PhD Defense - Pedro Prieto-Martín - Dpt. Computer Science (UAH)

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


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


Introduction

Context

Democratic

Institutions

Technology

Citizens of

(e)Participation

3


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)


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


Outline

1. Introduction




5. Conclusions

6


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

?


Issues:

• Silos &

Interdisciplinary

failures

• Focus:

• Power:

Disciplines

involved


8

• Trans-disciplinary

failures

Academia

Practitioners

Context


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)


Alcalá

/ Madrid


a. Models, concepts, theories


1. Participation

?

10 (Karsten 2011, Brodie et al. 2009, Cornwall 2008)


Tetralemma


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)


2. Software Design and Engineering


12

a. Development models, techniques, tools: (Boehm 1986, Dennis et al. 2005)

Objectives

Prototypes

Validation

Iterative process


2. Software Design and Engineering


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


3. Informatics


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

http://wikipeople.asi-soft.com/index.php/File:Esquema.jpg


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)


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)


Outline

1. Introduction




5. Conclusions

16


“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


[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


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


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


Participation

(e)Participation

System Design

Critical Appr.

21


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


22


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


Outline

1. Introduction




5. Conclusions

23


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…



Institutional view of a social system

25


a. …situated within the “big context”…


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


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


Municipal Citizen Participation forms

27


b. Clarified basic notions about participation…



Participatory Processes: phases and criteria

(Font & Blanco 2006, Parés et al 2007)

Administrative Participation Forms

(Brugué et al 2003)


b. …which are articulated with existing knowledge…

28


29


b. …and sometimes also challenge it!!

Participatory Budgeting

Fortaleza (BR) 2005



30

2. On (e)Participation

a. Analysis that helps to understand the limitations of previous research


(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.

!

?


31


b. Reflections that shed light on what

gets changed by ICT


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


32


c. Models that help to understand current and imminent developments…


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


c. …and to start charting 21st Century citizen participation


33

a. A model for the transdisciplinary co-design of civic software…

3. On eParticipation – System’s Design


34



Spy-Glass

Model

a. … which identifies dimension to be taken into account…


35


Spy-Glass Model

Applied

a. … provides guidance on how to proceed…


36



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’




Outline

1. Introduction




5. Conclusions & Future Work

38


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



• 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


41



42

Future Work


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.