ER
Emiel A. Rijshouwer
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
3 records found
1
Public views of the smart city
Towards the construction of a social problem
Digitization and datafication of public space have a significant impact on how cities are developed, governed, perceived and used. As technological developments are based upon political decisions, which impact people’s everyday lives, and from which not everyone benefits or suffers equally, we argue that ‘the smart city’ should be part of continuous public debate; that it should be considered and treated as a social problem. Through nine focus groups, we invited respondents to explore and discuss instances and dilemmas of the smart city. We investigated which interpretative repertoires they used to frame the smart city as a social and actionable problem. Following Blumer's and Gamson's theories on the social construction of problems and on collective action frames, we assessed respondents’ discursive interpretations and their subjective construction of their senses of injustice, agency and identity regarding this subject. We find that – in the context of the city of Rotterdam in The Netherlands – citizens do not experience and consider the smart city as a social and actionable problem. Although they do associate the technological development of smart cities with potential threats, this does not change or constrain their sense of ‘actionability’, nor their behaviour, as they consider themselves to be powerless individuals regarding what, in their eyes, is a complex, elusive and inevitable situation they are confronted with. Strikingly, rather than specifically and contextually reflecting on smart city issues, respondents tended to express their concerns in the more general context of digital and data technologies invading everyday life.
...
Digitization and datafication of public space have a significant impact on how cities are developed, governed, perceived and used. As technological developments are based upon political decisions, which impact people’s everyday lives, and from which not everyone benefits or suffers equally, we argue that ‘the smart city’ should be part of continuous public debate; that it should be considered and treated as a social problem. Through nine focus groups, we invited respondents to explore and discuss instances and dilemmas of the smart city. We investigated which interpretative repertoires they used to frame the smart city as a social and actionable problem. Following Blumer's and Gamson's theories on the social construction of problems and on collective action frames, we assessed respondents’ discursive interpretations and their subjective construction of their senses of injustice, agency and identity regarding this subject. We find that – in the context of the city of Rotterdam in The Netherlands – citizens do not experience and consider the smart city as a social and actionable problem. Although they do associate the technological development of smart cities with potential threats, this does not change or constrain their sense of ‘actionability’, nor their behaviour, as they consider themselves to be powerless individuals regarding what, in their eyes, is a complex, elusive and inevitable situation they are confronted with. Strikingly, rather than specifically and contextually reflecting on smart city issues, respondents tended to express their concerns in the more general context of digital and data technologies invading everyday life.
Book
(2022)
-
Emiel A. Rijshouwer, Vivien Butot, Linda Al-Hassany, E.M. Leclercq, Jeanine Roeters van Lennep, Antoinette Maassen-Van den Brink
Dit boekje is verslag van het CHANGE! (Conscious Health dAta shariNg in movinG RottErdam!) project dat is uitgevoerd in 2021-22 in het kader van een Open Mind subsidie van het Convergence programma dat ten doel heeft samenwerking tussen TU Delft, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam en Erasmus Medisch Centrum te bespoedigen. Het stimuleert allianties van onderzoekers van de verschillende universiteiten om in samenwerking met publieke en private partners innovatieve bijdragen te leveren aan urgente en complexe maatschappelijke uitdagingen, zoals klimaatverandering, duurzaamheid, gezondheidszorg, verstedelijking en digitalisering.
Dit (kleine, verkennende) interdisciplinaire project, uitgevoerd binnen het Health & Technology programma, betreft een onderzoek naar hoe een publieke datadonatiepraktijk ten behoeve van gezondheid en welzijn eruit zou kunnen zien. Het is een ultiem Convergence-project, omdat het grensoverschrijdend is voor elk van de participerende instituten en kennisdomeinen en expertise van het team. Binnen CHANGE! zijn onder andere de medische, ethische, sociaal-maatschappelijke, politieke en ruimtelijke (en niet strikt de technische) aspecten van het verzamelen en werken met gezondheidsdata verkend.
...
Dit boekje is verslag van het CHANGE! (Conscious Health dAta shariNg in movinG RottErdam!) project dat is uitgevoerd in 2021-22 in het kader van een Open Mind subsidie van het Convergence programma dat ten doel heeft samenwerking tussen TU Delft, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam en Erasmus Medisch Centrum te bespoedigen. Het stimuleert allianties van onderzoekers van de verschillende universiteiten om in samenwerking met publieke en private partners innovatieve bijdragen te leveren aan urgente en complexe maatschappelijke uitdagingen, zoals klimaatverandering, duurzaamheid, gezondheidszorg, verstedelijking en digitalisering.
Dit (kleine, verkennende) interdisciplinaire project, uitgevoerd binnen het Health & Technology programma, betreft een onderzoek naar hoe een publieke datadonatiepraktijk ten behoeve van gezondheid en welzijn eruit zou kunnen zien. Het is een ultiem Convergence-project, omdat het grensoverschrijdend is voor elk van de participerende instituten en kennisdomeinen en expertise van het team. Binnen CHANGE! zijn onder andere de medische, ethische, sociaal-maatschappelijke, politieke en ruimtelijke (en niet strikt de technische) aspecten van het verzamelen en werken met gezondheidsdata verkend.
In response to increasingly deterministic and all-encompassing implementation of smart city technologies, scholars and activists plea for policies and initiatives to support citizens’ democratic ‘Right to the Smart City.’ Although it is common for government officials and technology companies to make an effort to support citizen participation in smart city development, the question is how this works in practice. The authors engaged in a series of three participatory action research projects with the aim to support citizens’ ‘Right to the Smart City’ through the development and use of digital platforms. We find that, although (the processes of co-creatively developing) these platforms do actively address citizens’ engagement, empowerment and emancipation in smart city development, their contribution to provide participants with the opportunity to actually and sustainably reframe, reimagine and remake the smart city in a way that benefits them and their communities, is fairly limited. We conclude that time and budget constraints, entrenched technocratic beliefs, as well as vested – traditional – and imbalanced power relationships and divergent views, concerns and objectives prohibit citizens’ ‘Right to the Smart City.’ Hence, our plea for ‘Governance Beyond Participation:’ city making processes that do not perceive citizens as participants or clients, but as valued and trustworthy collaborators in the development and the governance of public space.
...
In response to increasingly deterministic and all-encompassing implementation of smart city technologies, scholars and activists plea for policies and initiatives to support citizens’ democratic ‘Right to the Smart City.’ Although it is common for government officials and technology companies to make an effort to support citizen participation in smart city development, the question is how this works in practice. The authors engaged in a series of three participatory action research projects with the aim to support citizens’ ‘Right to the Smart City’ through the development and use of digital platforms. We find that, although (the processes of co-creatively developing) these platforms do actively address citizens’ engagement, empowerment and emancipation in smart city development, their contribution to provide participants with the opportunity to actually and sustainably reframe, reimagine and remake the smart city in a way that benefits them and their communities, is fairly limited. We conclude that time and budget constraints, entrenched technocratic beliefs, as well as vested – traditional – and imbalanced power relationships and divergent views, concerns and objectives prohibit citizens’ ‘Right to the Smart City.’ Hence, our plea for ‘Governance Beyond Participation:’ city making processes that do not perceive citizens as participants or clients, but as valued and trustworthy collaborators in the development and the governance of public space.