CITIZEN-GENERATED CONTEXTS AS EXTRA-INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURING

Smith (2016) argues that one difference between a Smart City and a Participatory Smart City is to have a City Hall that supports "context-engineering’ across a distributed network of interactive community nodes rather than using "real-time" management information at a single central urban control point. Technically computer network architectures allows for this design feature; we've long had Metropolitan Area Networks, Java-enabled local interactions, smart phone mesh networks, and the now ubiquitous wifi Local Area Networks. However the design of the information architectures sitting on top of varying technology configurations have mostly been imported from business information systems.

In an Information Architecture for Civil Society Garnett (2002) argued that any e-government infor- mation architecture needed to map to existing communication flows in Civil Society, rather than impose the typical 3-level model of hierarchical corporate information flows, based as they are on transactional, management and executive systems. Furthermore Noveck (2015), in discussing “open government,” reduces digital Civil Society (in the USA) to peer-to-peer digital volunteering to support problem-solv- ing in the public estate. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the political architecture

CONFERENCE: Digital-Cultural Ecology and the Medium-Sized City

AMPS; Architecture_MPS journal; UWE: CMIR. 01-03 April, 2016

of a society is already an agreed given and that emerging social networks need only be used to solve minor problems of public resource-allocation. It does not represent a citizen-centric solution as we are arguing for here. Conversely CyberSalon in the UK argue for a digital bill of rights (CyberSalon, 2015), alongside a digital public space, to enable the political expression of new ideas to emerge in the public realm.

Nawratek (2013) cautions that "a citizen is a kind of socio-political construct, whose function is to include the individual in the political system." From this perspective unless we are explicitly designing to include active citizenship into our ever-changing polity, whilst social networks are dynamically changing the relationships that comprise society, then we are implicitly designing citizen-engagement out.

As Cities increasingly become where next generation social behaviours emerge, now driven by smart technology use, it is critical that we are positively designing citizen-engagement into next-generation technology implementations by using new conceptual process models like the CityZens development framework (Smith, 2016) to help citizen-generated contexts to emerge during the implementation phase of future city-wide systems.

CONCLUSION

For any such citizen-generated context to become part of a distributed citizen-centric, democratic, po- litical architecture, so helping create new digital social-ecologies within medium sized cities, we need to do more than passively accept city-wide networks being introduced as a series of real-time control centres to better manage traffic, as reductively suggested by Smart City computer corporations (and the European Union). We need to positively design to allow for new forms of citizen engagement to emerge, with real powers allocated to key Civil Society actors, using new, as yet fully undefined, enabling pro- cesses such as Aggregate then Curate.

We think this means identifying new "complex social practices," perhaps Transition Town open space meeting agendas, to help determine what matters to local assemblies in order to evolve new participa- tory democratic practices, which are aligned with Web 2.0 affordances, as opposed to technocratic sys- tems design. Only then can we deploy smart city technologies, such as high-speed broadband local wifi networks (as in Manchester’s Northern Quarter) or super-fast public city broadband (as in Timisoara, Romania) to support the "extra-institutional structuring" of Civil Society deliberations, perhaps through such local authority based processes such as "participatory budgeting."

Active CityZens in Smart Cities need to be supported in creating, or adapting, the "complex social practices" which are the cornerstone of Civil Society, from which the emergent "extra-institutional structures" can be designed into new city-wide network architectures. Active citizenship could then mean, having an active context-shaping role in the public domain, thus creating citizen-generated con- texts with real political clout, rather than citizens being assigned a passive role as digital consumers in the digital economy.

REFERENCES

CyberSalon, 2015. Digital Bill of Rights UK. [blog] 2 July, Available at: http://www.cybersalon.org/digital-bill-of- rights-uk/ [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

Dar A. 2013. Standard Note - SN/SG/1467”, (Voter participation statistics to 2012) House of Commons Library. [online] Available at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01467 [Accessed 28th February 2016]

Ecclesfield N and Garnett, F. (2008) Colloquium: developing an organisational architecture of participa- tion, BJET, 39, 3 pp 468-475

Ecclesfield N. & Garnett F. 2009. Architecture of Participation [online] Available at: http://architectureofparticipa- tion.wordpress.com [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

European Commission, 2015. Smart Cities and Communities. [online] Available at: http://ec.eu- ropa.eu/eip/smartcities/ [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

CONFERENCE: Digital-Cultural Ecology and the Medium-Sized City

AMPS; Architecture_MPS journal; UWE: CMIR. 01-03 April, 2016

Garnett F. 2002. A Proposed Information Architecture for Civil Society. [online] Available at: https://architec- tureofparticipation.wordpress.com/included/ [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

Garnett F. 2012. Social Cities of Tomorrow. [online] Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/fredgarnett/social- cities-of-tomorrow-2012 [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

Garnett F. 2015. Designing Participatory Smart Cities. [online] Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/fred- garnett/participatory-city [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

Garnett, F., & Ecclesfield, N. 2014 “Towards an Adult Learning Architecture of Participation” in S. Leone (Ed.), Synergic Integration of Formal and Informal E-Learning Environments for Adult Lifelong Learners (pp. 24-46). Hershey, PA

Garnett F. & Ecclesfield N. 2015. The Emergent Learning Model: using the informal processes of learning to ad- dress the Digital Agenda for Europe” The 11th _{International Conference – eLearning and software for Education,} Bucharest. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/11927500/Emergent_Learning_Model_2015_ [Ac- cessed 28th _{February 2016]}

Garnett F. and Serbu V. 2013. Comparing the alternative learning models of Wikiquals & CROS and their use of social media. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/3536149/A_comparison_of_the_social_me- dia_learning_models_of_WikiQuals_and_CROS [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

Garnett F. & Whitworth A. 2015 “Ambient Learning City”, The 11th International Conference – eLearning and software for Education, Bucharest. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/11788326/Ambient_Learn- ing_City [Accessed 28th February 2016]

Graebner D. 2015 “The Utopia of Rules: on technology, stupidity and the secret joys of Bureaucracy”, Melville House, London

Greenfield A. 2013 “Against the Smart City”, Verso Books, London

Haythornthwaite C. 2009. New Forms of Doctorate, Leverhulme Public Lectures, London. [online] Available at: http://newdoctorates.blogspot.pt/2009/10/leverhulme-trust-public-lectures.html [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]} Hammersley B. 2011. The Internet of People. [online] Available at: https://vimeo.com/21477023 [Accessed 28th February 2016]

Koolhaas R. 1994 “Delirious New York: a retroactive manifesto for Manhattan” Monacelli Press, New York. Laurillard D. 2006 “Harnessing technology to personalise the learning experience”, In C. Yapp, S. de Freitas (Eds.), Personalised Learning in the 21st Century, UCL/IOE, London. [online] Available at:

http://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/publication/1112775/1 [Accessed on 28th _{February 2016]} Lea T. 2008 “Bureaucrats and bleeding hearts”, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney

Luckin et al. 2010 “A framework to support the effective use of technology to support learning”. In Lee M. W. and McLoughlin C. (Eds.), “Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching” IGI Global, Hershey PA

MakeSense, 2016. MakeSense [online] Available at: https://www.makesense.org/ [Accessed 28th _February 2016]

Minton A. 2013. Common Goods – redefining the public interest and the common good. [online] Available at: http://howtoworktogether.org/wp-content/uploads/htwt-think_tank-anna_minton-common_goods.pdf [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]}

Moore M. 1995 “Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in government, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

Morozov E. 2013 “To save everything, click here”, Penguin Books, London

MOSI-ALONG, 2011. MOSI-ALONG. [online] Available at: https://mosialong.wordpress.com/ [Accessed 28th _Feb- ruary 2016]

Nawratek K. 2012 “Holes in the Whole: introduction to the urban revolutions”, Zero Books, London

Novek B. S. 2015 “Smart Citizens, Smarter State: the technologies of expertise and the future of governing”, Har- vard University Press, Cambridge MA

Ohlin-Wright E. 2010 “Envisioning Real Utopias”, Verso, London

One Laptop per Child, One Laptop per Child. [online] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org> [Accessed 28th _Febru- ary 2016]

O’Reilly T. 2005. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. [online] Available at: <http://oreilly.com/Web2/archive/what-is-Web-20.html> [Accessed 28th _{February 2016]} Proboscis, Urban Tapestries Project [online] Available at: <http://proboscis.org.uk/about/history/> [Accessed on 28th _{February 2016]}

Radin B. 2006 “Challenging the performance movement: accountability, complexity and democratic values”, Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C.

Rheingold H. 2002 “Smart Mobs: the next Social Revolution, Basic Books, Cambridge MA

Serbu, V. 2013. Functions of Social Media in Higher Education: A Case Study, in Pătruţ B. Pătruţ M. and Cmeciu C (eds) Social Media and the New Academic Environment: Pedagogical Challenges, IGI Global, Pennsylvania Simon, N 2010. The Participatory Museum [online] Available at: <http://www.participatorymuseum.org/> [Ac- cessed 28th _{February 2016]}

CONFERENCE: Digital-Cultural Ecology and the Medium-Sized City

AMPS; Architecture_MPS journal; UWE: CMIR. 01-03 April, 2016

Smith C. & Garnett F. 2016 (forthcoming) “Context Shaping City 2.0; how to use Hybrid Technologies and Tech- niques to make Social Cities 2.0 Smart & CityZen-centric.” in Caldwell G. Smith C. and Clift E. (eds) Digital Fu- tures and the City of Today, University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Steiner C. 2012 “Automate This: how algorithms came to rule our world”, Penguin Books, London

Strathern M (Ed.) 2000 “Audit Cultures: anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy”, Euro- pean Association of Social Anthropologists, Routledge, London

Weinberger D. 2007 “Everything is miscellaneous: the power of the new digital disorder”, Henry Holt and Co., New York

Whitworth A., Garnett F., Pearson D. 2012. Aggregate-then-Curate: how digital learning champions help commu- nities nurture online content, Research in Learning Technology, [S.l.], v. 20, dec. 2012. [online] Available at: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/18677 [Accessed 28 February 2016] Wikipedia 2016, Civil Society [online] Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society> [Accessed 28 February 2016]

CONFERENCE: Digital-Cultural Ecology and the Medium-Sized City

AMPS; Architecture_MPS journal; UWE: CMIR. 01-03 April, 2016