2002. Smart cities more than broadband networks. Ottawa Business Journal 25 (2002).
18. Brian J. Fogg. 2009. A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. ACM, 40. www.bjfogg.com
19. Yvonne Franz, Karin Tausz, and Sarah-Kristin Thiel. 2015. Contextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research. Technology Innovation Management Review 5, 12 (2015), 8. http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/article
20. Archon Fung. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public administration review 66, s1 (2006), 66--75.
21. Kathleen G Gundry and Thomas A Heberlein. 1984. Do public meetings represent the public? Journal of the American Planning Association 50, 2 (1984), 175--182.
22. Robert G Hollands. 2008. Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 12, 3 (2008), 303--320.
23. Marc Holzer and Seang-Tae Kim. 2007. Digital governance in municipalities worldwide (2007): A longitudinal assessment of municipal websites throughout the world. (2007).
24. David G Houghton. 1988. Citizen advisory boards: Autonomy and effectiveness. The American Review of Public Administration 18, 3 (1988), 283--296.
25. Simon Joss. 1995. Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum London, 89--108.
26. Rob Kitchin. 2014. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 79, 1 (01 Feb 2014), 1--14.
27. Henrik Korsgaard and Martin Brynskov. 2014. City bug report: urban prototyping as participatory process and practice. In Proceedings of the 2nd Media Architecture Biennale Conference: World Cities. ACM, 21--29.
28. Grit Laudel and Jochen Gläser. 2008. From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of Early Career Researchers. Higher Education 55, 3 (01 Mar 2008), 387--406.
29. Christopher A. Le Dantec and Sarah Fox. 2015. Strangers at the Gate: Gaining Access, Building Rapport, and Co-Constructing Community-Based Research. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1348--1358.
30. Loet Leydesdorff and Mark Deakin. 2011. The Triple-Helix Model of Smart Cities: A Neo- Evolutionary Perspective. Journal of Urban Technology 18, 2 (2011), 1063--732.
31. Christa Liedtke, Maria Jolanta Welfens, Holger Rohn, and Julia Nordmann. 2012. LIVING LAB: user-driven innovation for sustainability. International Journal of sustainability in higher education 13, 2 (2012), 106--118.
32. Ashley Lyn Olson. 2016. Vancouver, Canada Accessible Attractions. (2016). http://www.wheelchairtraveling.com/vancouver-canada-accessible-attractions-and-activities-for-travel/
33. G. Paquet. 2001. Smart communities. LAC Carling Government's Review 5 (2001). Issue 3.
34. John P Plumlee, Jay D Starling, and Kenneth W Kramer. 1985. Citizen participation in water quality planning: A case study of perceived failure. Administration & Society 16, 4 (1985), 455--473.
35. Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler, and Peter M Wiedemann. 1995. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Vol. 10. Springer Science & Business Media.
36. Stéphane Roche, N Nabian, K Kloeckl, and C Ratti. 2012. Are 'Smart Cities' Smart Enough? Spatially Enabling Government, Industry and Citizens: Research Development and Perspectives (01 2012), 215--236.
37. Gene Rowe and Lynn J Frewer. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, technology, & human values 29, 4 (2004), 512--556.
38. Øystein Sæbø, Leif Skiftenes Flak, and Maung K Sein. 2011. Understanding the dynamics in e-Participation initiatives: Looking through the genre and stakeholder lenses. Government Information Quarterly 28, 3 (2011), 416--425.
39. Hans Schaffers, Nicos Komninos, Marc Pallot, Brigitte Trousse, Michael Nilsson, and Alvaro Oliveira. 2011. Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation. In The Future Internet, John Domingue, Alex Galis, Anastasius Gavras, Theodore Zahariadis, Dave Lambert, ... Cleary, Frances, and Michael Nilsson (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 431--446.
40. Dimitri Schuurman. 2015. Bridging the gap between Open and User Innovation? Exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ghent University. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5931264/fle/5931265.pdf
41. Lucy Suchman. 2002. Located Accountabilities in Technology Production. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 14, 2 (Sept. 2002), 91--105. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=782686.782694
42. Geoffrey J Syme and Brian S Sadler. 1994. Evaluation of public involvement in water resources planning: A researcher-practitioner dialogue. Evaluation Review 18, 5 (1994), 523--542.
43. Vancouver Open Data Team. {n. d.}. Open Data Catalogue - Public washrooms. http://data.vancouver.ca/datacatalogue/public-washrooms.htm. ({n. d.}).
44. The Metro Vancouver Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2017. Accessibility. (2017). https://www.tourismvancouver.com/plan-your-trip/accessible-vancouver/
45. Sarah-Kristin Thiel and Ulrich Lehner. 2015. Exploring the Effects of Game Elements in m-Participation. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference. ACM, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom, 65--73.
46. Joachim Van den Bergh and Stijn Viaene. 2015. Key challenges for the smart city: Turning ambition into reality. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 2385--2394.
47. Alexander JAM Van Deursen and Jan AGM Van Dijk. 2014. The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New media & society 16, 3 (2014), 507--526.
48. Kazys Varnelis. 2008. Networked publics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 176 pages.
49. John Vines, Rachel Clarke, Peter Wright, John McCarthy, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Configuring Participation: On How We Involve People in Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 429--438.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • Empirical studies in HCI

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

      • Field studies