Sharing Is Caring, a Boundary Object Approach to Mapping and Discussing Personal Data Processing

  • Rob HeymanEmail author
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 547)


This work answers the following question, how to gather and act on personal data in smart city projects using boundary objects? Smart city projects require new mapping methods so they can share and discuss work collectively. Working collectively is necessary because smart city projects are difficult to map in one singular view for personal data because different smart city stakeholders have a part of the required information. Summarising data processing operations is most often taken for granted and under-defined in Data Protection Impact Assessment methods.

This paper is a plea for the use of boundary objects for GDPR compliance and research in smart cities. Therefore, this article is a comparison of the original context boundary objects with the context of smart cities to illustrate the need for a similar approach. The main results of this paper point to a new approach to enable collaborative GDPR compliance where specialist knowledge trickles down to developers and other actors not educated to comply with GDPR requirements.


GDPR Boundary object Smart city 


  1. 1.
    Star, S.L.: This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35, 601–617 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19, 387–420 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trompette, P., Vinck, D.: Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Rev. Anthropol. Connaiss. 3(1), 3 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callon, M.: Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? pp. 196–223. Routledge, London (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Callon, M.: Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination, pp. 132–161. Routledge, London; New York (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Law, J.: After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. Sociol. Rev. 47, 1–14 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latour, B.: Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker, W.E., Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 225–258. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akrich, M.: The de-scription of technical objects. In: Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 205–224. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mechant, P., Walravens, N.: E-government and smart cities: theoretical reflections and case studies. Media Commun. 6, 119 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walravens, N., Waeben, J., Van Compernolle, M., Colpaert, P.: Co-creating a practical vision on the smart city. In: Proceedings of the 15th Architectural Humanities Research Association International Conference, Eindhoven (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baccarne, B., Mechant, P., Schuurman, D.: Empowered cities? An analysis of the structure and generated value of the smart city ghent. In: Dameri, R.P., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. (eds.) Smart City. PI, pp. 157–182. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  12. 12.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.imec-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations