Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Communication, Technology and Urban Life, Foundations, Digital Inclusion,…

- - - - Opinion formation
      - Political power and control
    - - The receiver of news (hypodermic needle)
      - Cultural and local context
      - Groups and collective activity
  - - - Meaning-making
      - Interpretation
      - Culture and everyday context
- - - - Higher of lower skills
        Operational and informational
      - Motivations: Internet a useful tool?
        Waste of time? Dangerous or risky?
      - Capital-enhancing uses vs not.
      - Access: High-speed Internet?, Autonomous (multiple
        locations)?, Multiple Devices?, Stable over time?
- - - - “Motivational access” (Van Dijk, 2005)
  - - - Highly targeted by scams + fewer skills and
        confidence -> de-motivates use
  - - - Algorithmic error, black box
    - - “Predictive” policing
- - - - Self-reports through surveys
      - Cross-sectional analysis
      - Individuals as members of sociodemographic groups
    - - Unit of Analysis and Local Environments
        
        Beyond individuals, how do families, interpersonal
        groups, and local communities experience digital inequality?
      - Qualitative understanding
        
        How do attitudes/motivations toward technology form in
        the context of relative privilege?
        
        How do people choose to put technology to use and why?
      - Survey Recruitment
        
        “…digital access inequalities play a significant role in
        determining who will respond to survey solicitations and who will take part in web-based surveys.” (Robinson et al.
        2016)
  - - - Location: Mixed-income neighborhood in
        northside Chicago
      - Method: “Offline/online” ethnography
        
        Offline: nonprofits, libraries, cafes,
        homeless shelters, public places
        
        Online: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter
- - - - Different capacities across phones
      - Available minutes, wi-fi access
    - - Ethic of sharing (e.g., Stack 1975)
      - Personal government phone
        = public (no-pay) phone
    - - Dependable instability (Gonzales 2016)
      - Emergency device
  - - - Access depends on interpersonal
        support networks
    - - Ubiquity ≠ equity
      - Accumulating supports policy goals
      - Obviate or support sharing
      - e.g., Built-in “sharing” mode/password
    - - Solidarity key (unseen) pillar
      - Access sustains through adaptation
- - - - Education, Employment, News
      - Higher income & education
    - - Leisure, Socializing, Entertainment
      - Lower income & education, racial minorities
  - - - upward mobility, health, political involvement
    - - entry to capital-enhancing uses
      - play (among kids) as socialization (Sandvig 2003)
  - - - Communal leisure is important source of bonding
        (Klitzing, 2004)
      - Welcoming social spaces are lacking in cities for
        homeless (Snow & Anderson, 1993)
  - - - Upward mobility
      - Education and skills
      - Access to government services
    - - People of lower socioeconomic status more likely to use the Internet for entertainment and socializing
- - - - Equal access to leisure and entertainment,
        as well as survive and economically advance
- - - - Reports of pornography (getting past
        filters on web browsers)
      - “Homeless” people cited frequently
  - - - “They trace your calls. They can’t do that on
        landlines. But see, they own these.”
      - “They filming you, see?” He points to cameras
        on the building behind us… overlooking the corner... across the street
- - - - Maintain status quo: protest sought “access to authority” rather than “overthrowing authoritarian structures”
      - Cell phone users in 2001: ~14 percent
      - Protest supported by powerful institutions (e.g., Catholic Church, military) and individuals (VP Arroyo, Estrada’s successor, later pardoned him)
      - Primarily middle-class protest
        (overthrowing working-class voters)
    - - “The power of texting has less to do with the capacity to elicit interpretation and stir public debate than it does with compelling others to keep messages in circulation. Receiving a message, one responds by repeating it. The message is forwarded to others who are expected to do the same. In this way, the message returns, mechanically augmented but semantically unaltered.” (Rafael 2003)
  - - - Flattening and reifying hierarchies
      - Transmitting and magnifying messages
    - - Idealized as agents of change
      - Representing (if not always producing)
        revolutionary change
- - - - Measured hashtag use, retweets, links posted, and
        mentions, and “coordination
      - “Coordination” àwhen a few hashtags become very
        popular – convergence around a small number
      - 14 millions tweets and thousands of protest events
        over 2010-11 in Arab countries
      - Hashtag e.g.: “#jan25”, first day of major protests in
        Egypt
      - Study compared popular hashtags to offline protests
      - Findings
        
        Strong relationship between Twitter coordination and
        protests
        
        “….a robust statistical relationship between yesterday’s
        level of coordination and today’s number of protests.”
        
        Not driven by media organizations or influential individuals
        
        Similar findings when controlling for media organizations,
        personalities, digital activists, top 5% most active Twitter users
      - Conclusions
        
        Social media effect via information / safety in numbers
        
        Learning about protests (information)
        
        Learning that (many) others are protesting (feeling
        safe to join – lowering potential costs)
        
        Weak ties (e.g., Twitter connections) also facilitate
        mobilization (counter to Gladwell and McAdam [1986])
  - - - Weak ties = friends of friends, co-workers
        
        pass along information
      - “The most important factor in people’s involvement in a social movement is the strength of their social relationships with other people in the movement” (McAdam [1986] study of U.S. Civil Rights Movement)
      - Strong ties = family and close friends
        
        influence behavior
      - Social media are notable for weak ties
        
        Strong ties -> multiple channels, phone/text
        
        Weak ties -> one channel (particularly social media)
      - “Social networks are effective at increasing [some form of] participation– by lessening the amount of motivation that participation requires.” (Gladwell)
        
        E.g., sharing, “liking,” donating small amounts, informing (low-risk)
        
        -> “Slacktivism” – participating in social movements in low-cost ways
        associated with social media use
      - Likely little success in persuading “loosely defined acquaintances” to participate in risky protest activities
    - - Social media only need networks of individuals, not organizations
        
        “Digital activism does not begin from a collective and organizational starting point: it demands that individuals go online and take action to participate on their own, free from bureaucratic staff of other intermediaries.” (Schradie, The Revolution that Wasn’t, 2019)
        
        Networked Individuals (Wellman and Rainie, 2011)
      - Social movements require organization, hierarchy (according to Gladwell)
        
        Protest movements rely on face-to-face, (semi-/)formal
        organizations
        
        e.g., student groups and Black churches during the US Civil Rights Movement
  - - - Enhances coordination (even if not motivation, structure)
        
        Speed of gathering, size of crowds, rapid strategy
      - Enhances citizen oversight: document wrongdoing
    - - Making censorship more difficult
      - “Conservative dilemma”
        
        Censorship produces more attention to issues
      - “Cute cat theory”
        
        Impossible to shut down only political use of social
        media
  - - - Weak ties, short-term benefits of organization and
        awareness of protest, long-term anti-censorship
    - - àcombination of classic and digital forms
      - Groundwork of strong-tie organizing
        
        F2f and digital one-to-one networks
      - Use of social media to
        
        Spread messages critical to movement development
        
        Coordinate large-scale action
    - - Strong ties, long-term organizing, face-to-face networks
        and traditional/analogue media
- - - - …this gesture… demonstrates the ability of mobile witnessing
        to disrupt the surveillance and public relation infrastructure of the state
      - …‘inverse surveillance’: the strategic use of the camera by
        citizens and activists for the making public of human rights violations.
      - “…the gesture of raising the camera to record… is an active,
        self-conscious one whereby the photographer displays an awareness of him or herself as a designated witness…
      - and mass mobilozation
      - and political support
      - and a fair legal system
- - - - e.g., Reliability tests
- - - - Highly integrated (income)
        
        arts venues, museums, and airports,
        tend to be highly integrated
      - Highly segregated
        
        places of worship, grocery stores
    - - Income does not predict significantly
        lower levels of visiting diverse places
    - - Income and race predict who is likely to
        go where they are a minority
- - - - We first infer the home area of each individual at the U.S Census Block Group27 level using their most common location between 10 pm and 6 am
  - - - Social media users not representative of general
        population (Hargittai 2015)
      - Fake accounts and bots
    - - Tweets captured in tobacco use study
        
        “I can’t tell if that’s a chocolate Dutch my”
        
        “Leo DiCap is smoking”
      - Unreliable
        
        Online self-presentation (“front stage”)
    - - APIs: What access do platforms make available?
- - - - The ability of a community to solve problems together
      - Relies on goodwill, reciprocity and trust
    - - 1900-1960: rising social capital
      - 1960-onward: dropping
    - - Meta-analysis
      - Surveys: Have you (participated in / joined, invited ...)
    - - Formal: community meetings, school boards, workplace (unions), religious services
      - Informal: hosting dinner parties, writing letters, casually stopping at a bar for a drink
  - - - Instant, cheap communication over distance (email and instant message)
      - Global flow of information and ideas (Online news, Wikipedia)
      - Social network sites and social media (Facebook, Twitter)
      - Online communities and cultures (Interest groups, hobbies)
- - - - Geographically based (local)
      - Densely knit
      - Primarily f2f
      - Born-into groups, homogenous
      - Communities of kindship and locality
      - High social control
      - Permanent membership in settled groups
      - Turn to same group of people for variety of needs
  - - - Geographically spread (relationship>location)
      - Sparsely knit
      - Technologies as much as / more than f2f
      - Chosen groups, diverse
      - Communities of shared interest
      - Low social control
      - Partial membership in multiple networks
      - Many specialized relationships to meet variety of needs
- - - - The average internet user makes 1.245 more visits / month to semipublic spaces than non-internet user
      - Bloggers are likely to attend church more often, participate in more voluntary groups and wisit more public spaces
      - People who share digital photos online tend to wisit more public spaces and belong to more voluntary groups
      - The average user of a social networking servise, controlling for demographic characteristics, knows fewer of their neighbors
- - - - Real-time engagement between the police and the public is encouraged by the Project Eyewatch design, but this objective is not being met to any great extent because of a lack of involvement by police on their own Facebook sites
      - The study found no evidence that feedback provided by the public on Project Eyewatch sites had contributed to the resolution of a policing issue or crime investigation
      - It is clear from the data that police are using Project Eyewatch to transmit information, just as they would if they were issuing a media release, and in doing so they are using new technology to communicate in old ways
- - - - “Personalization filters serve a kind of invisible autopropaganda, indoctrinating us with our own ideas, amplifying our desire for things that are familiar and leaving us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the unknown.” (Activist and author Eli Pariser: The Filter Bubble, 2011)
- - - - Quantitate: “community detection” through
        network analysis
      - Qualitative: content analysis of popular posts
  - - - Not necessarily evidence of visiting that place
      - “staging grounds for their status displays" (Boy & Uitermark)
      - “Places are not just physical settings, but also social situations that encourage contextually appropriate expressions of conformity and distinction.” (Boy & Uitermark)
  - - - Map these places and display as “heat map”, with
        “hotter” have more tags
      - Within each lifestyle group, what places were
        tagged the most
    - - Place tags are highly clustered in certain regions by
        taste and preference
      - An “uneven presence of clusters in different
        territories”
  - - - The various clusters of activity are highly overlapping
        
        At the center of the city
        
        And… at many the same places (top 100
        places are tagged in at least two clusters)
        
        Third places of interaction (e.g., Rijksmuseum)
      - Exceptions: e.g., Turkish subculture
    - - Overlapping areas represent opportunities for
        diversity
      - What is the appropriate amount of
        integration/separation?
- - - - Pattern in opening hours
      - Presence of streets markets
      - Good proportion of independent shops
      - Presence of cinemas, theatres, cafes, restaurants
      - Variety of land uses
      - Patterns of mixed land ownership
      - Variety of property sizes
      - Variety of building types, styles and design; and
      - Active street facades
    - - Specialized shops and ethnic cuisines
      - Niche businesses: e.g., clothing repair shops by Turkish
        immigrants
      - Distinctive languages, signs, marks, products, cuisines
        and practices
      - Distinctive working hours of immigrant amenities along
        with active storefronts
      - Many shops that open at night are immigrant-owned
      - Rhythmic prayer times of the mosque enhance vitality at
        different times of the day
  - - - Privatize housing, renovate buildings
    - - New, higher-end amenities
      - Changing demographics: “social mixing”
      - Unaffordability of areas for many
        previous (immigrant) residents
    - - How did Turkish cultural amenities shift over the course of urban renewal?
      - Did central districts remain diverse and vital – considering immigrant amenities – during urban renewal?
  - - - Javastraat
        
        “semi-public character, located within the city ring of Amsterdam and in a neighbourhood with a decreasing Turkish population”
      - Burgemeester de Vlughtlaan
        
        “private character, located in the outskirts of Amsterdam and in a neighbourhood with an increasing Turkish population.”
    - - Presence, style, and interactions around Turkish amenities
      - “the presence of people at different times of the day and night and different types of street uses observed in the selected case streets”
  - - - Closing or conforming of most existing Turkish amenities in the interest of new trendy shops
      - “Most of the shops that were transformed were Turkish. They either closed down or changed into other businesses, such as trendy eateries and bakeries. This also influenced the visible features of these Turkish shops, such as names, window displays, etc., losing their cultural features and becoming similar to other shops."
    - - “The Turkish shops are still the dominant feature of
        the streetscape”
      - More Turkish shops opened and existing kept their
        distinct Turkish image
      - “The popularity of new Turkish fast food restaurant attracted many clients, making that particular part of the street livelier.”
  - - - National strategy of urban renewal, top-down
      - Focus on demolition, upgrading housing stock
      - “a group of selected entrepreneurs were
        invited to initiate ‘trendy’ businesses”
        
        “demographic shifts that displaced
        vulnerable groups, such as Turkish immigrants.”
      - Imaged shifted “from an eminently immigrant
        commercial street into a street dominated by
        trendy cafes and restaurants”
        
        “decreasing most of its distinctive
        cultural features.”
      - “visible impact in the Turkish shops
        
        the “shops had to close or to adapt to the needs of the new residents, losing most of their cultural features.”
    - - City planners, managers, and housing corporations valued the
        cultural assets of the neighbourhood.”
      - “Municipal conservation site” in 2007
      - Renewal plan prioritized preservation
      - Local resisitance to “renewal”: “Residents expressed their
        voices against proposed demolitions.”
- - - - Unemployment, crowded conditions, social
        disorganization
      - “Breakdown” of Gemeinschaft of
        the Italian village
      - “Gangs” and criminality evident in street-corner
        activity
      - Italian neighborhoods as “slums”
    - - Within apparent social “disorganization” was
        actually…
      - Hierarchies of authority and respect among
        street-corner men
      - Which maintained a social order despite changes
        brought by immigration, discrimination
      - Visible in who is talking, who is listening, who a
        street corner “belongs” to
  - - - Be aware of territory
      - Be prepared to fight
    - - Subtle and overt tests: glances, body
        language, “calling out”
    - - Urban segregation
      - Poverty and rising unemployment
- - - - Afterwards only second-hand (gossip, rumor,
        “hearsay”)
    - - Whoever is visible, in the room, around the
        speaker
  - - - Does not dissolve into air after being
        spoken/communicated
    - - Re-posts and shares can spread speech
        outside of original/intended context
    - - Text, titles, and tags make
        communications discoverable
    - - Difficult or impossible to know who will
        read or see the communication (now or in the future)
- - - - street code
        
        respectability, toughness, willingness to fight
      - into networked publics
        
        persistent, replicable, searchable & invisible
        audiences
    - - Romantic life: changing pace of courtship
        
        e.g., Danelle can “slow” down the pace of JayVon’s
        advances over instant message
      - Tests of toughness now occur online
        
        e.g., humiliate rivals in networked publics
      - Courts misinterpreted online threats as = to offline
      - Frontstage and backstage performances
        
        e.g., appear tough on social media, reveal vulnerability
        over text
    - - E.g., street corners and Twitter feeds
- - - - (offline, in community, “hanging out”, making neighborhood “rounds”)
    - - Profiles, “friend” networks, posts, comments, shares, likes
    - - Tracking offline events via social media
      - Reviewing social media in person with participants
      - Comparing offline and online networks, interactions, and selfpresentation
  - - - Online street life is largely a reflection of offline
        street life
      - Threats online are equivalent to threats offline
      - The context doesn’t change the communication
    - - Posting on social media will naturally lead to an
        increase in gang-related violence
- - - - Combination of audiences not normally found together
      - “Cross-referencing”: challenging “tough” social media posts
        by referring to posts for other audiences, e.g., girlfriends, family on social media
    - - “calling bluffs”: proving that social media posts are not
        reflected in reality, “on the street”
      - Leading to need for the others to “repair” reputation with
        additional evidence
    - - Shaping the narrative online rather than fighting
      - Beispiele
        
        Showing power rather than needing to prove
        
        Posts showing manpower and guns
        
        Discrediting challenges of others
    - - Broader audience -> bigger humiliation
        -> bigger need to retaliate
      - Using social media to surveille rivals
    - - Online gang-related activity --> connected but
        separate sphere from offline
        
        Online: greater ability to shape selfpresentation,
        ability to exploit context collapse
      - Social media activity provides ways to diffuse
        violence as well as amplify
      - Misinterpretations in criminal justice system
        
        Courts interpret talk of violence online as
        evidence of violence offline
        
        Appearing tough is part of street code
        
        And social media is a stage on which to do so
        without necessarily doing to on the street
- - - - Democratize
        
        Compare to social roles at work and home
      - Diversify
        
        Compared to social ties at work and home
      - Enhance public and intellectual discourse
        
        Voluntary and motivated conversation with diverse others
        
        John Dewey: "The heart and final conversation with diverse others is in the free gatherings of neighbors on the street corners to discuss back and forth and converse freely with one another"
- - - - social interaction (present and not present)
      - privatism (engaged or withdrawn physically)
      - democratic engagement (engaging in onversation with strangers)
    - - People using the Internet wi-fi users were with fewer people in person
        
        but were in communication with more people at the time (in other places)
      - Those using laptops or other Internet devices were less likely to engage with others (particularly diverse others) in the public space
      - Being on a laptop resulted in less approaches by strangers than reading book or other activitiy, though mobile phone use prevented even more of these interactions with strangers
    - - Wireless Internet users tend to shelter themselves in areas within public spaces that are less populated and less active than the space as a whole... (Internet) users are less attentive to their surroundings than users of any other media...
      - The outward appearance of wireless Internet users was also more likely to be one of frustration, tension and seriousness... This appearance made Internet users less approachable by some - the homeless and panhandlers - but also by those engaged in the time-honored practice of distributing informational flyers, a media unique to urban public spaces
    - - Wi-fi may also draw people to urban spaces
        
        "Many wi-fi users are new users of urban public spaces, and pre-existing users of a public space become more frequent visitors as a result of wifi availability"
      - And apparently "distracted" activities are conducive to the broader public sphere
        
        Wireless Internet users found in urban public spaces we embedded in large, diverse social networks. While in urban public spaces, their online activities were directed at maintaining those networks - networks described as an extension of the parochial realm. They were using social networking websites; a substantial number were consuming online news and political information
  - - - Does advancing mobile technology reduce public social interaction?
        
        Yes: Less resting, more screen time
        
        Slightly less social interaction
      - Does using a smartphone increase our sense of privacy in public?
        
        Yes: Smartphone users believed that their phones provided them with better privacy than basic phone users
    - - Expansion of all (interaction),
        rather than a decline in one (face-to-face)
      - contemporary mobile technologies support the ability of the individual to participate simultaneously in multiple spheres of action and communication
      - Varied forms of exchange with social interactions not
        limited to people in a concrete place
    - - Growing ability to avoid face-to-face interaction, though not new (or necessarily negative)
      - Social behaviour that responds to a set of norms and social codes that do not necessarily relate to the concrete space in which the individual is located
      - Individual privacy, disassociated from physical space, either
        public or private
      - civil inattention is not disattention
  - - - More attention to screen = less attention to people and places around us
    - - New reasons to go public places
    - - Better sense of ability to control privacy in public places
      - = greater comfortability in public space
    - - Socially engaged online while less engaged in-person
      - Poetable private-personal territory: personal territoty is seperated from physical space
      - Civil inattention
- - - - How does mobile media affect public, in-person interactions?
      - “personal private-portable territories”
      - May both reduce and stimulate in-person interaction
    - - New means of “civil inattention”
      - New means of connection (e.g., talking over media, location-based games)
      - How does mobile media change influence interactions with strangers?
    - - Distraction from our surroundings, physical and social)
      - Also drawn to new places and people (wi-fi and location-based games)
      - Are we more or less aware and involved in the physical and social nature of the city around us?
      - But where we go is influenced by social inequalities (PokeStops and wi-fi availability)
- - - - When your sexual identity is taboo/illegal
      - And expressing it is dangerous
  - - - Visibility against the “politics of privatization”
  - - - Attraction of unknown strangers
      - Objectified through physical/other characteristics
      - Expected to be short-lived (“hook up”)
  - - - “Physical” and “real” world as separate spheres of interaction
      - Implications
        
        Online tends to undermine offline norms/values/practices
        
        Digital space transcends physical space/makes irrelevant
        
        Mutually exclusive: displacement hypothesis
      - e.g., “Dating apps allow people seeking out romantic partners to ignore physical location.”, “Dating apps take away from the authenticity of meeting offline.”
      - e.g., “Whatever interrupts conversation’s lively flow is ruinous to a third place, be it the bore, a horde of barbaric college students, or mechanical or electronic gadgetry”
    - - Online and offline spaces are (oken) highly interaclve layers of
        the same social sociality
      - Time is spent simultaneously online and offline
      - Digital spaces and interaclons play into exislng historical and
        offline trends to shape a hybrid, digital-age culture
      - Facilitalng or “brokering” in-person interaclons
      - E.g., “Dalng apps help solve the problem of how to find someone who is interested in meelng up with you in person.”, “Dalng apps make some relalonships more likely than others.”
    - - Privatization of gay encounters
        
        In the home rather than in public while “home” becomes increasingly public
        
        Reducing the risks stemming from discrimination
      - Assimilation of gay culture into straight culture
        
        Any bar or restaurant can be a “gay” bar
      - Reducing the former significance of gay neighborhoods
      - Reducing the importance of political visibility in urban space
    - - Partner-seeking is only one aspect of gay encounters
      - Broader forces of privatization and decentralization
        
        Acceptance of gay lifestyle
        
        Privatization/commercialization of public spaces
        
        Economic downtown, COVID-19
- - - - We still know very little about how people actually respond to screens on an everyday basis, in particular social and cultural milieux. How do they make sense of interactions with public screens…
  - - - Qualitative methods had shown customers respond favorably to digital signage (when it reflects their interest; generally improves perception of atmosphere)
      - Yet what about actual behavior according to demographics?
      - “We present a computer vision-enhanced digital signage system for monitoring the actual activity of the audience in front of the system and collect quantitative data on the audience, that is demographic metrics of a person’s dwell time, display in-view time, attention time, gender and age group."
    - - Video camera placed above video display
      - “Computer vision” techniques measuring:
        
        Dwell time (how long in store)
        
        Display in-view time (when likely to
        see display)
        
        Attention time (looking at display)
        
        Gender and age group
      - Static and dynamic content
      - 1,294 customers observed
    - - “The attention time was substantially higher for
        men (1.2 s) than for women (0.4 s).”
      - “Children (1–14 years) are the most responsive to
        the digital signage.” (follow by older adults)
      - “35% of customers specifically looked-at the display,
        having the average attention time of 0.7s.”
      - “Average attention time is significantly higher when displaying the dynamic content (0.9 s) when compared with the static content (0.6 s)."
    - - Interpreting the findings:
      - Applying the methodology:
      - Putting people and technology in cultural context
        within the messiness of everyday (urban) life
- - - - Projecting “an absolute boredom or lack of concern due to frequent exposure…” (Simmel 1903)
      - That is why cities are also the genuine locale of the blasé attitude. In the blasé attitude the concentration of men and things stimulate the nervous system of the individual to it highest achievement so that it attains its peak. Through the mere quantitative intensification of the same conditioning factors this achievement is transformed into its opposite and appears in the peculiar adjustment of the blasé attitude - George Simmel "The Metropolis and Mental Life" 1903
    - - “Making privacy possible within a crowd through culturally accepted forms of selfdistancing” (Goffman 1972)
      - “The unobtrusive and peaceful scanning of others so as to allow for neutral interaction…. Through brief eye contact with an approaching stranger, we both acknowledge their presence and foreclose the possibility of more contact”
      - In crowded urban places à“polite avoidance” and
        even nonacknowledgement
      - Aided by “involvement shields”: magazines, books,
        mobile phones, headphones, (and public screens?)
  - - - From home to public
      - Not only personal screens
      - But also public/commercial signage
      - Screen time is increasing
      - “Never have so many communicated so much, on so many
        screens, through so many channels, absorbing so many hours of irreplaceable human attention” (Gitlin, 2001)
- - - - 18m2 advertising screen: rotating collection
        of still images including advertisements and news
      - London, Old Street Roundabout
    - - Observation interactions and glances
      - “Rythymanalysis”
    - - Perspectives and attitudes
      - Description of experiences: diaries
- - - - Corporations, entrepreneurs,
        government officials
    - - Efficiency, innovation, future
        prediction, experimentation
    - - Visions/values led by market innovation and
        government collaboration
      - Completed “visions” presented to public and
        implemented
    - - Passive: Contributing data (e.g., reporting broken
        traffic lights, sidewalks, “trace” data from movements)
      - But not involved in defining and shaping
        values/goals (also for civic groups)
    - - Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure
      - Combining data streams and government agencies
        to monitor, control, respond
  - - - Individual citizens, community groups,
        civic organizations (incl. universities)
    - - multiple stake-holders, collective
        decision-making, citizen input, user-centered experience
    - - “Create environments for collective problemsolving
        that addresses conflicting demands of inclusion, equality, accessibility and innovation around technological questions.”
    - - Citizen input informs development, implementation
      - Participation through digital platform
        
        Risks exclusion as well (sociodemographics,
        technology access)
      - Citizens as stakeholders at earliest stage