Rethinking Learning in the Smart City: Innovating Through Involvement, Inclusivity, and Interactivities with Emerging Technologies

  • H. Patricia McKennaEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 11)


This chapter explores the learning dimension of the smart city and the potential for innovation through use of an early-stage social radio tool. Based on use experience with the tool, this study aims to provide an understanding of: (a) how participatory and collaborative engagement can be fostered and (b) the awareness aspect of emerging technologies. Emergence theory (e.g., emergent behaviors) and the key concepts of awareness, creativity, and innovation are used to provide a context and framework for investigation of use experience with a tool designed for learning through involvement, inclusivity, and interactivities. Nam and Pardo’s technology–people–institution framework for smart cities provides the basis for expanding upon and rethinking learning in the smart city—specifically, rethinking learning flows and relationships to enable interactivities and mutual learning between local government and educators/learners. A case study approach incorporating under design (e.g., a minimally viable tool) is used and multiple methods of data collection and analysis are employed in generating quantitative and qualitative findings. This work makes several contributions to the eGovernment literature by providing: (a) insight into the value of under-design approaches in understanding and assessing tools at the early development stages for eGovernment, transformational government, and lean government; (b) a framework for rethinking and innovating the learning city; and (c) an expanded way of looking at and working with learning and innovation in the smart city that may have implications for other types of eGovernment relationships (e.g., G2C, G2B, and G2G).


Adaptability Awareness Diversity Emerging technologies Learning cities Smart cities Under design 





Government and businesses


Government and citizens


Interagency or government to government


Lean government


Open source software

R5 Framework

Reveal, refine, reuse, release, and run


United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization


  1. AlAwadhi, S., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Aspirations and realizations: The smart city of Seattle. Proceedings of the 46th HICSS, 1695–1703.Google Scholar
  2. Bekmamedova, N., & Shanks, G. (2014). Social media analytics and business value: A theoretical framework and case study. Proceedings of the 47th Annual HICSS , 3728–3737.Google Scholar
  3. Caldwell, G. A., Foth, M., & Guaralda, M. (2013). An urban informatics approach to smart city learning in architecture and urban design education. Interactive Design & Architectures, 17, 7–28.Google Scholar
  4. Chan, C. M. L. (2012). From open data to open innovation strategies: Creating e-services using open government data. Proceedings of the 26th HICSS, 1890–1899.Google Scholar
  5. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. Proceedings of the 45th HICSS, IEEE, 2289–2297.Google Scholar
  6. Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daniel, S., & Doran, M. A. (2013). GeoSmartCity: Geomatics contribution to the smart city. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 65–71.Google Scholar
  8. Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2011). Divining a digital future: Mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Lange, M., & de Waal, M. (2013). Owning the city: New media and citizen engagement in urban design. First Monday, 18(11), online.Google Scholar
  10. Eesley, C. (2013). Technology Entrepreneurship MOOC (Massive Open Online Course). Stanford University.Google Scholar
  11. Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, G. (2013). Learning, social creativity, and cultures of participation. In A. Sannino & V. Ellis (Eds.), Learning and collective creativity: Activity-theoretical and sociocultural studies. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Fuentes-Bautista, M. (2014). Rethinking localism in the broadband era: A participatory community development approach. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Aldama-Nalda, A. (2013). Making a city smarter through information integration: Angel network and the role of political leadership. Proceedings of the 46th HICSS, 1724–1733.Google Scholar
  15. Hellberg, A. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Conflicts in implementing interoperability: Re-operationalizing basic values. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 154–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunnius, S., & Schuppan, T. (2013). Competency requirements for transformational e-government. Proceedings of the 46th HICSS, 1664–1673.Google Scholar
  17. IFTF. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Palo Alto: Institute for the future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Janssen, M., & Estevaz, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance: Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(Suppl. 1), S1–S8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  20. Kaschesky, M., & Selmi, L. (2013). Fusepool R5 linked data framework: Concepts, methodologies, and tools for linked data. Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Government Research, 156–165.Google Scholar
  21. Katz, B., & Bradley, J. (2014). Lessons from the road: The metropolitan revolution 2014. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, J. E., & Hamm, S. (2013). Smart machines: IBM’s Watson and the era of cognitive computing. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Khan, Z., Ludlow, D., Loibl, W., & Soomro, K. (2014a). ICT enabled participatory urban planning and policy development: The UrbanAPI project. Transforming Government: People and Policy (TGPPP), 8(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khan, G. F., Swar, B., & Lee, K. S. (2014b). Social media risks and benefits: A public sector perspective. Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakka, S., Stamati, T., Michalakelis, C., & Martakos, D. (2013). What drives eGovernment growth? An econometric analysis on the impacting factors. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 6(1), 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCullough, M. (2013). Ambient commons: Attention in the age of embodied information. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mellouli, S., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Zhang, J. (2014). Smart government, citizen participation and open data. Information Polity, 19(1–2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  28. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011a). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Digital Government Research, 282–291.Google Scholar
  29. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011b). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 185–194.Google Scholar
  30. Neuroni, A. C., Riedl, R., & Brugger, J. (2012). Swiss executive authorities on open government data—policy making beyond transparency and participation. Proceedings of the 46th HICSS, 1911–1920.Google Scholar
  31. Savoldelli, A., Misuraca, G., & Codagnone, C. (2013). Measuring the public value of e-Government: The eGEP2.0 model. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11(1), 373–388.Google Scholar
  32. Sayogo, D. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2013). Understanding smart data disclosure policy success: The case of green button. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, June 17–20, Quebec City, Canada, 72–81.Google Scholar
  33. Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart cities and the future Internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In J. Domingue et al. (Eds.), Future Internet assembly, LNCSS 6656 (pp. 431–446). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Gaved, M. (2013). Innovating pedagogy 2013: Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers. Open University Innovation Report 2. UK: Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University.Google Scholar
  35. Signet. (2014). What is emergent learning? Signet Research and Consulting. Accessed 10 June 2015.
  36. Snead, J. T., & Wright, E. (2014). E-government research in the United States. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UCLG. (2012). Smart cities study: International study on the situation of ICT, innovation and knowledge in cities. Bilbao: The Committee of Digital and Knowledge-based Cities of UCLG (United Cities and Local Government).Google Scholar
  38. UNESCO. (2013). Beijing declaration on building learning cities—Lifelong learning for all: Promoting inclusion, prosperity and sustainability in cities. Working document 1. Prepared for adoption at the International Conference on Learning Cities, Beijing, China, Oct 21–23.Google Scholar
  39. Violino, B. (2014). Smart cities are here today—and getting smarter: Big data, mobile, sensors, social media are already in use, but security and privacy are issues. Computerworld, 12. Accessed 10 June 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AmbientEaseVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations