View
1.439
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation used by Pedro Prieto-Martín, the founding president of the association, for the defense of his Doctoral Thesis ("Creating the 'symbiotic city': A proposal for the interdisciplinary co-design and co-creation of Civic Software Systems"), 29th of October 2012 in the University of Alcalá.
Citation preview
Creating the ‘Symbiotic city’ A proposal for the interdisciplinary
co-design and co-creation of
Civic Software Systems
PhD Candidate:
Pedro Prieto Martín Computer Science Dept, UAH
Director & Co-Director:
Luis de Marcos Ortega Ass. Lect., Computer Science Dept., UAH
José Javier Martínez Herraiz Senior Lect. Computer Science Dept., UAH
Committee: Tomás R. Villasante (Chair) Emer. Prof., Dept. of Sociology II, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Carmen Pagés Arévalo (Secretary) Assoc. Lect., Computer Science Dept., Universidad de Alcalá
Fernando Flores Assoc. Lect., Dept. of Art and Cultural Sciences, Lunds Universitet (SE)
Ángel Badillo Matos Senior Lect., Dept. of Sociology and Communication, Universidad de Salamanca
Miguel Angel Patricio Guisado Senior Lect., Computer Science and Engineering Dept., Universidad Carlos III
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Review & Synthesis of literatures
3. Methodology & Research Itinerary
4. Findings & Discussion
5. Conclusions
1
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Introduction
Context
“Citizen participation is citizen power”
“Participation without redistribution of power is an empty
process […] [that] allows the power-holders to claim that all
sides were considered, but makes it possible for only some
of those sides to benefit. It maintains the status quo.”
“Everything that enables, broadens or deepens people’s capacity to
influence the decisions and get involved in the actions that affect
their lives (including the use of ICT)” (Prieto-Martin 2012)
(Electronic) or “(e)Participation”: Participation
”
2
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Introduction
Context
Democratic
Institutions
Technology
Citizens of
(e)Participation
3
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
a. Civic Networking Platforms are socio-technical software systems that
explicitly aim to affect complex social realities and to influence the intricate
workings of political and administrative machineries.
Introduction
Problem Statement (Wide)
The application of ICT in the political process has been oriented to digitize
and enhance existing processes and practices rather than to transform the
relations of power and influence behind such practices.
Professional politicians have "resisted actively to limit the potential
revolutionary and disruptive capacity of ICTs.” (Zittel 2005, Schmitter 2011)
4
b. Its design, construction and operation thus involve a series of exceptional
challenges and difficulties which, in turn, demand specific and
innovative approaches.
Problem Statement (Concrete)
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Introduction
Objective & Research Questions
Trans-disciplinarily analyze the field of municipal Civic Engagement,
with the aim to devise a methodology for the collaborative
design and construction of Civic Software Systems which are
adapted to the interests, needs and skills of social and political
actors involved in local governance.
Who?
How?
Where?
Why?
What?
Theories
Practice
Context
What
for?
When?
Developed
countries
Impoverished
countries
+
EU?
LA?
5
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Review & Synthesis of literatures
3. Methodology & Research Itinerary
4. Findings & Discussion
5. Conclusions
6
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Issues:
• Silos &
Interdisciplinary
failures
• Focus:
• Power:
Disciplines
involved Informatics
Review of literatures
…
Political
Science
Social
Movements
Public
Policy
…
…
Web
Science Community
Informatics
CSCW
HCI
Participatory
Design
Development
Studies
Participation
7
Software
Development
Models Software
Engineering
(e)P
art
icip
ati
on
?
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Issues:
• Silos &
Interdisciplinary
failures
• Focus:
• Power:
Disciplines
involved
Review of literatures
8
• Trans-disciplinary
failures
Academia
Practitioners
Context
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Barcelona
93-98 Universidad Complutense MSc. Computer Science
96-00: Universidad de Alcalá Bach. Business Admin. (Hons)
00-02: Univ. Autónoma de Madrid ~ 1st Degree Bach. Philosophy
02-04: Univ. Oberta de Catalunya Master Sociology of Information Society
02-03: Universität Tübingen (DE)
05: Universidade Estadual do Ceará (BR)
00-06: Hewlett-Packard (DE) Technical Lead – Develop. team
Fortaleza (BR)
Tübingen
Sololá (GT)
Researcher Profile
9
Education:
11: Uniwersytet Jagielloński (PL)
Work experience:
06-12: Asoc. Ciudades Kyosei
05: Prefeitura Fortaleza (BR)
09-10: Mun. Sololá (GT)
08-10: NGO Lagun Artean
07: Deutscher Entwicklungdienst (DE)
Review of literatures
Alcalá
/ Madrid
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
a. Models, concepts, theories
Review of literatures
1. Participation
?
10 (Karsten 2011, Brodie et al. 2009, Cornwall 2008)
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Tetralemma
Review of literatures
1. Participation
a. Models, concepts, theories
11
Haystacks of cases with few needles inside
(oidp.net, participatedb.com)
Recently, more critical, systematic and empirical analysis
(eg: Alarcón Pérez et al. 2011, Fonte et al. 2011, Falck & Paño Yáñez 2011,
Sintomer & Ganuza 2011, Smith & Ryan 2011, Gaventa & Barret 2010, Lee
2011; Cornwall et al. 2008; Wilson & Leach 2011; Brodie et al. 2011)
Flowgram
Sociogram
Huge variety, with distinct value levels…
(Karsten 2011, Cornwall 2008, Brodie et al. 2009)
…mostly speculative, descriptive, non-falsifiable
b. Methods and Tools
c. Cases, Good practices and Evaluation
A lot of variety and confusion too,
hardly manageable… (Rowe & Frewer 2005, participedia.net)
…including valuable insights
(eg: Ganuza et al. 2010, CIMAS 2009)
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
2. Software Design and Engineering
Review of literatures
12
a. Development models, techniques, tools: (Boehm 1986, Dennis et al. 2005)
Objectives
Prototypes
Validation
Iterative process
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
2. Software Design and Engineering
Review of literatures
13
• Controlled experiments
• Survey research
• Case studies
• Ethnographies
• Action research
• Grounded Theory
c. People-Centered Design: (Sanders et al. 2010)
b. Empirical methods for software engineering research: (Myers & Avison 2002; Easterbrook et al. 2007; Cruz Neto 2008)
(e)P
art
icip
ati
on
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
3. Informatics
Review of literatures
14
a. Community Informatics: (Wenger et al. 2009, De Cindio et al. 2007, 2012,
Brandtzæg et al. 2010, People 2012)
• From User-centric to Community-
centric design
• Communities as lead users
• Digital habitats
• Tools for communities
• Methods for Software development
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Leading scholars acknowledge that most of the basic issues of the field are still not solved: inter-
disciplinarity is not working, research designs tend to be flawed, socio-technical issues haven’t been
successfully addressed, institutional and political resistance toward participation has not been targeted,
etc. (Macintosh, Coleman et al. 2012)
“The research field of eParticipation suffers from lack of comprehensive theoretical contributions,
insufficient depth, and inconsistency in definitions of central concepts […] “Central problems with
eParticipation research concern immaturity of the field, topical gaps, and biased assumptions […] The
coupling of Technology – Stakeholders –(Participatory) Environments is weak” (Susha & Grönlund 2012)
Research has been rather detached from its object of study as well as disconnected from the perceptions
of research participants, and has disregarded the evaluation of the outcomes and impacts of online
engagement (Coleman & Moss 2012)
No real breakthrough or even any significant research milestone can be reported for the field, as
the same questions that were open ten years ago remain unanswered nowadays. (Prieto Martín et
al. 2012)
Review of literatures
15
3. Informatics
b. eDemocracy & (e)Participation – The lost decade (Sæbø et al. 2008, Kubicek 2010, Medaglia 2012)
Leading scholars acknowledge that most of the basic issues of the field are still not
solved: inter-disciplinarity is not working, research designs tend to be flawed, socio-
technical issues haven’t been successfully addressed, institutional and political
resistance toward participation has not been targeted, etc.
(Macintosh, Coleman et al. 2012)
“The research field of eParticipation suffers from lack of comprehensive theoretical
contributions, insufficient depth, and inconsistency in definitions of central concepts […]
“Central problems with eParticipation research concern immaturity of the field, topical
gaps, and biased assumptions […] The coupling of Technology – Stakeholders –
(Participatory) Environments is weak” (Susha & Grönlund 2012)
Research has been rather detached from its object of study as well as disconnected from
the perceptions of research participants, and has disregarded the evaluation of the
outcomes and impacts of online engagement (Coleman & Moss 2012)
No real breakthrough or even any significant research milestone can be reported
for the field, as the same questions that were open ten years ago remain unanswered
nowadays. (Prieto Martín et al. 2012)
In a moment of self-questioning, new perspectives are emerging (Karlsson 2012; Astrom & Grönlund 2011, Chadwick 2011; Bannister & Connolly 2012, Liston et al.
2012, Simon 2011, Price 2011; van der Merwe & Meehan 2011, 2012)
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Review & Synthesis of literatures
3. Methodology & Research Itinerary
4. Findings & Discussion
5. Conclusions
16
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
“The design of Digital Democracy Systems must start with an exhaustive and critic analysis
of previous experiences and proposals, and incorporate multi-disciplinary methodologies
(tecnological, socio-political and law) both for determining the requisites and determining
factors and for the evaluation of the system” (Carracedo Gallardo et al. 2003)
Methodology & Research Itinerary
17
Determining requistes for eDemocracy Systems
(Carracedo Gallardo 2004)
Starting Point
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
[Feedback cycles]
Collaborative
Evaluation
Minimum viable product
Design Participatory Sociopolitical
research - Refined
objectives
- Research
questions
Preliminary
Objective
Previous
Knowledge
Socio-technical
research
Articulated objectives,
visions and intuitions
αlpha
Permanent βeta
βeta
Theoretic
Analysis
Sustaining, scaling & improvement
internal
cycle
collaborators
cycle
αlphas cycle
Technical
research Construction Pilot Projects
Doctoral Thesis
Transdisciplinary co-design of civic software
Methodology & Research Itinerary
18
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
19
• Case studies
• Ethnographies
• Action research
• Grounded Theory (e)P
art
icip
ati
on
Methodology & Research Itinerary Explorative research methods for systems’ design
(Strauss y Corbin 1998; Urquhart 2010, 2012)
Grounded Theory
(Davison et al 2004)
Research Itinerary
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
20
Research Itinerary Timeline
2004
Civic Participation and ICTs at the municipal level: Consensus
System case in Catalonia [es]
2005
Putting eParticipation research at the service of Civil Society
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1
Participation
(e)Participation
System Design
Critical Appr.
1
1
2
2 Virtual Environments for citizen participation:
principal bases for design
2
3
3
3
BR
1
3
X
X X
X
X
X
BR
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Participation
(e)Participation
System Design
Critical Appr.
21
Research Itinerary Timeline
2004
The withered democracy [es]
2005
The odyssey of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil [es]
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1
4
1
2
5
2
3
3
6
4 5 6
GT BR
4 5 6
Citizen Participation of the 20th Century Citizen [es]
GT
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
4 5 6
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
22
Research Itinerary Timeline
2004 2005
Collaborative construction of Civic Software
Systems [es]
La democracia marchita
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1
Participation
(e)Participation
System Design
Critical Appr.
7
1
2
8
2
3
3
9
4 5 6
GT BR ES
7 8 9
8
4 5 6 7 8 9
The e-(R)evolution will not be funded
Citizen Participation of the 21st Century
ES
7
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Review & Synthesis of literatures
3. Methodology & Research Itinerary
4. Findings & Discussion
5. Conclusions
23
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
1. On Traditional Participation
Findings & Discussion
Actores internacionales
Otros estados
EU, OMC, BM, FMI
Mercados financieros
Poder empresarial
Corporaciones
Medios de
comunicación masiva
Grupos disidentes
Crimen organizado
Grupos de resistencia armada
Ciudadanía
Soc. civil organizada
Ciudadanos
Fuerzas de
seguridad
Actores políticos
Políticos
Partidos políticos
Administración
pública Poderes estatales
Ejecutivo
Legislativo
Judicatura
Ideal of influence in
liberal democracies
Ciudadanía
Soc. civil organizada
Ciudadanos
Fuerzas de
seguridad
Actores políticos
Políticos
Poderes estatales
Legislativo
Judicatura
Partidos políticos
Ejecutivo
Actores internacionales
Otros estados
EU, OMC, BM, FMI
Mercados financieros
Administración
pública
Poder empresarial
Corporaciones
Medios de
comunicación masiva
Grupos disidentes
Grupos de resistencia armada
Crimen organizado
Reality of influence in
liberal democracies
24
a. Critical attitude toward the research subject…
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Findings & Discussion
Institutional view of a social system
25
1. On Traditional Participation
a. …situated within the “big context”…
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Vicious Cycle of Participation Intrinsic Problems Complex
Expensive
Non-representative Non-inclusive
Less informed
Conflict prone Non-deliberative
Difficult to scale ...
Extrinsic Problems Arbitrary
Manipulability
Risk of capture Irrelevant subjects
Non-effective
Not self-sustainable Inefficient
Civic exhaustion
...
Motivation =
f (effort, usefulness)
Incompatibilities - Political
- Legal
- Cultural
- Socioeconomic - Organizational
Participation =
1/5 · Deliberation +
1/4 · Manipulation +
Rest · Politics as usual
(ie: a continuous struggle for
power and (un)accountability)
EU eParticipation =
Findings & Discussion 1. On Traditional Participation
a. …that dares to speak clear and honestly
Administrative Monopoly
of participation
26
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Administrative Participation
E.g.: demonstrations, strikes, informal negotiations, lobbying, pressure on
representatives and institutions, civil
disobedience, proposals to political institutions, etc.
Autonomous
Participation
Organic Participation E.g.: representative democracy, community
council, neighborhood assembly, health
council, citizen panels, etc.
decisive advisory oversight
Procedural Participation E.g.: electoral participation, petitions, referendum, public hearings, citizen
initiative, etc.
collaborative belligerent
occasional regular
Special Participatory Processes
E.g.: development plans,
participatory budget, agenda 21, etc.
asso
cia
tive p
ers
on
al
Findings & Discussion
Municipal Citizen Participation forms
27
1. On Traditional Participation
b. Clarified basic notions about participation…
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Findings & Discussion
Participatory Processes: phases and criteria
(Font & Blanco 2006, Parés et al 2007)
Administrative Participation Forms
(Brugué et al 2003)
1. On Traditional Participation
b. …which are articulated with existing knowledge…
28
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
29
1. On Traditional Participation
b. …and sometimes also challenge it!!
Participatory Budgeting
Fortaleza (BR) 2005
Findings & Discussion
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
30
2. On (e)Participation
a. Analysis that helps to understand the limitations of previous research
Findings & Discussion
(Lippa et al. 2008)
The layered model of
eParticipation
(Macintosh y Whyte 2008)
Layered eParticipation
evaluation perspectives
(Macintosh et al. 2005)
Criteria and sources for
e-democracy evaluation
(Macintosh y Whyte 2002)
A framework to evaluate outcomes of e-Consultations from three criteria: political, technical and social.
!
?
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
31
2. On (e)Participation
b. Reflections that shed light on what
gets changed by ICT
Findings & Discussion
Relationship between Participation & (e)Participation
Value generation in different kinds of networks
Change in expectations
Reduction in
power and knowledge assimetries
Reduction cost
of collective action
Peer-to-peer
recognition
“Long Tail” models
Cognitive Surplus
Motivation =
f (effort, usefulness)
Virtuous Circle of
(e)Participation
Vicious Cycle of
Participation
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
32
2. On (e)Participation
c. Models that help to understand current and imminent developments…
Findings & Discussion
Institutiona-
lization Level
Intensity of
Collaboration
Sporadic
Episodic
Periodic
Continuous
Functional Institutionalization
Organic Institutionalization
Deliberativity
Manipulation
Information
Consultation
Collaboration
Delegated power
KEY:
Non Institutionalized
Less Institutionalized
Institutionalized
Matrix of Citizen
Implication (2010)
Non-
Participation
pre-
Participation
Consultative
Participation
Collaborative
Participation
Citizen Control
Delegated power
Partnership
Placation
Consultation
Information
Therapy
Manipulation
Ladder of Citizen
Participation (1969)
Tokenism
Citizen
power
Conflict
Transparency
Advisement
Delegated Control
Legitimate coercion
Illegal Duress
2. On (e)Participation
c. …and to start charting 21st Century citizen participation
Findings & Discussion
33
a. A model for the transdisciplinary co-design of civic software…
3. On eParticipation – System’s Design
Findings & Discussion
34
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Findings & Discussion
Spy-Glass
Model
a. … which identifies dimension to be taken into account…
3. On eParticipation – System’s Design
35
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Spy-Glass Model
Applied
a. … provides guidance on how to proceed…
3. On eParticipation – System’s Design
36
Findings & Discussion
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Phase 2 Phase 3
Pilot Projects
Phase 1
Expansion
Pioneers Group
Core Team
Phase I Phase II Phase III
37
a. …and who to work with
to do ‘what’
3. On eParticipation – System’s Design
Findings & Discussion
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Review & Synthesis of literatures
3. Methodology & Research Itinerary
4. Findings & Discussion
5. Conclusions & Future Work
38
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Conclusions & Future Work
• ICT for Governance field needs to be analysed with a trans-disciplinary, holistic
and critical perspective.
• Projects’ designs and their evaluation strategies need to be closely linked with
their context of application.
• To successfully develop the field research needs to be at the service of societal needs,
listening to the real needs from civic organizations and democratic institutions, instead of
imposing them the researchers’ agenda.
• Civic Networking Systems (CNS) need to be created using Agile, participatory,
iterative and user-centric development models.
• We have sketched a methodology that enables a bottom-up multi-stakeholder
collaboration and offers a pragmatic guidance for researchers, social actors and
governmental institutions to co-design and co-construct sustainable Civic Networking
Systems.
39
Take-aways
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Conclusions & Future Work
• The research had a strong exploratory character.
• Wide trans-disciplinary area / limited depth.
• Its reliability and applicability are to be cautiously appraised.
• The ‘ICT for Governance’ field constitues a paradigm of a “moving
research target” within Web Science.
• Some conclusions could get obsolete quickly, as a result of technological and/or social
developments.
• The methodological approach, which has mixed tools and disciplines, is
especially prone to researcher bias.
• We tried to triangulate and apply a strong self-criticism, but this just slightly mitigates
the risk of self-deceiving.
40
Limitations
[Feedback cycles]
Collaborative
Evaluation
Minimum viable product
Design Participatory Sociopolitical
research - Refined
objectives
- Research
questions
Preliminary
Objective
Previous
Knowledge
Socio-technical
research
Articulated objectives,
visions and intuitions
αlpha
Permanent βeta
βeta
Theoretic
Analysis
Sustaining, scaling & improvement
internal
cycle
collaborators
cycle
αlphas cycle
Technical
research Construction Pilot Projects
---> Doctoral Thesis
PREAMBLE MINI-RESEARCH CO-CREATION
Future Work
Conclusions & Future Work
41
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Conclusions & Future Work
42
Future Work
Pedro Prieto-Martín, PhD Defense, UAH
Thanks for your attention
43
Thanks to my PhD advisors, Dr. Luis de Marcos Ortega and Dr. José Javier Martínez, for
their help, advice and support along the way. Thanks also to Jose David Carracedo Verde
and Salvador Martí i Puig for their guidance in the early stages of the doctoral research.
Thanks also to the institutions and people from the Ceará State University (Brazil) and the
Jagiellonian University (Poland), which have kindly offered their facilities and support
during my stays abroad. I specially appreciate the help provided by Professors Francisco
Horacio da Silva Frota and Alberto Teixeira from the Mestrado Acadêmico em Políticas
Públicas e Sociedade of the UECE, and by Professor Marek Skomorowski from the
Institute of Computer Science of the Jagiellonian University.
Many, many thanks to all friends who reviewed and/or commented, through all these
years, on any of the different texts and papers that make up this dissertation. And thanks
also to Don Marcelino, who struggled so hard to teach me, with so many of his students,
the crucial difference between indigenous police and autogenous welding.
Finally I want to express my eternal gratitude to all participants in the field research
developed at Fortaleza (Brazil) and Sololá (Guatemala) –especially to my buddies
from Lagun Artean, Sotz’il Jay and the Coordenadoria do Orçamento Participativo–.
It was their determination, humanity and courage what motivated me to persevere
in the most difficult moments.
44
References – Participation and Civic Engagement (2)
Alarcón Pérez, P., Font Fàbregas, J., & Sesma Carlos, M. D. (2011). Local Participation Mechanisms: Southern Europe
Regions in Comparative Perspective. Presentado en European Consortium for Political Research, Reykjavik.
Allegretti, G., García Leiva, P., & Paño Yáñez, P. (2011). Viajando por los presupuestos participativos: buenas prácticas,
obstáculos y aprendizajes. Diputación de Málaga. Recuperado a partir de
http://www.redcimas.org/archivos/biblioteca/prepar/viajando_por_los_presupuestosparticipativos.pdf
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal, 35(4), 216–224.
Blanco, I., & Ballester, M. (2011). ¿Participar para transformar? La experiencia de los Presupuestos Participativos en la
provincia de Barcelona. Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Públicas, 5, 117–144.
Brodie, E., Cowling, E., & Nissen, N. (2009). Understanding participation: a literature review. NCVO & Involve.
Brodie, E., Hughes, T., Jochum, V., Miller, S., Ockenden, N., & Warburton, D. (2011). Pathways through participation: What
creates and sustains active citizenship? NCVO & Involve.
Brugué, Q., Font, J., et al. (2003) "Participación y democracia: asociaciones y poder local", en Movimientos sociales: cambios
social y participación, Madrid: UNED.
CIMAS. (2009). Metodologías participativas. Manual. Madrid: Observatorio Internacional de Ciudadanía y Medio Ambiente
Sostenible (CIMAS).
Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–
283.
Cornwall, A., Romano, J., et al. (2008). Brazilian Experiences of Participation and Citizenship: A Critical Look, Discussion
Paper. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Falck, A., & Paño Yáñez, P. (Eds.). (2011). Democracia Participativa y Presupuestos Participativos: Acercamiento y
Profundización sobre el debate actual. Málaga: CEDMA.
Font, J., Corrochano, D. H., Fontcuberta, P., Galais, C., Ganuza, E., & Navarro, C. (2011). Democracia local en Andalucía.
Experiencias participativas en los municipios andaluces. Sevilla: Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
Font, J., Blanco, I. (2006) “Polis, la ciudad participativa. Participar en los municipios: ¿quién, cómo y por qué?”, Barcelona:
Centre per a la Participació
Ganuza, E., Olivari, L., Paño, P., Buitrago, L., & Lorenzana, C. (2010). La democracia en acción. Una visión desde las
metodologías participativas. Antígona.
Gaventa, J., & Barret, G. (2010). So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement. Institute
of Development Studies.
Karsten, A. (2011). Participation Models. A chase through the maze. Berlin: Nonformality - Demokratie&Dialog.
45
References – Participation and Civic Engagement (2)
Lee, C. W. (2011). Five assumptions academics make about Public Deliberation, and why they deserve rethinking. Journal of
Public Deliberation, 7(1).
Parés, M., Pomeroy, M., et al. (2007) “Guía práctica de evaluación de procesos participativos”, Barcelona: Observatorio
Internacional de la Democracia Participativa.
Prieto Martín, P. (2010). Las alas de Leo. La participación ciudadana del siglo XX, Bubok. ISBN: 978-84-614-9140-7.
Prieto-Martín, P. (2012). Creating the ‘Symbiotic City’: A proposal for the interdisciplinary co-design and co-creation of Civic
Software Systems, Doctoral Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Alcalá (ES).
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values,
30(2), 251-290.
Schmitter, P. C. (2011). Information and communication technology: yet another revolution in «real-existing democracy»?
Buenos Aires: Universidad de San Andrés.
Sintomer, Y., & Ganuza, E. (2011). Democracia participativa y modernización de los servicios públicos: Investigación sobre las
experiencias de presupuesto participativo en Europa. TNI.
Smith, G., & Ryan, M. (2011). Towards a Comparative Analysis of Democratic Innovations: Lessons from an fs-QCA of
Participatory Budgeting. Presentado en European Consortium for Political Research, Reykjavik.
Wilson, R., & Leach, M. (2011). Civic Limits: How much more involved can people get? ResPublica.
Zittel, T. (2005). What can the Vep model do for democracy? ... in answer to Alexander Trechsel. En Council of Europe (Ed.),
Reflections on the future of democracy in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
46
Astrom, J., & Grönlund, Å. (2011). Online consultations in local government: What works, when and how. En S. Coleman & P.
M. Shane (Eds.), Connecting democracy: Online consultation and the flow of political communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2012). Surfeit of Technological Exuberance? The questionable impact of technology on e-
Participation. Presentado en Transforming Government Workshop 2012, London.
Brandtzæg, P. B., Følstad, A., Obrist, M., Geerts, D., & Berg, R. (2010). Innovation in Online Communities–Towards
Community-Centric Design, 40, 50-57.
Carracedo Gallardo, J. (2004). Seguridad en redes telematicas. México: McGraw-Hill.
Carracedo Gallardo, J., Gómez Oliva, A., & Carracedo Verde, J. D. (2003). Sistema VOTESCRIPT: Una propuesta
innovadora desarrollada para resolver los problemas clásicos de la votación electrónica. Congreso Iberoamericano de
Seguridad Informatica (CIBSI’03). México D.F.
Chadwick, A. (2011). Explaining the Failure of an Online Citizen Engagement Initiative: The Role of Internal Institutional
Variables. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1), 21–40.
Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S. (2012), Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance: Technologies and Methods for On-
line Citizen Engagement in Public Policy Making, Heidelberg: Springer.
Coleman, S., & Moss, G. (2012). Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research. Journal of Information
Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15.
De Cindio, F. (2012). Guidelines for Designing Deliberative Digital Habitats: Learning from e-Participation for Open Data
Initiatives. Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2).
De Cindio, F., Ripamonti, L. A., & Peraboni, C. (2007). Community Networks as lead users in online public services design.
The Journal of Community Informatics, 3(1).
Karlsson, M. (2012). Participatory initiatives and political representation: The case of local councillors in Sweden. Local
Government Studie, 38(1).
Kubicek, H. (2010). The Potential of E-Participation in Urban Planning: A European Perspective. En C. N. Silva (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on E-Planning (pp. 168–194). IGI Global.
Liston, V., Harris, C., Lee, D., Davies, B., & O’Toole, M. (2012). Enabling discourse representation and meta-consensus in
online deliberation using Internet technologies. Presentado en Conference of the Political Studies Association, London.
Lippa, B., Aichholzer, G., Allhutter, D., Freschi, A. C., Macintosh, A., Moss, G., & Westholm, H. (2008). D13.3 DEMO-Net
Booklet: eParticipation Evaluation and Impact. DEMO-Net.
Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2002). Analysis and Evaluation of E-Consultations. e-Service Journal, 2(1):9-34.
References – (e)Participation and Informatics (1)
47
Macintosh, A., Whyte, A., & Renton, A. (2005). eDemocracy from the Top Down: An Evaluation of e-Democracy Activities
Initiated by Councils and Government. Local eDemocracy National Project.
Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People,
Process & Policy, 2(1), 16-30.
Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The Research Gaps. En A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris
(Eds.), LNCS 5694. Proceedings of ePart 2009 (pp. 1-11). Linz: Springer.
Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information
Quarterly, 29(3).
PEOPLE. (2012). Concept and Pilots Description for the Call of Cooperation. PEOPLE Consortium.
Price, V. (2011). Playing Politics: The Experience of E-Participation. En S. Coleman & P. M. Shane (Eds.), Connecting
Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication. MIT Press.
Prieto-Martín, P., de Marcos, L., & Martínez, J. J. (2012). The e-(R)evolution will not be funded. An interdisciplinary and critical
analysis of European eParticipation developments and troubles. European Journal of ePractice, 15, 62–89.
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area.
Government Information Quarterly, 25, 400–428.
Simon, J. (2011). E-Democracy and Values in Information Systems Design. En P. Mindus, A. Greppi, & M. Cuono (Eds.),
Legitimacy 2.0: E-democracy and Public Opinion in the Digital Age. Frankfurt am Main: Goethe University.
Susha, I., Grönlund, Å. (2012) eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3).
van der Merwe, R., & Meehan, A. (2011). Direct Democracy Catalysed by Resident-to-Resident Online Deliberation. En E.
Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & H. Bruijn (Eds.), LNCS 6847. Proceedings of ePart 2011 (pp. 169-179). Springer.
van der Merwe, R., & Meehan, A. (2012). Direct Deliberative Governance Online: Consensual Problem Solving or
Accommodated Pluralism? Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 46–63.
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital Habitats: stewarding technology for communities. Portland: CPsquare.
References – (e)Participation and Informatics (2)
48
References – Software Design and Engineering
Boehm, B. (1986). A spiral model of software development and enhancement, Software Engineering Notes, 11(4):14-24.
Cruz Neto, G. (2008). Estudos qualitativos para elicitação de requisitos: uma abordagem que integra análise sócio-cultural e
modelagem organizacional (PhD Dissertation). Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil, Recife.
Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H., & Tegarden, D. (2005). Systems Analysis and Design with UML. John Wiley & Sons.
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.-A., & Damian, D. (2007). Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering
Research. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering (pp. 285–311). Springer.
Myers, M. W., & Avison, D. E. (Eds.). (2002). Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader (1.a ed.). Sage
Publications Ltd.
Nuseibeh, B., & Easterbrook, S. (2000). Requirements engineering: a roadmap. Proceedings of the Conference on The Future
of Software Engineering, ICSE ’00 (pp. 35–46). New York: ACM.
Sanders, E., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design.
Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, PDC ’10 (pp. 195–198). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
References – Other
Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Kock, N. (2004) Principles of Canonical Action Research. Information Systems Journal
14(1), 65-86.
Strauss, A. C., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded
Theory. Sage.
Urquhart, C. (2012). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research. A Practical Guide. Sage Publications.
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded
theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357–381.