Smart Citizens: Exploring the Tools of the Urban Bottom-Up Movement

Article

Abstract

As web technology and (big) data continue to transform how we organize ourselves, scholarly research increasingly zooms in on the socio-material conditions of citizen participation and public engagement, the objects and devices that organize publics. Where social issues may often be the driver of such public engagement, increasingly the city and, more specifically, the neighborhood itself have become a central objects connecting their inhabitants through online networks and neighborhood events. Tools and apps for citizen participation then weave together neighborhood stakeholders (e.g. inhabitants, municipal parties and entrepreneurs). This paper zooms in on a sample of 40 such tools that enable and organize bottom-up citizen participation in the city of Amsterdam. Combining a theoretical framework with content analysis, digital methods and data visualization, this paper marks the starting point of a longitudinal analysis of online tools for the urban bottom-up movement.

Keywords

Actor-network theory Citizen participation Content analysis Neighborhood initiatives Participatory turn Public engagement 

References

  1. Engeström, Jyri (2005). Why Some Social Networks Work and Others Don’t, or the Case for Object-Centered Sociality, Zengestrom.com. http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why-some-social-network-services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-centered-sociality.html. Accessed 21 March 2015.
  2. Hamari, Juho, Mimmi Sjöklint and Antti Ukkonen (2015). The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption, Social Science Research Network (SSRN). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2271971. Accessed 21 March 2015.
  3. Knorr Cetina, Karin (1997). Sociality with objects: social relations in postsocial knowledge societies, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lash, Scott and Celia Lury (2007). Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Latour, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Majcher, Kristin (2014). Citizen Technologists. MIT Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/532521/citizen-technologists/. Accessed 21 March 2015.
  7. Marres, Noortje (2012). Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. London: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marres, Noortje and Javier Lezaun (2011). Materials and devices of the public: an introduction. Economy and Society, vol. 40, no. 4. doi:10.1080/03085147.2011.602293.
  9. Ratto, Matt and Megan Boler (Eds.) (2014). DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Rossiter, Ned (2006). Organized Networks: Media Theory, Creative Labour, New Institutions. Rotterdam: nai010 Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Schatzki, Theodore R., Karen Knorr-Cetina and Eike von Savigny (Eds.) (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Waal, Martijn de (2014). The City as Interface: How New Media Are Changing the City. Rotterdam: nai010 Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Citizen Data LabAmsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Digital Media and Creative IndustriesAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations