Toward A Collaborative Smart City: A Play-Based Urban Living Laboratory in Boston

References

• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). The role of public open innovation intermediaries in local government and the public sector. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.764983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batagan, L. (2011). Smart cities and sustainability models. Informatica Economica, 15(3), 80–87.
   Google Scholar
• Bednarska-Olejniczak, D., Olejniczak, J., & Svobodová, L. (2019). Towards a smart and sustainable city with the involvement of public participation—The case of Wroclaw. Sustainability, 11(2), 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, H. R. (2006). Interviewing: Unstructured and semistructured. In Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed., pp. 824). AltaMira Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blomkamp, E. (2018). The promise of co-design for public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foth, M., Brynskov, M., & Ojala, T. (Eds). (2015). Citizen’s right to the digital city: Urban interfaces, activism, and placemaking. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J. (2011). *1 COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE. 77.
   Google Scholar
• Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, E., Haas, J., & Michelson, B. (2017). Civic creativity: Role-playing games in deliberative process. International Journal of Communication, 11, 19. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, E., & Mugar, G. (2020). Meaningful inefficiencies: Designing for public value in an age of digital expediency. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green, B. (2019). The smart enough city: Putting technology in Its place to reclaim our urban future. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heinelt, H. (2002). Participatory governance in multi-level context: Concepts and experience. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11005
   Google Scholar
• Huizinga, J. (2016). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Angelico Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huybrechts, L., Benesch, H., & Geib, J. (2017). Institutioning: Participatory design, co-design and the public realm. CoDesign, 13(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1355006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junginger, S. (2017). Design research and practice for the public good: A reflection. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.02.005
   Google Scholar
• Karvonen, A., & van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities: introduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klausen, J., & Sweeting, D. (2004). Legitimacy and community involvement in local governance. In Haus, M., Heinelt, H., & Stewart, M (Eds.) Urban governance and democracy leadership and community involvement (pp. 272). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P., & Arribas, D. (2012). Smart cities in perspective – A comparative European study by means of self-organizing maps. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2012.660330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Dantec, C. A., & Fox, S. (2015). Strangers at the gate: Gaining access, building rapport, and co-constructing community-based research. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15) (pp. 1348–1358). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675147
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: The challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875613
   Google Scholar
• Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principle and practice. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mattern, S. (2016). Instrumental city: The view from Hudson Yards, circa 2019. Places Journal, 2016. https://doi.org/10.22269/160426
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. J., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Smart city research: Contextual conditions, governance models, and public value assessment. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315618890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mergel, I. (2015). Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to collaborate with external problem solvers. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, W. J. (2004). Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nesti, G. (2018). Co-production for innovation: The urban living lab experience. Policy and Society, 37(3), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1374692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notar, C. E., Padgett, S., & Roden, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2013.010101
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy (1st ed.). Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Peacock, S., Harlow, J., & Gordon, E. (2020). Beta blocks: Inviting playful community exploration of smart city technologies in Boston, USA. In A. Nijholt (Ed.), Making smart cities more playable (pp. 131–147). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9765-3_7
   Google Scholar
• Schuurman, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2016). The impact of living lab methodology on open innovation contributions and outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(6), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/956
   Google Scholar
• Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant Observation. Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Staley, D. J. (2019). Alternative universities: Speculative design for innovation in higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2010). Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tieben, R., de Valk, L., Rijnbout, P., Bekker, T., & Schouten, B. (2014). Shake up the schoolyard: Iterative design research for public playful installations. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '14) (pp. 175-183). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2593980
   Google Scholar
• Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9076-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlachokyriakos, V., Crivellaro, C., Le Dantec, C. A., Gordon, E., Wright, P., & Olivier, P. (2016). Digital civics: Citizen empowerment with and through technology. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16) (pp. 1096–1099). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2886436
   Google Scholar
• Vrabie, A., & Ianole-Călin, R. (2020). A comparative analysis of municipal public innovation: Evidence from Romania and United States. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040112
   Google Scholar
• Wensveen, S., & Matthews, B. (2014). Prototypes and prototyping in design research. In P. Rodgers & J. Yee (Eds.), The routledge companion to design research (1st ed., pp. 538). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yen, Y.-C. G., Dow, S. P., Gerber, E., & Bailey, B. P. (2017). Listen to yourself: Combining feedback review and reflection to improve iterative design. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '17) (pp. 158–170). Association for Computing Machinery. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059468
   Google Scholar